IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle that a Kebang report can constitute a decision and highlighted the availability of alternative remedies under the AFR, 1945 and the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 3 to 11.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the Kebang Report, dated 08.11.2018 as well as the order dated 04.03.2021, passed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Magistrate, Lohit District, Wakro. The petitioner is also seeking a direction upon respondent authorities to act upon the complaint filed by the petitioner on 15.10.2018, 01.11.2018 & 05.09.2020.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his land had been encroached by the private respondent Nos. 3 to 11. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed a complaint dated 25.09.2018 before the Village authority constituted under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (hereinafter, referred to as AFR, 1945) as well as before the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Wakro, Lohit District. The Extra Assistant Commissioner, Lohit District by an order dated 04.10.2018, constituted a Kebang constituting of a Chairman and 2 members, whose names are reflected in the said order, to conduct a local Kebang on 28.10.2018 to settle the case amicably and submit the Kebang Report to him.

4. The petitioner projects that as the Chairman of the Kebang so constituted was a close relative of the encroachers, he had filed an application dated 15.10.2018, for changing the Chairman of the Kebang. The said prayer of the petitioner and 2 others was not acted upon. However, the Chairman of the Kebang submitted a Kebang report dated 08.11.2018 to the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Wakro, Lohit District, informing that the claim of the petitioner and 2 others was baseless and that the two complainants had surrendered that they will not claim again in future.

5. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application dated 01.11.2018, for change of Chairman of the Kebang which was not acted upon. However, after alleged fresh encroachment by the private respondents, the petitioner had submitted another complaint on 05.10.2020. In the said context, the EAC-cum-Executive Magistrate, Wakro, Lohit District by an order dated 04.03.2021, disposed of the said complaint on the ground that the dispute between the parties had already been disposed of by the Village Kebang.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Kebang was required to pass a speaking order in respect of the said dispute, but in the present case in hand, the Kebang had submitted a report dated 08.11.2018 to the EAC-cum-Executive Magistrate, Wakro, Lohit District, which cannot be said to be a decision in any manner whatsoever.

7. It is submitted that the cause of delay in approaching this Court was on account of the fact that the Kebang decision was never communicated to him and it is only when the EAC-cum-Executive Magistrate, Wakro, Lohit District, had passed the order dated 04.03.2021, that the petitioner came to know about the report submitted by the Kebang.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Kebang report dated 08.11.2018 is a non-speaking order and therefore, was not a decision. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Kebang report be set aside and the matter be adjudicated afresh. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 44 (3) of the AFR, 1945

9. The learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the EAC-cum- Executive Magistrate, Wakro, Lohit District had the power and authority to constitute a committee to conduct the local Kebang and therefore, in terms of the order dated 04.10.2018, issued by the said authority, the submission of the Kebang report to the Extra Assistant Commissioner was fully justified.

10. The learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the writ petitio