The legality of retrospective decisions and enlargement of adjudicating forums without due process is critical to maintaining principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

 BUDI HABUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mepe Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kemo Lollen, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the decision of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court(Bango-level Kebang), Ubo Bango Circle, allegedly decided on 09.06.2025, but, shown as 29.05.2025, in appeal against the order of the Customary Court(Kebang) dated 19.04.2025.

3. The material facts are not in dispute. On 28.05.2022, the father of the petitioner who is a grandfather of the respondent, made a declaration that whosoever takes care of him till his death, shall be entitled to his land known as “Kesa Rike”.

4. The respondent, herein, being the son of the petitioner’s deceased elder brother, claims to have looked after his grandfather (the father of the petitioner) till his death. The petitioner, opposing the declaration made by his father, lodged a complaint before the Head Gaon Burah(HGB) on 22.06.2022. The said complaint was allegedly not attended to by the Keba for decision during the life time of the father.

5. After the father’s death on 03.03.2025, the petitioner filed a second complaint before the same Head Gaon Burah(HGB), seeking division of the father’s properties among all brothers.

6. By order, dated 19.04.2025, the Customary Court(Kebang) divided the properties, whereby the disputed land “Kesa Rike” was allotted to the petitioner, contrary to the father’s earlier wish to be inherited by a person, whosoever, takes care of him till his death.

7. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Inter- Village Territorial(Apex) Customary Court, i.e. the Head Gaon Burah(Bango Secretary), Ubo Bango Circle. On 29.05.2025, the Keba delivered a split decision(7:7) and, being unable to reach a conclusion, the Keba issued a Re- Parwana fixing 09.06.2025 for further hearing and this time, increased the members of the Forum by appointing three additional HGBs in the bench.

8. The petitioner objected to the fresh Parwana and appointment of the additional forum members. The petitioner also indicated that he would not be attending the Re-Keba on the matter. Nevertheless, on 09.06.2025, the Bango Kebang decided the matter in the absence of the petitioner, but, noted the date of the decision retrospectively as 29.05.2025.

9. The petitioner alleges that only those members who had earlier supported the respondents, had participated in the said Re-Keba and signed the decision. 10. Mr. Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned decision was passed and signed back-dated with retrospective effect, contrary to law and custom. The learned counsel further contended that the participation of newly appointed HGB members who were not part of the earlier deliberations vitiates the proceedings as they did not even exist when the decision was made on 29.05.2025. Further, the procedure adopted by the Keba(Customary Court) violates the provisions of Section 44 (1) of the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, which provides for an ex- parte decision only after a party willfully remained absent for three consecutive occasions with 30-day intervals, after giving due opportunity of hearing. And, in the present case, the petitioner’s representative was present on 29.05.2025, when the final hearing ended in a split decision; hence, the subsequent unilateral decision,