JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr G Kato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr N Ratan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice), Regulation, 1945 (hereinafter, in short, “Regulations, 1945”), read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside and quashing the order dated 23.12.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, the appeal/petition filed by the respondent has been disposed of without giving proper chance of hearing to the petitioner. Alternatively, it is also prayed that a direction be made to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, to adjudicate the matter afresh by giving chance of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that in the year 1997, at Doji Jeko Village, under West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, a village local keba was conducted to settle the ancestral WRC Land dispute between the father of the petitioner Late Limar Dozi and the respondent. The local keba was held on 09.02.1997. In the said meeting, father of the petitioner and the respondent had agreed for Chicken Liver examination in a traditional way to establish the ownership of the disputed land and thereby, entered into an agreement in presence of local Keba Gaon Buras, village leaders and keba members to accept the result of Chicken Liver test examination. Accordingly, the Keba Members appointed five Chicken Liver Examiners. The Chicken Liver examination is a customary law, which resulted in favour of Late Limar Doji, father of the petitioner. As such, local keba passed unanimous decision in favour of the father of the petitioner, declaring Limar Doji as owner of the disputed land. Since then, the father of the petitioner and the petitioner peacefully enjoyed the said land and the said land was under the passive possession of the petitioner. 4. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent remained silent for about 20 years. After death of the father of the petitioner, the respondent started to encroach the disputed land and on 09.02.2017, respondent removed the stone, erected as boundary in the disputed land. Thereafter the petitioner lodged complaint on 16.02.2017, before the Circle Oficer, Bagra, against the respondent for encroachment of the land of the petitioner. After death of the father of the petitioner, the respondent started to encroach the disputed land and on 09.02.2017, respondent removed the stone, erected as boundary in the disputed land. Thereafter the petitioner lodged complaint on 16.02.2017, before the Circle Oficer, Bagra, against the respondent for encroachment of the land of the petitioner. Following the complaint lodged by the petitioner the Circle Officer summoned the petitioner, respondent and some Gaonburahs of the said circle, but the respondent raised some objection against the chicken liver examination (traditional law) or local keba decision dated 09.02.1997, passed by the keba members. 5. The core issue of the objection of the respondent was against the decision and the name of the disputed land area and as such, the Circle Officer, Bagra, passed order dated 05.05.2017 by constituting special Keba committee comprising of Head Gaonburahs, and Gaonburahs to verify the disputed land and ordered to settle the case after spot verification on 12.05.2017. Thereafter, the constituted special keba committee visited the disputed land for spot verification on 05.05.2017 and found that disputed land is the land, which has already been in the passive possession of the petitioner, by way of customary law, i.e., Chicken Liver Examination. The special keba committee also clarified that the name of the land in dispute is Pake Nyeru. 6. Pursuant thereto, report and decision of the special keba committee constituted by the Circle Officer, Bagra, clearly reflected that the disputed land, be it named as “Pake Nyeru” or the “Loglu” is the same area and the owner of the said land was decided by the local keba in the year 2017, in favour of the father of the petitioner, but the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo and notice was issued to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the Court on 22.08.2019 and prayed for, furnishing him the copy of the memo of appeal, to prepare the proper defence of his case. Again the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the Court on 12.09.2019 and accordingly, the petitioner had appeared as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, but on that day, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo remained absent and the matter was fixed on 26.09.2019, without informing the petitioner. Again the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the Court on 12.09.2019 and accordingly, the petitioner had appeared as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, but on that day, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo remained absent and the matter was fixed on 26.09.2019, without informing the petitioner. After that, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, West Siang heard the matter in absence of the petitioner and finally decided the case on 23.12.2019, declaring title, ownership and possession of the disputed land under the Specific Relief Act and quashed the village level keba decision, which was passed in the year 1997, in favour of the father of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 7. Against the petition, the respondent has filed an affidavit in opposition, stating that the disputed land has been developed from a wet area of jhoom land, called Pake Nyeru, situated at Hipin area at Doji Jeko village, under Aalo District, West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, measuring an area of 11,000 square metres approximately. The disputed land is bounded by the land, which belongs to Bomken Bagra, in the North and in the west and south it is bounded by the land of Goto Karcho, and simultaneously, natural stream commonly known as “HOO” and in the east also, the disputed land is bounded by the same natural stream “HOO”. 8. It is stated by the respondent that the disputed land has been developed from the ancestral jhoom land of the respondent, which is being peacefully possessed and owned by his forefathers since many generation, without any interruption. A large part of the disputed land was developed into irrigation field/WRC field during the year 2013, by the respondent and other part of the said land was being used for planting various valuable products, like trees, bamboos, which was being planted more than 20 years back, by the respondent and his ancestors. Some portion of the area adjacent to the disputed land is being used for cardamom and banana farming by the respondent for many years. 9. In the year 1984, a dispute arose in connection with the present disputed land/ Pake Nyeru in between Nyago Karso and the present respondent. The matter of the fact was that the present disputed jhoom land, namely, Pake Nyeru is situated in the area called Hipin. 9. In the year 1984, a dispute arose in connection with the present disputed land/ Pake Nyeru in between Nyago Karso and the present respondent. The matter of the fact was that the present disputed jhoom land, namely, Pake Nyeru is situated in the area called Hipin. But in the Hipin area, Nyago Karso was also possessing a small piece of land and the said land was falling under the land of the present petitioner’s jhoom land called Pake Nyeru. For the convenience of both the parties, a keba was conducted in the year 1984, by the village authority and the portion of the present disputed land measuring 40 metres from Pake Nyeru jhoom land belonging to present respondent, was measured in favour of the Nyago Karso. Since then, the keba decision has been duly complied by the respondent as well as by Niago Karso, till date. The present disputed land is being peacefully possessed by the respondent since 1984 after passing of the keba decision. 10. It is also stated in the objection that as per local custom and tradition whenever decision is to be taken on the basis of Chicken Liver examination, then chicken is to be collected from both the disputing parties, but the said chicken liver examination was conducted by taking the chicken only from the father of the revision petitioner, that too, without mentioning the name of the disputed land. It is further submitted that neither the petitioner nor the father of the petitioner had ever owned any jhoom land called Pake Nyeru. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 23.12.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, suffers from manifest illegalities and unprocedural lapse, i.e, the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, and as such, the same is not sustainable in law and therefore, liable to be set aside. 12. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ownership of the disputed land has already decided in local level keba in the year 1997, by way of customary law with the consent of both the parties, in favour of the father of the petitioner, but the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had acted with a total non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.12.2019, cannot stand in the eye of law. 13. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.12.2019, cannot stand in the eye of law. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, has passed order dated 23.12.2019, without hearing the petitioner and the matter may be remanded back with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, to hear the matter afresh and pass order accordingly. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Circle Officer, Bagra, had committed error in constituting special Keba committee for amicable settlement of the dispute in between both the parties, which is a wrong forum to decide the instant matter. It is also submitted that Section 40 of the Regulations, 1945, says that the village authority shall try all suits without limit of value, in which the person or persons is or are resident(s) within their jurisdiction, but in the instant case, both the disputing parties are residing at Doji Jeko village. It is further submitted that as per Chapter III and IV of Regulations, 1945, the criminal justice as well as civil justice shall be administered by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the village authority and since under the said Regulations, 1945, there is no forum like special Keba Committee and hence, the observation made by the Special Keba Committee dated 12.05.2017, being conducted by an unrecognized forum is illegal and cannot be taken into consideration in the case. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the special keba committee had visited the disputed land on 12.05.2017 and had affirmed that in the disputed area, there was no jhoom land called Loglu, but had affirmed the existence of the jhoom land called Pake Nyeru in the said area, but the special Keba committee without ascertaining the fact conducted the chicken liver examination in the year 1997 and had erroneously concluded that the said chicken liver examination was conducted by executing an agreement between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has further prayed to dismiss the civil revision petition. 16. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also perused the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, dated 23.12.2019, as well as the other documents available in the record. 17. According to the petitioner, the disputed land was under his passive possession. 16. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also perused the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh, dated 23.12.2019, as well as the other documents available in the record. 17. According to the petitioner, the disputed land was under his passive possession. It transpires that the present petitioner is not in actual physical possession of the disputed land. Apparently, whatever stated by the respondent regarding the disputed land either in Pake Nyru or Loglu was under the possession of the respondent. It is alleged that the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 23.12.2019, without hearing the present petitioner. From the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the disputed land is situated in the area Pake Nyru or Loglu, as both the parties claim that the said land belonged to the petitioner as well as the respondent. 18. The findings of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, dated 23.12.2019, read as follows:- i) The Keba decision dated 09.02.1997 is quashed and set aside, for being one-sided and erroneous in procedure. ii) The Court rules the disputed land Pake Nyru in favour of the appellant, Karnya Doji. The title, ownership and possession is granted in favour of the appellant, Karnya Doji, w.e.f. 23.12.2019, under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. 19. In the case in hand, the admitted position of law is that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Court Fees Act, 1870 etc. are not applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. In the State of Arunachal Pradesh, disputes are resolved as per provisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945,. Civil proceedings are regulated as per Chapter 4 of the said Regulation. Regulation 52 provides that the High Court, Court of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner shall be guided by the spirit of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 20. Section 110 of Evidence Act gives effect to well known principles of law, common to all systems of jurisprudence that possession is prima facie evidence of title. A long, peaceful and lawful possession of the parties lends presumption of title. 20. Section 110 of Evidence Act gives effect to well known principles of law, common to all systems of jurisprudence that possession is prima facie evidence of title. A long, peaceful and lawful possession of the parties lends presumption of title. Presumption under Section 110 of Evidence Act would apply only if two conditions are specified, i.e, the possession of plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful and secondary title of defendants is not proved and this presumption under Section 110 can be availed of, even against the Government. 21. In the case of Chief Conservator Of Forests –Vs- Collectors and Ors. Reported in 2003 (2) SCR 180 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given guidance in following words:- “It embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title”. 22. In the case of Nair Service Society Limited –Vs- K C Alexander & Others, reported in AIR (1968) SC 1165, which reads as follows:- “The possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are known, when the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides.” 23. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh –Vs- Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Company, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 319 , this principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court and declared the principle enshrined in Section 110 of the Evidence Act, on the anvil of public policy- “The principle enshrined in Section 110 of the Evidence Act, is based on public policy with the object of preventing persons from committing breach of peace by taking law into their own hands, however good their title over the land in question may be. It is for this purpose, that the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 154 and 158 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, were enacted. All the aforesaid provisions have the same object. It is for this purpose, that the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 154 and 158 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, were enacted. All the aforesaid provisions have the same object. The said presumption is read under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and applies only in a case where there is either no proof, or very little proof of ownership on either side. The maxim “possession follows title” is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of waste lands, or where nothing is known about possession one-way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It in fact means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, while the other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/encroachment etc. Where the apparent title is with the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version. Even, a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.” 24. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it reveals that the allegation made by the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity to hear before passing of the order dated 23.12.2019, by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo. The matter in dispute relates to a plot of land claimed by the parties, whether it is located at Pake Nyeru or Loglu. The matter in dispute relates to a plot of land claimed by the parties, whether it is located at Pake Nyeru or Loglu. Deputy Commissioner, Aalo is directed to enquire the matter thoroughly regarding respective claims over the disputed land, after proper identification of the land and if required, with the setting up of a commission. The case is remanded back with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo to adjudicate the matter afresh and after hearing both parties on dispute, pass order accordingly. 25. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The order dated 23.12.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, is hereby set aside. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There is no order as to cost(s). 26. The called for record from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, be returned accordingly.