The jurisdiction of the Kebang is invalid when matters are sub judice in a civil court, prohibiting overlapping decisions that can lead to conflicting outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned decision dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Monggu Banggo Kebang.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the said subject matter adjudicated by Monggu Banggo Kebang is sub judice in Title Suit No. 08/2023, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), East Siang District, Pasighat and order dated 06.04.2023 has been passed by the learned Civil Judge in the said Title Suit, issuing notice to the defendant. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.

4. Two respondents have been impleaded in this civil revision petition and notice was issued to them and as per Office Note, dated 26.04.2023, Vakalatnama has been filed by the learned counsels on behalf of the said two respondents. However, upon perusal of the case records and order sheet, it is found that the respondents have remain unrepresented. Today also, the respondents have not appeared.

5. Before proceeding further, the background facts may be stated in a nutshell. As already mentioned above, the fundamental ground for challenge in the revision petition is that the concerned Kebang did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 12.04.2023, in view of the pendency of Title Suit No. 08/2023, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pasighat. The civil suit was also filed seeking reliefs of declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. The petitioners herein are stated to be the plaintiffs in the suit before the learned Civil Court.

6. The instant civil revision petition was earlier disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2025, holding that, as the title suit was preferred earlier in point of time before the Kebang decision - allowing the Kebang proceedings to continue might result in overlapping jurisdiction and conflicting decisions.

Accordingly, in Paragraph 8 of the order dated 25.10.2024, it was directed that the impugned order dated 12.04.2023, passed by the Kebang of GB Seram, shall not be implemented till the final decision is rendered in the civil suit and that the same shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil Court’s decision.

7. The petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid direction that the order passed by the Kebang would not be implemented until adjudication of the civil suit and therefore, filed a review petition seeking recall of the said order in the context of that observation.

8. After hearing the parties, the review petition, registered as Review Pet. 10 (AP)/2024, was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2025, recalling the earlier order dated 25.10.2024, passed in CRP No. 17 (AP)/2023, i.e. the instant civil revision petition. Consequently, the present civil revision petition was restored to its original file.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the instant civil revision petition, being the restored CRP No. 17 (AP)/2023, has come up before this Court for adjudication. As already mentioned earlier, despite completion of service and filing of Vakalatnama, the respondents have not been represented. And today also, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that perhaps it would be prudent to set aside the decision of the Kebang, as the same was untenable at the time when it was passed, owing to the fact that the title suit was already pending before the learned Civil Court.

11. I have giv