LAWS(GAU)-2022-11-34

MARJUM DOJI Vs. KARNYA DORJI

Decided On November 21, 2022
Marjum Doji Appellant
V/S
Karnya Dorji Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 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 dtd. 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 9/2/1997. 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.