Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati, Single Bench of Justice Budi Habung has set aside the decision of an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court concerning a family dispute over inheritance of the land known as “Kesa Rike” and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication before a competent civil or customary forum. In doing so, the Court held that an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court has no authority to expand its bench after conclusion of hearing or to antedate a subsequent decision without affording a renewed hearing to the parties. Justice Habung observed that such post-hearing enlargement of the forum and retrospective dating of a later decision are incompatible with both prevailing customary practices and the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

The petitioner filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC challenging the decision of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court (Bango-level Kebang), Ubo Bango Circle. The facts recorded show that on 28.05.2022, the petitioner’s father made a declaration that “whosoever takes care of him till his death, shall be entitled to his land known as ‘Kesa Rike’.” The respondent, being the son of the petitioner’s deceased elder brother, claimed to have looked after the grandfather. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Head Gaon Burah on 22.06.2022, which was allegedly not acted upon. After the father’s death on 03.03.2025, the petitioner lodged a second complaint seeking division of property.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Registry To Not Clear Petitions Filed With Black-And-White Photographs; Requires AoRs To Submit Colour Images And Comply With Filing Specifications

On 19.04.2025, the Customary Court divided the properties and allotted “Kesa Rike” to the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal before the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court. On 29.05.2025, a split decision (7:7) emerged, leading to issuance of a Re-Parwana fixing 09.06.2025 with three additional HGBs added. The petitioner objected but the Forum decided the matter on 09.06.2025 ex parte, retrospectively recording the date as 29.05.2025.

The petitioner argued that the decision was backdated, involved impermissible participation of newly appointed members, and violated Section 44(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

The Court recorded that “the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court initially gave a split verdict (7:7) on 29.05.2025 and thereafter, the strength of the forum was enlarged by adding three more HGBs.” It further observed that “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 recorded that “the impugned procedure adopted by the Keba/Customary Court amounts to a violation of natural justice.” It stated that “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.”

It was also recorded that the petitioner had objected to the fresh Parwana and appointment of additional members, and had indicated his non-participation in the Re-Keba. Despite this, the Forum proceeded ex parte, recording an earlier date.

Also Read: Transgender Women Cannot Be Subjected To Same Physical Standards As Male Candidates: Gauhati High Court Directs State To Frame Separate Transgender Recruitment Framework And Specify Status Of Reservation Policy

The Court directed that “the present civil revision petition is hereby allowed. The impugned decision of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court (Bango-level Keba), Ubo Bango Circle, dated 09.06.2025, shown to have been decided on 29.05.2025, is set aside.”

“Consequently either party shall be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 (amended from time to time), for setting aside, or, fresh adjudication of the dispute relating to a plot of land i.e. ‘Kesa Rike’; or, in the alternative, either party may also approach the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex customary Court as may be competent under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.”

“The competent forum, upon receiving such reference or appeal, shall issue notice to both parties; provide reasonable opportunity of hearing; record evidence if required; and deliver a reasoned order within a reasonable period of time.”

“This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. All issues concerning ownership and possession of the land ‘Kesa Rike’ are left open to be decided, afresh, in accordance with law and prevailing custom.”

“The instant civil revision petition, accordingly, stands disposed of in the above terms.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Marto Kato, Liya Keche, Tony Meto, Kamin Teri, Yasmin Gao, Mepe Ete, Nyali Sora
For the Respondents: Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun, Nyali Sora, Nyai Loyi, Geli Taye, D. Ado

Case Title: Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak/Mayi & Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AP:1326
Case Number: CRP/70/2025
Bench: Justice Budi Habung