JUDGMENT : This Civil Revision Petition under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945 read with Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order No.SD/Kebang-109/2019-20, dated 25.08.2020, passed by the Circle Officer (Kebang), Boleng under the capacity of the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 27.07.2020 and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) only, which is to be deposited with the Kebang office within 15 days. 3. The factual background leading to filing of this Revision Petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner Shri Tage Jerang is the son of Shri Tasang Jerang and the respondent Shri Taje Jerang is the son of Tamuk Jerang of Village-Lilleng, P.O./P.S.-Boleng and both are cousin brothers in relation. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of a WRC plot of land of Moma-Arik. In connection with the said dispute, a Kebang was held on 19.07.2021, in which the village authorities has decided the dispute of wet rice cultivation (WRC) plot of land of Moma-Arik in favour of the petitioner and the Kebang has afforded opportunities to the parties to go for appeal within a week from the date of the Kebang decision. Accordingly, on 17.08.2020, the Circle Officer (Kebang) acting on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng under Siang District fixed a local Kebang for amicable settlement of the land dispute and fixed 25.08.2020 for holding Kebang at the disputed site itself. The petitioner and the respondent accordingly appeared before the Kebang, wherein, the Circle Officer (Kebang) took the case in upper hand and did not allow the petitioner to place his grievance in the Kebang proceeding as per the custom and usages and while doing so he has not been given sufficient opportunity and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner dated 25.08.2020, and held that the said dispute has already been settled by Shri Taro Mize, the then Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Boleng vide order No.BLG-604 (GEN) 2015-16, dated the Boleng the 4th April, 2016 in presence of Gaon Buras (GB) of Dosing village on 30.01.2016, with regard to the ownership of disputes of Moma-Arik WRC Field. Deputy Commissioner, Boleng vide order No.BLG-604 (GEN) 2015-16, dated the Boleng the 4th April, 2016 in presence of Gaon Buras (GB) of Dosing village on 30.01.2016, with regard to the ownership of disputes of Moma-Arik WRC Field. By the said decision, the Circle Officer (Kebang) has declared the title of the disputed land in favour of Shri Taje Jerang and also directed the present petitioner to deposit a fine of Rs.5,000/-within 15 days for misguiding the Head Gaon Buras (HGB) & GB and other members”. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that Circle Officer (Kebang) has no power and authority to sit over the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Boleng and the appellate Court of the Assistant Commissioner is the Court of Deputy Commissioner as per the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945. Therefore, in the given case, the Circle Officer (Kebang) has no authority to represent the office of the Deputy Commissioner in representative capacity unless the law is amended and further the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng has not commenced for de novo trial as per the relevant provision of law and therefore, the Circle Officer (Kebang) cannot act on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng in representative capacity as per law and as such, the impugned order is void and has no legal force. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Kebang decision dated 19.07.2020 was not connected with the earlier Kebang in between the parties with regards to right of inheritance and adoption and despite of such clear cut Kebang decision, the Circle Officer (Kebang) has illegally nullified the Kebang decision dated 19.07.2020, on the premises that earlier judicial authority has given the decision over the subject matter, which is quite unreasonable. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the earlier decision of the Addl. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the earlier decision of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Boleng vide No.BLG-604 (GEN) 2015-16, dated 04.04.2016 is not connected with the present disputed land rather in the said Kebang, the right of inheritance was decided but not the right of ownership/title over the present disputed plot of land and therefore, the said order is not available in the case file which can be called from the learned Court below and though he requested the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng for supply of all the relevant documents of the appeal filed by the respondent and the copy of the impugned order, dated 25.08.2020, the said documents were not furnished to him on the ground that the file stands ‘misplaced somewhere’ and that the petitioner has filed one CRP 12 (AP) 2021 before this Court seeking favourable order and protection but this Court vide order dated 22.06.2021 was pleased to dismissed the same on the ground that the case is barred by the law of limitation. More so, no explanation was given how the delay in filing the case was caused and liberty was given to file appropriate application as per law and that there is deliberate delay in filing the civil revision petition and it is not barred by limitation and the petitioner has assigned the following reasons that :- (i) The Circle Officer (Kebang), Boleng has no authority and jurisdiction to pass order representing as appellate court of Deputy Commissioner in representative capacity because the judicial order cannot be passed in representative capacity; (ii) The Circle Officer (Kebang) Boleng was erring in holding that the then Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Boleng has already decided the disputes vide Order No. BLG-604 (GEN) 2015-16, dated Boleng the 4th April, 2016; (iii) The Circle Officer (Kebang), Boleng was erred in passing the order, dated 25.08.2020 by imposing Rs.5,000/-only as fine for misguiding the Kebang and to be deposited with the Kebang authority office within 15 days and that too in absence of any provision for imposing fine while resolving dispute; (iv) Although, summon/notice was issued to the petitioner to attend/appeared on 15.08.2020 for spot Kebang decision on the disputed site but no copy of the appeal was furnished to him and other relevant documents; (v) The authority letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng to Circle Officer (Kebang) for conducting case on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng was sought for but not furnished; (vi) The prescribed procedure of examining the case in appeal under Regulation 46 (3) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 has been blatantly violated just to give undue-favourable order to the appellant/respondent; (vii) The, prayer for conducting fresh Kebang at village level over the disputed plot of land has not been allowed rather title of the disputed land has been declared in favour of the respondent/appellant and all the erected stone pillar as a mark of boundary as per Adi custom has been directed to be removed and at the same time a fine of Rs.5,000/-only has been imposed arbitrarily without any authority of law; and (viii) The impugned order passed by the Circle Officer (Kebang), Boleng illegally and arbitrarily as referred above in a representative capacity of Deputy Commissioner, Boleng suffered legal infirmities and not sustainable under the law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed in the interest of justice. 5. The respondents has submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the Civil Revision Petition is barred by law of limitation, whereas the copy of the appeal order dated 25.08.2020 vide order No. SD/Kebang-109/2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng, Arunachal Pradesh in the matter of Tage Jerang and Taje Jerang was duly furnished to the petitioner and the deponent right after the Kebang, dated 25.08.2020. But, the Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court after lapse of almost one year. But, the Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court after lapse of almost one year. As per the provision under Section 51 of the AFR, 1945 and Civil Revision Petition has to be filed within 30 days from the date of passing the order and as such, this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and that the real owner of the present disputed land was Lt. Tayi Jerang, who did not have offspring and the said WRC land has been cultivated since many years without objection and complaint from any corner of the society and that he was close paternal uncle of Lt. Taying Jerang and he looked after him till his last breath and he died as the father of the respondent in the year, 2018 and even the respondent has performed the last rites as per Adi customary practice without any objection from any corner and in that way, he cleared ownership right over the properties of Lt. Tayi Jerang and Lt. Tayi Jerang wanted the respondent to be his legal heir and the respondent started claiming to be the legal heir of Lt. Tayi Jerang but he categorically refused to accept the petitioner as his legal heir as because Lt. Tayi Jerang had already choose the respondent i.e. Shri Taje Jerang to be his legal heir. Further, in the year, 2016, the petitioner started illegally claiming over the private properties of Lt. Tayi Jerang, which were; (1) Arem (Ledu Leku) (Adi ornaments); (2) Rite-Ribung Arik (Agricultural field); and (3) Moma Arik (present disputed WRC land) and in pursuance to the said dispute between the petitioner and Lt. Tayi Jerang upon the said properties, a Kebang was held by the village authority in Boleng at ADC Kebang Ghar on 22.03.2016, and the same was counter sign by the ADC, Boleng whereas the village authority had decided disputed Moma WRC field in favour of Lt. Tayi Jerang as because the Moma-Arik (WRC) was purchased by Lt. Tayi Jerang from one Lt. Yapiam Jerang and as such, the owner of Moma-Arik (WRC) is Shri Tayi Jerang and held that the claim of the petitioner as invalid and before the said Kebang, Lt. Tayi Jerang declared before the Kebang that he would not stay with the petitioner but agreed to stay with the respondent and due to that reason Lt. Yapiam Jerang and as such, the owner of Moma-Arik (WRC) is Shri Tayi Jerang and held that the claim of the petitioner as invalid and before the said Kebang, Lt. Tayi Jerang declared before the Kebang that he would not stay with the petitioner but agreed to stay with the respondent and due to that reason Lt. Tayi Jerang would stay with the present respondent as his legal heir and also declared that the aggrieved party may file appeal within 15 days. The petitioner was very much aware of the said decision of the Kebang dated 04.03.2016. Further, the petitioner consciously chooses not to file any appeal against the said Kebang, dated 04.03.2016, and as such things were remained undisturbed and settled during the life time of Lt. Tayi Jerang. But, surprisingly, on 19.07.2020, the present disputed Kebang, the petitioner in connivance with some unscrupulous Gaon Burahs, called a Kebang frivolously claiming the title of Moma-Arik (WRC field) and got the issues settled in his favour tactically citing in the Kebang decision conducted on 19.07.2020, and the same does not connected with the earlier Kebang and as such, the earlier Kebang decision, dated 19.07.2020 is void ab intio and non-est in the eye of law, so, the respondent has submitted an appeal against the illegal Kebang decision, dated 19.07.2020, before the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng on 27.07.2020 and the Kebang was conducted on 25.08.2020 by the Circle Officer (Kebang) in representative capacity of Deputy Commissioner in presence of the parties and that the principle of resjudicatais violated and as such, this revision petition is not maintainable and therefore it is contended to dismiss the same. 6. I have heard Mr. T. Tapak, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Posi, the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. T. Tapak, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality. It is pointed out that the impugned order was passed by the Circle Officer (Kebang) in representative capacity of the Deputy Commissioner, which is ex-facie illegal and therefore, Mr. Tapak, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back to the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng and to decided the issue afresh. 8. Whereas, Mr. Tapak, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter back to the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng and to decided the issue afresh. 8. Whereas, Mr. K. Posi, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this petition is barred by the law of limitation and also by the law of res judicataand that it is not maintainable in the present form and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 9. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and also the documents placed on record and also the order passed by this Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition being CRP No. 12 (AP) 2021 vide order dated 22.06.2021. It appears that vide order dated 22.06.2021, in CRP 12 (AP) 2021, this Court was pleased to hold that the impugned order dated 25.08.2020, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng and the same is hit by Section 51 of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 and accordingly, is barred by limitation and dismissed the same on that count, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as may be available under the law including filing of a fresh revision petition under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, if it is permissible under the law. 10. But, it appears that the present petition has been filed without a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation for condonation of delay. Rather, the petitioner came with an explanation that the present case is not barred by law of limitation as because the impugned order was passed on 25.08.2020, and certified copy of the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner was filed on 15.09.2020, but no certified copy was furnished by the Court on the ground that the file has been misplaced. 11. But, in the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent has categorically stated that the Civil Revision Petition is barred by the law of limitation as the copy of the order under appeal vide order No. SD/Kebang-109/2019-20, dated Boleng the 25th August, 2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng in the matter of Shri Tage Jerang-vs-Taje Jerang was duly furnished to the petitioner and the respondent, right after the Kebang decision dated 25.08.2020. This fact stated by the respondent is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any affidavit in reply. Therefore, we find no ground to disbelieve the contention made by the respondent. Having been furnished with the order of Kebang, dated 25.08.2020, this revision petition is preferred by the revisionist on 07.07.2021, after almost a year. This Court, in CRP 12 (AP) 2021 vide order dated 22.06.2021 has held that the petition is barred by law of limitation and accordingly, dismiss the same. Therefore, the grounds so assigned by the petitioner left this Court unimpressed that there was no delay in filing the present petition. 12. I have also carefully gone through the order dated 04.04.2016, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Boleng vide order No. BLG-604 (GEN) 2015-16, and I find that the said Kebang decision relates to Moma-Arik (WRC field) where it has been held that the said WRC field belongs to Lt. Tayi Jerang and that Tage Jerang has illegally claim the same and as such, the claim is invalid. The matter has already been decided in favour of Lt. Tayi Jerang during his life time, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Kebang decision, dated 19.07.2020, is barred by res-judicata, as provided under Section 11 of the CPC. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed this out during the arguments. Though, the petitioner has contended that the decision of the Kebang, dated 19.07.2020, has clarified that the decision of the said Kebang does not relate to the same piece of land, yet, this Court is left unconvinced by such arguments as in the decision of Kebang dated 19.07.2020, it becomes clear that the same was in connection with Moma-Arik (WRC Field) and also the Kebang decision, dated 04.04.201, was in connection with the Moma-Arik (WRC Field). 14. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost(s). Send down the record of learned Court below, immediately.