JUDGMENT : Legality and validity of judgment and order, dated 23.08.2011, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar in BSR/TA No. 20/2004, is put to challenge in this Civil Revision Petition, under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 by the petitioner-Smti. Ogan Perme (since deceased), wife of Lt. Opang Perme, represented by her legal heir, -Shri Royjel Perme. It is to be mentioned herein that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned FTC, Basar has dismissed the Title Appeal No. 20/2004, and uphold the Kebang decision, dated 09.05.1996. 2. The factual background leading to filing of this civil revision petition is adumbrated herein below:- a. After the earthquake of 1950, Maryon village of East Siang District, Pasighat was submerged by the river Siang. Then the villagers of Maryom village started to settle at Dipu Gipong of Berung village. By a decision of Kebang, held by the people of Bogong Banggo had allowed them to occupy the land by derecognizing their individual ownership of Morang rights on the land excluding fishing rights on the stream. Thereafter, the people of Berung started cultivating the land for their survival and established rights, title, interest etc. on the land under their occupation and such ownership was never a matter of dispute since their settlement till around 1992-1993. b. Being one of the victims of the said natural calamities, Lt. Mongol Perme took the possession and occupation of the disputed land in 1953, and develops some portion as WRC field and later on Lt. Ngolpang @ Opang Perme, the husband of the petitioner, by digging up a channel around his plot of land. During that time, the deceased father of the respondent No. 2 did not raise any objection on the basis of the Morang. As such, Lt. Mongol Perme, the father-in-law of the petitioner had established right, title, interest etc. over the said plot of land w.e.f. 1953. Lt. Opang Perme, son of Lt. Mongol Perme got married to Smt. Ogan Perme, the present petitioner in the year 1962. After the death of Lt. Opang Perme, the petitioner inherited the WRC field which was cleared and developed by Lt. Mongol Perme and his son Lt. Opang Perme, the husband of the petitioner including the present disputed land. Lt. Opang Perme, son of Lt. Mongol Perme got married to Smt. Ogan Perme, the present petitioner in the year 1962. After the death of Lt. Opang Perme, the petitioner inherited the WRC field which was cleared and developed by Lt. Mongol Perme and his son Lt. Opang Perme, the husband of the petitioner including the present disputed land. c. The respondents, thereafter, disputed the claim of the petitioner and claimed that their right of Morang ownership is still in existence. Thereafter, a Kebang was held in connection with the said dispute on 09.05.1996, wherein, the Kebang took a decision in favour of the respondents. Against the said Kebang decision, the petitioner preferred one Title Appeal, being BSR TA No. 20/2004, which was dismissed on 28.08.2008. Thereafter, one RFA being RFA No. 01(AP)/2008 was preferred, but the same was dismissed on default, but, was again restored to file on 19.08.2010 wherein both the parties were directed to appear before the learned FTC and to review their arguments. Thereafter, the learned FTC, Basar passed its final order on 23.08.2011. Then, being aggrieved by the said order in RSA No. 01(AP) was filed and the same was withdrawn on 11.06.2014 with a liberty to approach the Court, if so advised. Then the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition, under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. d. It is the contention of the petitioner that she had produced 6 (six) witnesses including herself and the defendant No. 1 also produces 7 (seven) witnesses and that Lt. Boduk Tamuk has not contested the case and his legal representative also not contested the case. And since the respondent No. 2 has not supported the respondent No. 1 by adducing evidence in the Court, the respondent No. 1 has no locusstandito claim the disputed land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition on the following grounds: I. That, it is no longer open to the court to simply affirm a Kebang Decision, if the court decides to try a case de-novo under section 46 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. II. That, once the court had proceeded with the appeal denovo, the court could not have considered the evidences/findings in the impugned Kebang Decision dated 09.05.1996. III. II. That, once the court had proceeded with the appeal denovo, the court could not have considered the evidences/findings in the impugned Kebang Decision dated 09.05.1996. III. That, the learned court has erred in law in holding that the circumstance of not contesting the BSR/TA-20/04, by the Respondent No. 2, the whole case of the Respondent No. 1 collapses in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 claimed his right to the disputed land by virtue of alleged sale from him. IV. That, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the legal principles governing the law and the nature of evidence required to establish a claim and such a failure on the part of learned Court below resulted in erroneous findings rendering the impugned Judgment illegal. V. That, the findings of the learned Court below suffer from serious mis-appreciation of evidence on account of its failure to consider the relevant evidence, resulting in erroneous findings. VI. That, the learned Court below has erroneously rejected the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner. VII. That, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar in Basar Title Appeal No. 20/04, being based on perverse findings, is illegal either in facts or law and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 3. The petitioner, therefore, has contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar in BSR Title Appeal No. 20/2004. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has submitted their affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made by the petitioner in her petition. It is stated that the elder brother of the petitioner Shri Ojing Perme promises to purchase the plot of land from Lt. Boduk Tamuk, but he could not pay even a single penny, even after long period, for which Lt. Boduk Tamuk sold the land to the respondent No. 1 Shri Obang Dai, but the petitioner’s family obstructed the possession of the land by Shri Obang Dai for which several village meetings was held and on 09.05.1996, a decision was taken in favour of respondent No. 1 during the life time of Lt. Boduk Tamuk. Boduk Tamuk sold the land to the respondent No. 1 Shri Obang Dai, but the petitioner’s family obstructed the possession of the land by Shri Obang Dai for which several village meetings was held and on 09.05.1996, a decision was taken in favour of respondent No. 1 during the life time of Lt. Boduk Tamuk. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court has adjudicated the case of the petitioner in its proper perspective and upheld the decision of Kebang, which had rightly taken the decision in favour of the respondent No. 1, and the said decision was accepted by Lt. Boduk Tamuk and that the grounds assigned by the petitioner in the appeal are not born on the facts and circumstances on the records and that there was no specific order for de novo trial which was conducted in accordance of provisions under CPC, 1908. And as such, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 is not at all applicable and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment of the learned FTC Basar on the ground that FTC Basar is not an authority under the Assam Frontier Regulation. She further submits that the Issue No.1 is the main Issue and that petitioner is in possession of the disputed land for the last 43 years and he dug nallah (channel) around the said plot of land, the factum of which has not been disputed by the respondent. But the way the learned court below has decided the Issue is far from satisfactory. It is further submitted that late Boduk Tamuk, from whom the respondent No. 1 has allegedly purchased the disputed plot of land, has not been examined. Ms. Danggen also submits that the impugned judgment is perverse as it is not passed in accordance under Section 46 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945 and that the respondent No. 2 did not appear before the learned Court below he did not file any written statement and though the respondent No. 1 has field written statement, yet he did not examine the respondent No. 2. And having decided to try the suit de-novo, the learned court below should not have simply affirmed the Kabang Decision dated 09.05.1995, instead, it should have come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence adduced before it by both the parties, submits Ms. Danggen. And as such the decision of the learned court below in Issue No.23 is perverse. Therefore, Ms. Danggen has contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned FTC Basar. Ms. Danggen has referred one case law Khagendra Lal Dutta and Another vs. Jacob Sole Jacob (1995) 5 SSC 446, to make good of her submission. But on the given facts and circumstances on the record, it cannot be said that the ratio laid down therein would come into aid of the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the learned FTC, Basar has rightly decided the appeal in favour of the respondent No. 1 by upholding the decision of Kebang of 09.05.1996. Mr. Modi has pointed out that though the learned FTC has not examined Lt. Boduk Tamuk, yet, he was examined by the Kebang and that in this civil revision petition, this Court is to examine only the illegality committed by the learned Trial Court in deciding the appeal and the jurisdiction of the learned Court below cannot be questioned in this petition. Mr. Modi, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the submission of learned Advocate of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2011, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar in BSR TA No. 20/2004 and the documents placed on record. 9. It appears from the paragraph No.3 of the impugned judgment of the learned court below that during trial it has called upon the parties to produce their witnesses and in order to decide 27 issues it has examined six PWS and seven DWS. It also appears that the learned Court below considering the evidences on the record and also the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides decided the appeal in favour of the respondent No. 1 and upheld the decision of Kebang dated 09.05.1996. 10. It also appears that the learned Court below considering the evidences on the record and also the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides decided the appeal in favour of the respondent No. 1 and upheld the decision of Kebang dated 09.05.1996. 10. It also appears that as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, issue No. 1 was the main issued in the appeal. The learned Court below while deciding the issue No. 1 held that on apparent reading of the evidence of the witnesses of both the parties, it is seen that no one amongst the PWS or the appellant claims his right to be the actual owner excepting Lt. Boduk Tamuk, who has claimed that the said disputed land has been in his possession and still has Morang who sold some portion to respondent No. 2-Shri Obang Dai. But, it appears from the record that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner for last 43 years. PW-1 Shri Ogan Perme, PW-2 Shri Ojing Ering, PW-3 Shri Tatung Saro, PW-4 Shri Balem Dai, PW-5 Shri Tamat Darang and PW-6 Obiak dai have seen the Perme family cultivating the disputed land and that the father of the respondent No. 1 has never objected the possession of the disputed land by the Perme family. Though, DW-1 Shri Obang Dai states that he purchased the disputed land from Lt. Boduk Tamuk during the year 1991 and DW-3 Shri Oken Gaon stated that he was present at the time of sale transaction in between Lt. Boduk Tamluk and Shri Obang Dai, yet their evidence failed to establish that the land was under the possessions of the respondent No. 1. Moreover, Baduk Tamuk has not been examined as witness by the respondent No.1. 11. Further it appears that having decided to proceed the case de-novo, the learned court below, while deciding Issue No.23, has simply upheld the decision of Kebang dated 09.05.1995. It did not discuss the evidence of any of the six PWS and of seven DWS and failed to arrive at an independent decision the evidence of aforementioned witnesses. It also appears that the respondent No. 2, Lt. It did not discuss the evidence of any of the six PWS and of seven DWS and failed to arrive at an independent decision the evidence of aforementioned witnesses. It also appears that the respondent No. 2, Lt. Baduk Tamuk did not appear before the learned FTC Basar and he was not examined and as such, the finding so arrived at by the learned Trial Court affirming the decision of Kebang dated 09.05.1996, without the respondent No. 2 being examined, appears to be not justified. Ms. Danggen, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out during argument and we record our concurrence to the same. 12. In view of above, the decision so arrived at by the Kebang on 09.05.1996, and the judgment and order passed by the of the learned FTC Basar, in BSR TA No. 20/2004, dated 23.08.2011, by which it has upheld the decision of Kebang fails to withstand the test of legality and validity. The decision so arrived at by the Kebang on 09.05.1996, appears to be not consistent with the evidence so adduced by the witnesses before the learned court below. 13. In the result, we find sufficient merits in this petition. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2011, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar in BSR/TA No. 20/2004, is accordingly set aside. The case remanded to the Court of learned District Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat as Section 46 and 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 has been deleted by Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021. The learned District Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat shall, on receipt of the case record, shall proceed to hear the matter expeditiously and shall made endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receiving the case record. 14. Send down the record of the learned Court below immediately with a copy of this order.