ORDER

Date : 29-11-2021 Heard Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G.

Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 being the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District and Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Shri Benya Ado.

2. The respondent No. 2, Shri. Benya Ado a resident of Kombo-Raglam village in the West Siang District lodged a complaint dated 16.06.2020 before the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District against the petitioners, namely Shri Gumsor Lollen and Shri Rigge Lollen, who are both residents of Kombo Papak village, regarding certain plot of land which is located at another village namely, Kombo Tarsu village.

3. The Deputy Commissioner made an endorsement in the said complaint dated 16.06.2020, requiring the head Goan Bura of Kombo-Raglam village to conduct a Keba at the local level and to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter, to submit the decision before the Deputy Commissioner. The head Goan Bura of Kombo-Raglam village accordingly, constituted a Kebang and the decision dated 19.08.2020 was rendered, which was decided in favour of the respondent no. 2, Shri. Benya Ado. The decision rendered by the village authority of Kombo-Raglam village was assailed by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District.

4. The Deputy Commissioner by the judgment impugned dated 06.08.2021 had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by going through the merits rendered by the village authority of Kombo-Raglam village. In the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner a specific ground was taken by the petitioner that as they are residents of village Kombo-Raglam village. Therefore, the village authority of Kombo-Raglam village do not have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

5. We have perused the judgment impugned of the Deputy Commissioner made on 06.08.2021 but have notice that the said jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner was not decided. On that the Deputy Commissioner decided that along with the jurisdictional issue the petitioner also raised that they were not given the opportunity of hearing and in the circumstance the Deputy Commissioner took the view that the petitioner did not appear before the village authorities of Kombo-Raglam village inspite of due notice having been served and therefore, the plea of being given opportunity of hearing was untenable.

6. Sections in the circumstance one of the issue was raised before this Court in this writ petition could also be as to whether the village authority of Kombo- Raglam village had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute section 40 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, inter alia provides that the village authority shall try all suits without limit of value in which both the parties are indigenous to Arunachal Pradesh and live within their jurisdiction with a raider as to in respect of such disputes which are not submitted to arbitration under section 38. The provision of the section 40 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 is extract below:-

“The village authorities shall try all suits without limit of value, in which both the parties are indigenous to the Arunachal Pradesh and live within their jurisdiction and which are not submitted to arbitration under the provisions of section 38. All other suits which are not submitted to arbitration under the provisions of section 39 shall be tried by the Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner.”

7. The reading of section 40 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 goes to show that in order to have a jurisdiction to decide the dispute the two conditions precedence are to be specified that is both the parties are indigenous to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and secondly both the parties should reside within the jurisdiction of the given village authority.

8. In the instant case the first conditions precedence of being indigenous to the state of Aru