Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 152 (GAU)

Oson Rukbo v. Okong Tabing

2021-02-19

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. T.Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also, heard Mr. T. Taki, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 and Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the legality and validity of the Judgement and Order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, East Siang District in Civil Dispute No. HT-23/88/99/2000-2001. 3. The petitioners have been occupying their land for more than 50 years. In the year 1998, the respondent started to stake claim over the land occupied by the petitioners. The respondent reportedly staked his claim on the basis of a Keba decision dated 21.02.1987, wherein, the brother of the respondent and Rukbo clan were parties. It is alleged by the petitioners that the respondent even damaged their bamboo plantation. The petitioners filed many complaints before the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat and many kebangs were held. All the kebang decisions since the year 2000 went in support of the respondent, which caused the petitioners to file appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. On 20.03.2001 and 29.05.2012, the Deputy Commissioner passed two appellate judgments, which also went in favour of the respondent. The petitioners also filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court and both the aforesaid two judgments of the Deputy Commissioner were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court again for fresh disposal. On 24.10.2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat heard the appeal afresh and on 30.01.2019, passed the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. The petitioners have claimed that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the aforesaid impugned judgment without physical verification of the land in question. It is further alleged that the Deputy Commissioner also examined some persons who are not at all associated with the disputed land. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. 4. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit denying the claim of the petitioners. 5. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Taki, the counsel for the respondent, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe and Anr. v S.B. Gupta and Anr. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. 4. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit denying the claim of the petitioners. 5. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Taki, the counsel for the respondent, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe and Anr. v S.B. Gupta and Anr. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 524 , to submit that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court below unless there is any perversity or non-application of judicial mind. Paragraph-9 of the judgment is quoted has under: "9. It is also well-settled principle of law that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below and reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings unless it is found that the findings recorded by the lower court are perverse or there has been non-application of mind. In the case of Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan vs. Tuffail Mohammed, (1991) AIR SC 455, this Court held in paragraph 3 of the judgment as under: "3. It is well settled position in law that under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below by taking a different view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only to interfere with the findings of fact, if the findings are perverse or there has been a non- appreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence on record by the Court below. Simply because another view of the evidence may be taken is no ground by the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction". 6. Reverting to the case in hand, Section 36 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 lays down( albeit in the State of Arunachal Pradesh) that the Civil justice shall be administered by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the village authority. 6. Reverting to the case in hand, Section 36 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 lays down( albeit in the State of Arunachal Pradesh) that the Civil justice shall be administered by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the village authority. Section 46(3) provides that whenever an appeal is filed before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the decision of the village authority, the Deputy Commissioner may examine the parties and if the decision of the kebang is found to be just and appropriate, then the Deputy Commissioner shall affirm the decision of the village authority as his own and execute the same. If the Deputy Commissioner finds that the decision of the village authority is doubtful, then the Deputy Commissioner may try the matter denovo or refer the same to a Panchayat. 7. The impugned decision of the Deputy Commissioner is based on evidence; witnesses were examined by the Deputy Commissioner. In my considered opinion, the ratio laid down in Kalpataru(Supra) is applicable in the present case. The impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, East Siang District in Civil Dispute No. HT-23/88/99/2000-2001, is a reasoned one. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. The Court below has applied judicial mind and arrived at the impugned finding. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed and disposed of.