JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Tonning Pertin, learned Counsel, for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Jini, learned Counsel, for the respondents. 2. This revision petition Filed under Section 50 of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation' in short), read with Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 226 of Constitution of India, is directed against the impugned order dated 25.06.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar, West Siang District, Aalo, in BSR/TS-45/07 upholding the decision of Circle/District Level Keba dated 23.09.2003. 3. The facts relevant: for the purpose of adjudication of this revision petition, to be stated, in brief, are that, Binjum Ete, husband of Smti. Jumbe Ete (herein respondent No. 1) and father of petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, died on 31.08.1998. He acquired both movable and immovable properties during his lifetime. The last rites of Late Binjum Ete were performed by the petitioner and respondents jointly as per the custom and tradition of Onto Tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. The present dispute pertains to a commercial plot of land located at New Market, Aalo, which, as claimed by the petitioner, was given to him. Late Binjum Ete also acquired one SPT Building near the R.K. Mission Hospital, Aalo, which was given to the petitioner's elder brother (herein respondent No. 2). The said arrangement was done by a verbal distribution in presence of their mother, respondent No. 1, who executed an affidavit before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, bequeathing the aforesaid commercial plot of land to the petitioner on 11.06.1999. The matter was known to Smti. Jumbi Ete(Angu), the eldest sister of petitioner and respondent No. 2. On the basis of the said verbal distribution made by Late Binjum Ete and the deed of gift/affidavit executed by respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, for transfer of ownership of the land measuring 353.76 sq. mtrs. covered by Plot No. 81 in his favour. The said application was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, to the Director of Land Records, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, by letter dated 15.11.2009. mtrs. covered by Plot No. 81 in his favour. The said application was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, to the Director of Land Records, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, by letter dated 15.11.2009. On receipt, of approval from the Director of Land Records, Itanagar, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, issued land allotment order against the said land in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 29.09.2000. On getting the allotment order, the petitioner constructed one SPT Building consisting of 12 rooms for rental purpose. With regard to such construction, there was no claim or counter-claim, whatsoever, from either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 till the year 2003 and the petitioner was paying a sum of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) to his mother(respondent No. 1) for her monthly needs. The present dispute arose sometime in the month of August, 2003, when petitioner's mother(respondent No. 1) claimed back the said SPT Building constructed by the petitioner and proposed to transfer the said Building in the name of her grand son Mst. Duli Ete, S/o respondent No. 2. Then respondent No. 2 called a Keba on 03.08.2003 at Darek village which was attended by all Gaon Buras, village elders, respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner. In the said Keba, respondent No. 1, Smti, Jumbe Ete, complained that none of her two sons are looking after her adequately and the properties acquired by her and her late husband Binjum Ete were being used without her consent. The Keba unanimously passed 3 decisions, relevant among them, are decisions No. 1 and 3, which are extracted below for better appreciation: (i). That as reported by Smt. Jumbe Ete, Sri Jumnya Ete has constructed SP Type Building on the plot of land located at New Market, Aalo, and collecting the rents and therefore, the Keba decided that Dukan(shop) consisting of 8(eight) rooms is for Sri Jumnya Ete and other 4(four) rooms is kept for Smt. Jumbe Ete, Front side is kept for Smt. Jumbe Ete and back side is kept for Sri Jumnya Ete. Rent for 4(four) rooms shall be collected by Sri Jumnya Ete. The Dukan(shop) consisting of 10(ten) rooms were constructed by Sri Jumnya Ete himself and 2(two) rooms were constructed by Late Binjum Ete. Sri Jumnya Ete constructed the said 10(ten) rooms through the money kept by his deceased father and therefore, nobody can claim the expenses by themselves. Rent for 4(four) rooms shall be collected by Sri Jumnya Ete. The Dukan(shop) consisting of 10(ten) rooms were constructed by Sri Jumnya Ete himself and 2(two) rooms were constructed by Late Binjum Ete. Sri Jumnya Ete constructed the said 10(ten) rooms through the money kept by his deceased father and therefore, nobody can claim the expenses by themselves. Space measuring 10'x 8' at the backside should be kept for construction of latrine and toilet for Smt. Jumbe Ete. (ii)..... (iii) KAMDI RIKE TUMPE: The Kamdi land other than WRC field is divided in between Sri Jumdo Ete and Sri Jumnya Ete. The lower portion starting from depressed area to Hollock tree is given to Sri Jumnya Ete and upper portion starting from depressed area to Hollock tree is given to Sri Jumdo Ete. Land towards the R.K. Mission is given to Sri Jumdo Ete and the land bordering with Sri Jumli Ete is given to Sri Jumnya Ete. Sri Jumdo Ete is to keep a space on his land for motorable road leading to the land of Sri Jumnya Ete. 4. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid Keba decision dated 03.08.2003 as he was deprived of his share of properties left by his father Late Binjum Ete and therefore, he, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, who, in his turn, issued an order to conduct circle level Keba and accordingly, the circle level Keba was held on 23.09.2003 at Keba Dere in Deputy Commissioner's Office, West Siang District, Aalo. In the said Keba, Smti. Jumbe Ete (respondent No. 1) stated that Smti. Moyo Ete, is her eldest daughter-in-law and as such, the commercial plot of land located at New Market, Aalo, be transferred in the name of her grand son Mst. Duli Ete, who was born while her husband was alive. Accordingly, the Keba decided to give the aforesaid commercial plot of land at New Market, Aalo, in the name of Mst. Duli Ete and further decided that the remaining properties shall remain as per the decision taken in the earlier village level Keba held on 03.08.2003. The aforesaid decision of the Circle level Keba was vehemently opposed by the petitioner, Being aggrieved by the decision of the circle level Keba dated 23.09.2003, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the court of Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo. The aforesaid decision of the Circle level Keba was vehemently opposed by the petitioner, Being aggrieved by the decision of the circle level Keba dated 23.09.2003, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the court of Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo. The said appeal was later transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar, and the same was registered as BSR/TS-45/07. The said learned Fast Track Court, Basar, disposed of the said appeal vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 upholding the circle level Keba decision dated 23.09.2003. The petitioner, is therefore, before this Court, by way of filing this revision petition. 5. Mr. Baruah, learned senior counsel, referring to order dated 29.09.2000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), submits that after the death of his father Binjum Ete, the petitioner got the land in question allotted by the State Government and the aforesaid allotment order has neither been cancelled by the authorities concerned nor have the respondents ever sought for cancellation of the same and this being the position, the said commercial plot of land cannot be a subject-matter of decision by the Keba. In other words, the learned senior counsel submits that Keba has no jurisdiction to try and settle a dispute relating to land allotted by the Government in favour of a. party. The learned senior counsel also submits that the impugned order doted 25.06.2009 passed by the appellate court, below suffers from inherent defects inasmuch as the learned court, overlooked the contradictory decisions taken by the Keba on 03.08.2003 and 23.09.2003 and as such, the impugned order dated 25.06.2009 is not sustainable in law. He also submits that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of exhibiting and proving the documents in his possession. He was also denied the chance to produce/examine witnesses and opportunity to examine and cross-examine respondent No. 1, during; trial. In other words, according to Mr. Baruah, the learned court below decided the matter in favour of the respondents although they failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim while conveniently ignoring the fact that the petitioner had given almost 70% of the properties to respondent No. 2 out of the Estates left by his deceased father except for the present disputed commercial plot of land. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. K. Jini, learned Counsel for the respondents, counters the claim of the petitioner and submits that there was no verbal distribution of immovable properties left by Late Binjum Ete and the petitioner got the commercial plot, of land in question, allotted in his name, fraudulently, thereby depriving the present, respondents. The learned Counsel submits that such allotment order obtained by illegal means cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In order to substantiate his submissions, Mr. Jini, learned Counsel, refers to an affidavit dated 12.10.2007(Annexure-1 series to the counter affidavit) sworn by the respondents before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Siang District, Aalo, in presence of some witnesses and another affidavit dated 12.10.2007(Annexure-1 series to the counter affidavit), sworn by Sri Dago Ete, Sri Dugmin Ete and Sri Hogmar Ete, nephews of Late Binjum Ete and Sri Gado Ete S/o Benga Ete, brother of Late Binjum Ete, before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Siang District, Aalo, refuting the petitioner's claim for distribution of movable and immovable properties of Late Binjum Ete amongst his children and close family members and relatives. The learned Counsel for the respondents also refers to an undated application(Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Deputy Commissioner, West Slang District., Aalo, informing him about the allotment order obtained by the petitioner, illegally, in his name without knowledge and consent of other family members and requesting him(Deputy Commissioner) to arrange a Keba to resolve the dispute. 7. In regard to question of jurisdiction, Mr. K. Jini, learned Counsel, submits that under Section 21of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no objection can be raised at the stage of revision unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at. the earliest possible opportunity. In the present case, according to Mr. Jini, learned Counsel, the petitioner never raised such objection before the court of first instance and as such, he is not entitled to raise the said objection before this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. 8. During the course of hearing, Mr. Baruah, learned senior counsel, was asked to show the relevant provision under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945,providing that the Keba has no jurisdiction to settle a dispute regarding land allotted by the State Government to a particular party. 8. During the course of hearing, Mr. Baruah, learned senior counsel, was asked to show the relevant provision under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945,providing that the Keba has no jurisdiction to settle a dispute regarding land allotted by the State Government to a particular party. Except his assertion, the learned senior counsel failed to show such provision under the said Regulation. To that effect, the learned senior counsel could not even show any circular issued by the State Government. 9. Chapter IV of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, provides procedure for civil proceedings. Section 36 of the said Regulation provides that: civil justice shall be administered by the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and the village authorities. Section 38 of the said Regulation provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration in every case in which both parties are indigenous to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. For this purpose, the parties are required to submit before the arbitration by appointing/nominating equal number of members of the Panchayat. 10. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the parties submitted before the arbitration and the Keba concerned delivered upon the dispute and decided the matter, as indicated above. Section 46 of the said Regulation provides that an appeal lies against the Keba decision with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, the petitioner, admittedly, filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner concerned under the aforesaid provision against the circle level Keba dated 23.09.2003. The said appeal was transferred to the court of Additional District and. Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, for adjudication. As provided under Section 46(3) of the said Regulation, the appellate court, can, if necessary, examine the parties and if the appellate court, sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision, it can try the case de novo or refer to a Panchayat. 11. For the purpose of better appreciation, the provision under Section 46 of the said Regulation is quoted hereinbelow: 46. (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of a village authority may appeal to the Assistant Commissioner in suits not exceeding Rs. 500 in value and to the Deputy Commissioner in suits exceeding that value. (2) If such an appeal is filed, a record shall be made of the matter in dispute, and of the decision of the village authority. (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of a village authority may appeal to the Assistant Commissioner in suits not exceeding Rs. 500 in value and to the Deputy Commissioner in suits exceeding that value. (2) If such an appeal is filed, a record shall be made of the matter in dispute, and of the decision of the village authority. (3) The appellate court shall, If necessary, examine the parties, and if the decision appears to be Just, shall affirm and enforce the decision as its own. If the appellate court sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision, it shall try the case de now or refer to a Panchayat; in any case so referred, the provisions of Section 38 shall apply as if the parties had agreed to submit to arbitration. 12. I have carefully gone through the records of the court below as made available at the time of hearing. It is found from the records that on receipt of the case on transfer from the Deputy Commissioner concerned, the appellate court below recorded the statements of petitioner Sri Jumnya Ete, as appellant, on 21.02,2008. Similarly, statements of respondent No. 1 Smti. Jumbe Ete, were also recorded by the said learned appellate court on the same day. However, from the records, it is evident that statements of respondent No. 2 were not recorded by the said court below. It also does not appear, even from the statements of the petitioner and respondent No. 1, that the learned court below allowed the parties concerned to cross-examine the other party. It further appears that none of the parties from either side, was allowed to examine any witness. It is specifically provided that once an appellate court decides to try the case de novo under Section46(3) of Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, it has to examine the witnesses, if any. 13. From the proceedings under scrutiny, it appears that the learned appellate court below proceeded to try the case de novo and examined the petitioner and respondent No. 1 by recording their statements but it failed to proceed in accordance with law Inasmuch as it did not provide opportunity to both the parties to cross-examine the witnesses and also to adduce witnesses if any, in support of their pleaded case. 14. 14. The main issue involved in this case is whether Late Binjum Ete who acquired the commercial plot of land In question, before his death, orally distributed and gave the same to the petitioner Sri Jumnya Ete, who, subsequently, got the same allotted by the State Government in his name. The petitioner claims that the said commercial plot of land was given to him by way of verbal distribution by his father during his life time. Such claim is required to be proved by the petitioner by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence providing chance of cross-examination to the respondents. The respondents have denied the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and therefore, the respondents should be given a chance to prove their case by adducing oral and/or documentary evidence. Similarly, the petitioner should also be provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the respondents and their witnesses. The aforesaid disputed question of fact is to be examined and decided by the court below as required under the law as Indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. As regards legal questions that Keba has no Jurisdiction to deal with a dispute involving land allotted by the Government to a party and that the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised at the appellate stage under Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could best be addressed only after deciding the aforesaid disputed question of fact. In the circumstances peculiar to the instant case, the same may also be decided by the court below. 15. In view of what have been discussed above, it would lead to a logical conclusion that the matter at hand, needs to be remanded back to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, for de novo trial and adjudication, under the provision of Section 46 of the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. The Impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, in BSR/TS-45/07 stands quashed. The present revision petition accordingly stands remanded back to the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, for de novo trial after providing due opportunity to both the parties to prove their case by adducing sufficient documentary and/or oral evidence and also providing the parties with opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses after giving them due notice for the said purpose. 16. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, for de novo trial after providing due opportunity to both the parties to prove their case by adducing sufficient documentary and/or oral evidence and also providing the parties with opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses after giving them due notice for the said purpose. 16. It is further directed that the matter shall be heard and disposed of by the said Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 (four) months, from the date of receipt of the connected lower court records. 17. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 18. Send down the lower court records to the court below, forthwith.