JUDGMENT : 1. In this Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945, (AFR-1945) read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner- Shri Tumsen Basar, has put to challenge the order dated 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Basar and also the Keba decision dated 25.01.2010, and 06.10.2009, if any. 2. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order, dated 15.12.2010, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Basar had upheld the Keba decision, dated 25.01.2010, by which the Keba had decided the land dispute in favour of the respondent. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The father of the petitioner-Late Dotom Basar had purchased a plot of land, which is known as ‘Silli’ land, from one Karmo Basar in the year 1986, at the cost of one Mithun and Rs, 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only. Almost after two decade, the father of the respondent, namely - Late Donya Basar, had lodged one complaint with the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar for settlement of the land dispute. Then the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar, had constituted a Keba, vide order dated 11.01.2010, fixing the date for the same on 25.01.2010. On the said date, the petitioner has requested the Keba for an adjournment on the ground that one of his witness namely - Shri Jobom Basar, who was the LAMPO (mediator) of the sale and purchase of the said disputed land, could not appear before the Keba on account of death of his younger brother in that morning. But, the Keba decided to proceed with the matter without examining the vital witness of the present petitioner and decided the matter in favour of the respondent on the basis of unregistered document. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one appeal before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner and for rehearing the matter, by constituting a Bango Level Keba. He also filed a petition for restraining the respondent from making any construction on the disputed land. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, then restrained construction on the disputed land and fixed the matter for hearing on 06.10.2010. On that day also the petitioner had preferred one petition for remanding the matter to Keba. But, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had not passed any order on that day. Thereafter, suddenly, on 15.12.2010, the learned Addl. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, then restrained construction on the disputed land and fixed the matter for hearing on 06.10.2010. On that day also the petitioner had preferred one petition for remanding the matter to Keba. But, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had not passed any order on that day. Thereafter, suddenly, on 15.12.2010, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had passed the impugned order upholding the Keba decision, in utter violation of the provision of section 46 of the AFR, 1945.” 4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the AFR-1945 read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the following grounds:- (i) That, the Keba had not afforded opportunity of adducing evidence of Jobom Basar, who was the mediator, and who could not appear before the Keba on that day, on account of sudden demise of his younger brother, (ii) That, the learned Addl. Commissioner had failed to hear the matter in accordance with the provision of AFR-1945, (iii) That, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to consider the provision of section 46(3) of the AFR and passed the impugned order without issuing notice to the parties, if he sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision, (iv) That, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to follow the procedure as laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, (v) That, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had mechanically passed the impugned order and as such the same is not sustainable in law. 5. The respondent has filed affidavit in opposition denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that the land dispute had already been settled by Keba vide its decision dated 25.01.2010, and the petitioner has not challenged the same in any appellate forum and as such the same has already attained finality and the order dated 06.10.2010, and 15.12.2010, is not an order on appeal, but an order on a fresh complaint dated 21.09.2010, lodged by the petitioner against the respondent, and the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner has rejected the complaint on the ground of the principle of resjudicata and upheld the decision of Keba. Deputy Commissioner has rejected the complaint on the ground of the principle of resjudicata and upheld the decision of Keba. It is also stated that the present disputed land, which is known as ‘Silli’ land, was purchased by the respondent on 05.09.1986, from Shri Migo Basar by executing an agreement and the petitioner’s late father, along with others, had signed that agreement as witness, and since then the respondent has been in peaceful possession of the same and subsequently on being requested by the father of the petitioner, he was allowed to construct his dwelling house over a small portion of the land and that the petitioner’s father - Late Dotum Basar is the real brother of the respondent and there was no dispute regarding the ownership of the ‘Silli’ land. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 6. The respondent had also filed one additional affidavit to place on record that he had purchased the ‘Silli’ land from one Migo Basar, but, during pendency of the present petition Migo Basar had suffered demise and a portion of the land was also purchased by Donya Basar and said Karmo Basar also expired during pendency of this petition and one Jobom Basar, the alleged witness of the petitioner, also suffered demise on 14.11.2017, and as such no purpose will be served even if the impugned order is set aside and quashed. 7. I have heard Mr. L. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Mr. L. Bam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Keba decision, dated 25.01.2010, and the impugned order dated 06.10.2010, and 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar suffers from manifest illegality and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. Mr. Bam has pointed out that the Keba has not afforded reasonable opportunity to him to examine Shri Jobom Basar, who was the LAMPO (mediator) as witness and the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar, without hearing the petitioner has passed the impugned order upholding the impugned Keba decision, which is in contravention of section 46 of the AFR-1945. Therefore, it is contended to set aside and quash the impugned Keba decision, dated 25.01.2010, and the impugned order dated 06.10.2010, and 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar. 9. On the other hand Mr. Therefore, it is contended to set aside and quash the impugned Keba decision, dated 25.01.2010, and the impugned order dated 06.10.2010, and 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar. 9. On the other hand Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned Keba decision, dated 25.01.2010, and the impugned order dated 06.10.2010, and 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner suffers from no illegality or infirmity and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Tapin submits that the Keba decision has already attained finality as the petitioner had not preferred any appeal against the same. Mr. Tapin further submits that in fact the petitioner has filed a complaint against the Keba decision before the learned Addl. D.C. Basar and prayed for remanding the matter to Keba and the learned Addl. D.C. Basar had rightly rejected the same. Mr. Basar further pointed out that the LAMPO (mediator) Shri Jobom Basar had already suffered demise and the witness of the respondent also suffered demise and as such no purpose will be served even if the matter is remanded to the learned court below for a fresh decision. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. L. Bam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner has directed to hold Keba on 25.01.2010, vide order (Keba Summon) dated 11.01.2010, (Annexure-II), on the basis of the complaint (Annexure-I) lodged by Donya Basar to him on 16.11.2010. On the said date the petitioner had asked the Keba to adjourned hearing on the ground that one of his witness namely Shri Jobom Basar, who was the LAMPO (mediator) of the sale and purchase of the said disputed ‘Silli’ land could not appear before the Keba on account of death of his younger brother in that morning. But, the Keba had not considered the prayer of the petitioner and proceeded to hear the matter and on the basis of unregistered documents, decided the disputed ‘Silli’ land in favour of the respondent vide (Annexure-III). Further it appears that on 07.02.2010, the petitioner had filed one petition (Annexure-IV), before the learned Addl. But, the Keba had not considered the prayer of the petitioner and proceeded to hear the matter and on the basis of unregistered documents, decided the disputed ‘Silli’ land in favour of the respondent vide (Annexure-III). Further it appears that on 07.02.2010, the petitioner had filed one petition (Annexure-IV), before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar not to accept the Bango level Keba Decision dated 25.01.2010, and the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar had fixed 06.10.2010 for hearing vide Order (Annexure- VI), dated 01.10.2010, asking both the parties to appear before him. But, on that day he had not passed any order. Thereafter, suddenly on 15.12.2010 he had passed the impugned order- (Annexure-VIII) and thereby upheld the Keba decision. It is to be mentioned here that on that day also the petitioner had filed one appeal (Annexure-VII) before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar, for arranging of re-Bango level Keba. 11. A careful perusal of the prayer of the petitioner, (Annexure-IV) dated 07.02.2010, reveals that it was not in an appeal format against the impugned Keba decision, dated 25.01.2020. But, perusal of the contents thereof left no doubt in the mind of this court that the same in fact against the impugned Keba decision with a prayer for revoking the same as the umpires of the Keba had conducted the Keba proceeding without his witness. Besides, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had upheld the decision of Keba. Had it not been treated as an appeal he had no business to uphold the impugned Keba decision, and also had no business to hold that the claim of Tumsen Basar cannot be established, in view of the documents, sale deed agreement of Mr. Donya Basar. Moreover, he had pronounced the judgment in the open court. Thus, it cannot be said that it is not an appeal against the impugned Keba decision. Further, it becomes apparent that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present, when the learned Addl. D.C. Basar had heard the matter and decided the same on that day. It is to be mentioned here no particular format if prescribed under section 46 of the AFR-1945 for preferring an appeal against the village level decision. Therefore, I am unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. S. Tapin, the learned counsel for the respondent. 12. D.C. Basar had heard the matter and decided the same on that day. It is to be mentioned here no particular format if prescribed under section 46 of the AFR-1945 for preferring an appeal against the village level decision. Therefore, I am unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. S. Tapin, the learned counsel for the respondent. 12. In the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in 2013 (12) SCALE 304 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in administrative law, the ‘rule of natural justice’ have traditionally been regarded as comprising ‘ audi alterem partem’ and ‘nemo judex in causa sua’. The first of these rules requires the maker of a decision to give prior notice of the proposed decision to the persons affected by it and an opportunity to them to make representation. The second rule disqualifies a person from judging a case if he has direct pecuniary or proprietary interest or might otherwise be biased. The first principle is of great importance because it embraces the rule of fair procedure or due process. Generally speaking, the notion of fair hearing extends to the right to have notice of the other side’s case, the right to bring evidence and the right to argue. 13. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Binapani Dei reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :- “9…. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequence. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed; it need not be shown to be super- added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.” 14. Here in this case neither the Keba nor the learned Addl. D.C., Basar has afforded the reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence and being heard is afforded to the petitioner. Thus, his right to fair trial and also right to hearing stands violated at both the stages. It is to be mentioned here that adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right amounts to denial of a fair trial. It is also to be mentioned here that fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned and the same must be ensured as it is a constitutional as well as human right. Reference in this context may be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Talab Haji Hussain vs. Madhukar Purushottam Mondkar & Anr., reported in AIR 1958 SC 376 . Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar and also the impugned Keba decision, both failed to withstand the test of legal scrutiny. 15. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition, and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned Keba decision and the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. D.C., Basar stands set aside and quashed. 16. And in view of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2013 (4) GLT 1109] and also in view of proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, notified on 12.04.2021, in Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, the matter is remanded to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Aalo, to decide the matter a fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Aalo, within a period of 15 days from today. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Aalo, within a period of 15 days from today. The Registry shall transmit the record, if any, to the learned court below forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment and order. On receipt of which, the learned Civil Judge, Aalo, shall proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law and shall endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of six months from today. 17. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.