Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Customary Court's Backdated Land Ruling, Cites Grave Procedural Flaws

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has set aside a decision by an appellate customary court in Arunachal Pradesh concerning a family land dispute, ruling that the procedure adopted was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Budi Habung, found that enlarging the judicial forum after a hearing had concluded and backdating the final decision rendered the order legally unsustainable.

---

Background of the Inheritance Dispute

The case, Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak / Mayi & Anr. , revolves around the inheritance of a plot of land known as “Kesa Rike”. The dispute began after the petitioner's father declared on May 28, 2022, that the land would be inherited by whomever cared for him until his death.

The respondent, who is the petitioner's nephew (son of his deceased elder brother), claimed to have fulfilled this condition. However, the petitioner, Rippe Mayi, contested this arrangement. After his father's death on March 3, 2025, the matter was brought before the local Customary Court (Kebang).

In a decision dated April 19, 2025, the Kebang allotted the disputed land to the petitioner, contrary to the deceased father's wishes.

A Flawed Appellate Process

Aggrieved by the initial verdict, the respondent appealed to the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court (Bango-level Kebang). The key events that followed formed the crux of the High Court's intervention:

• Split Verdict: On May 29, 2025, the appellate Kebang delivered a 7:7 split decision, failing to reach a conclusion.
• Forum Enlargement: To break the deadlock, the Kebang issued a notice for a new hearing on June 9, 2025, and unilaterally appointed three additional Head Gaon Burahs (HGBs) to the bench.
• Ex-Parte Decision: The petitioner objected to this change and did not attend the subsequent hearing. The enlarged forum proceeded in his absence on June 9, 2025.
• Backdated Ruling: Crucially, the decision made on June 9 was retrospectively dated to May 29, 2025, the date of the original split verdict.

Arguments Before the High Court

Mr. Mepe Ete, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the entire process was illegal. He contended that:

1. Backdating a decision is contrary to law and custom.

2. The participation of newly appointed members who were not part of the original deliberations vitiated the proceedings.

3. The ex-parte decision violated Section 44(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, which requires a party to be willfully absent on three consecutive occasions before such a step can be taken.

In a notable turn, Mr. Kemo Lollen, counsel for the respondents, fairly conceded that the matter could be remanded for a fresh and lawful adjudication.

High Court's Reasoning: A Violation of Natural Justice

Justice Budi Habung found the procedure adopted by the Bango-level Kebang to be fundamentally flawed. The court's judgment emphasized the procedural illegalities.

> "Such enlargement of the forum after conclusion of hearing and retrospective dating of a later decision without further hearing, cannot be accepted, either, under the customary practices, or, the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945," the Court observed.

The judgment further stated:

> "The impugned procedure adopted by the Keba/Customary Court amounts to a violation of natural justice. Passing a decision in the absence of one party, especially, when the previous proceeding had concluded with a split decision, renders the order unsustainable in law."

Final Verdict and Future Course

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the impugned decision of the Bango-level Kebang. The court granted liberty to both parties to seek a fresh adjudication of the dispute over the "Kesa Rike" land.

The parties may now approach either:

* A competent Civil Court under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021.

* An appropriate Customary Court as per the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

The High Court directed that whichever forum is approached must issue notices to both parties, provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and deliver a reasoned order. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ownership claims, leaving all issues to be decided afresh in accordance with law and prevailing custom.