Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 549 (GAU)

Sonemso Gam v. State of A. P.

2022-05-27

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2022
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. The instant revision application petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 21.11.2018 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, as well as the decision of the Kebang dated 24.12.2018. 3. The facts of the instant case is that the Petitioners herein claim to be the owners of Huiliang village’s land which they have inherited from their forefathers. Disputing the title and ownership of the land owned by the Petitioners, the Respondents vide an application dated 08.11.2018, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Hawai, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh, praying for a local Kebang to be conducted for resolving the title and ownership dispute of the Huiliang village’s land between the Petitioners and the private Respondent No. 4 and four other persons. 4. In pursuance to the said application submitted by the Respondent No. 4 along with four other persons, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner Hayuliang, Anjaw District, issued an order dated 15.11.2018 vide Memo No. HLG/LM-0001/LANDDISPUTE/2018-19/6721-728 constituting a local Kebang to decide the land dispute between the Boo and Gam clan of Huiliang village and fixed 19.11.2018 as the date for conducting the local Kebang. A further perusal of the order dated 15.11.2018 shows that one Sri Achan Krong, PI and Sri Sonulum Tindya, PI, ADC’s Office, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh were directed to supervise the local Kebang. 5. The Petitioners herein not agreeing with the said order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, in constituting the local Kebang for deciding the land dispute, protested against such constitution of the Kebang whereafter, a coordination meeting of the Petitioner and the clan members were held in the Office of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh on 20.11.2018 wherein, a local Kebang was agreed to be held on 27.11.2018. Thereafter, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh, issued another order dated 21.11.2018 vide Memo No. HLG/LM-0001/LAND DISPUTE/18- 19/6826-833, refixing 27.11.2018 as the date of holding the Kebang and reiterated that Sri Achan Krong, PI and Sri Sonulum Tindya, PI, ADC’s Office to supervise the local Kebang to be conducted on 27.11.2018. Thereafter, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh, issued another order dated 21.11.2018 vide Memo No. HLG/LM-0001/LAND DISPUTE/18- 19/6826-833, refixing 27.11.2018 as the date of holding the Kebang and reiterated that Sri Achan Krong, PI and Sri Sonulum Tindya, PI, ADC’s Office to supervise the local Kebang to be conducted on 27.11.2018. 6. It has been alleged that pursuance to the order dated 21.11.2018, a local Kebang was held on 27.11.2018, but the proceedings in the Kebang remained inconclusive and no concrete decision was arrived at the Kebang held on 27.11.2018. The Petitioners herein submitted a communication dated 03.12.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hawai, Anjaw District, stating, inter-alia, that no Kebang should be conducted as the Respondents were misleading villagers of Huiliang by bringing unnecessary witnesses, supporters from other villages creating havoc and panic. It is the further case of the Petitioners, that even after such intimation being put forward to the Deputy Commissioner, the impugned decision dated 24.12.2018 was issued by one Sri Bachelum Malo, GB, Huiliang village, Sri Achan Krong, PI and Sri Sonulum Tindya, PI, ADC’s Office, Anjaw District, A.P. whereby the disputed land was held to be of the private Respondents clan. 7. Being aggrieved, by the said decision of the Kebang dated 24.12.2018, and the various orders passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner on 15.11.2018 and 21.11.2018, the Petitioners are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. This Court, vide an order dated 22.01.2019 , issued notice and the interim stage, provided that the order dated 24.12.2018 issued by Sri Bachelum Malo, G.B. Huiliang village, Sri Achan Krong, PI and Sri Sonulum Tindya, PI, ADC’s Office, Anjaw District, A.P. shall remain stayed. 9. The record reveals that the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that on receipt of a complaint dated 08.10.2018 from the Boo clan of the private Respondents regarding the land dispute case at Huiliang village, a local Kebang was fixed on 04.11.2018 for amicable settlement of the land dispute case. The Office of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner was not aware whether the matter was sub-judiced in the Court. It was further mentioned that as per Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 08.11.2018, a local Kebang was re-fixed on 19.11.2018 for amicable settlement of the same. The Office of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner was not aware whether the matter was sub-judiced in the Court. It was further mentioned that as per Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 08.11.2018, a local Kebang was re-fixed on 19.11.2018 for amicable settlement of the same. The local Kebang was conducted through the PIs of the ADC’s Office, Hayuliang, Anjaw District, Arunachal Pradesh. It was further stated that the holding of the local Kebang through the PIs is a prevailing practice of the district. Further to that, the Respondent No. 3 stated in his affidavit that the representation from the Gam clan i.e. the clan of the Petitioners for reviewing the Kebang decision was received on 21.11.2018 but the local Kebang was already fixed on 19.11.2018. After receiving the direction from the Deputy Commissioner dated 08.11.2018, it was further mentioned that a coordination meeting of both the clans was conducted to maintain the peace and tranquility and the Petitioners were advised to attend the Kebang for amicable settlement as per the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 08.11.2018. 10. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition despite entering appearance on 12.03.2019 by filing vakalatnama. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the order dated 15.11.2018 and the subsequent order dated 21.11.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby, a direction was issued to Sri Achan Krong, PI and Sri Sonulum Tindya, PI, to supervise the Kebang is in contravention to the law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tadik Tabang and Others vs. Gumjum Ango and Others, 2009 (4) GLT 626. 12. He further submits that from a perusal of the order dated 24.12.2018 would also show that the decision of the Kebang dated 24.12.2018 was made not only by one Sri Bachelum Malo, G.B. but also by the Political Interpreters who had supervised the said Kebang proceedings. The learned counsel for Petitioner submits that from a perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench, it would be apparent that in no way Section 5 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (for short ‘the Regulation’) authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to empower Political Interpreters to intervene, farless, preside over or supervise the Kebang proceedings. The duties of the interpreters laid down under Memo dated 22.12.1965 also do not confer any supervisory power on them. The duties of the interpreters laid down under Memo dated 22.12.1965 also do not confer any supervisory power on them. This Court, further, held that the Political Interpreters’ role in judicial proceedings conducted by the village authorities is limited to assist such local authorities to come to a just decision and the said limited role of the Political Interpreters have also been reiterated in the letter dated 25.02.1992 issued by the General Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Division Bench of this Court further held that the word ‘assist’ itself denotes giving the views of the administration only when sought for by the village authorities and certainly, it does not confer any supervisory role in the decision making process. The Division Bench of this Court further held that if the Political Interpreters are allowed to supervise Kebang proceedings as a Government nominee it would certainly influence the proceedings, wherein the disputes are resolved as per local customs and it would amount to eroding/diluting the independent character of Kebang which cannot be permitted under the existing law and the scheme of decision through Kebang. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment being relevant is quoted herein-below: “(10) A bare reading of Section 5 of the Regulation clearly shows that this provision of Regulation relates to the Deputy Commissioner’s powers to constitute Village Authorities. Section 5 (2) authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the powers and functions of Village Authorities either by himself or through any Assistant Commissioner under certain circumstances. In no way Section 5 of the ‘regulation’ authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to empower Political Interpreters to intervene, farless, preside over or supervise the Kebang proceedings. The duties of interpreters laid down under memo dated 22.12.1965 and also do not confer any supervisory power on them. As a whole, the Political Interpreters’ role in the judicial proceedings conducted by the Village Authorities is limited to assist such local authorities to come to a just decision. The limited role of PA/PIS has also been reiterated in the letter dated 25.2.1992 issued by General Administrative Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned Single Judge. In our considered opinion, the word ‘assist’ itself denotes giving the views of the administration only when sought- for by the village authorities. Certainly it does not confer any supervisory role in the decision making process. In our considered opinion, the word ‘assist’ itself denotes giving the views of the administration only when sought- for by the village authorities. Certainly it does not confer any supervisory role in the decision making process. We are also of the view that if PAs/Pis are allowed to supervise Kebang proceedings as a Govt. nominee it would certainly influence the proceedings, wherein the disputes are resolved as per local customs and it would amount to eroding/diluting the independent character of “kebang.” This can not be permitted under the existing law and the scheme of decision through “kebang.” 13. In view of the clear enunciation of law by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned orders dated 15.11.2018 and 21.11.2018 whereby Sri Achan Krong and Sri Sonulum Tindya both Political Interpreters were asked to supervise the Kebang proceedings is bad in law and accordingly, the said impugned orders are interfered with. 14. It further appears from decision of the Kebang dated 24.12.2018 that the said Political Interpreters were a party in rendering the decision which is completely outside powers of the Political Interpreters, inasmuch as, the duty of the Political Interpreters is only to assist in the decision making process by giving their views on the administration when sought for by the village authorities. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court had clearly stated the role of a Political Interpreter. The said decision was rendered on 17.06.2009 and in spite of the said decision holding the field the direction to hold the Kebang under the supervision of the Political Interpreters and also the Political Interpreters being a part of the decision making process are of in violation to the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Tadik Tabang (Supra). 15. Consequently, the order dated 15.11.2018 and 21.11.2018 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and decision of the Kebang dated 24.12.2018 are interfered with and set aside. 16. 15. Consequently, the order dated 15.11.2018 and 21.11.2018 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and decision of the Kebang dated 24.12.2018 are interfered with and set aside. 16. Before parting with the record, it would be relevant to take note of that though an appeal lies against the decision of the village authorities but taking into consideration that the decision rendered by village authorities was in complete violation to the mandate of the judgment passed by this Court in Tadik Tabang (Supra) and the same shocks the judicial conscience of this Court, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution exercises the jurisdiction in the peculiar facts of the case. The parties shall be at liberty to resort to such legal remedies as available in law for settling their disputes. 17. In view of the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.