BOKEN JOPIR Vs. TABUR JOPIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 30.9.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District, Yingkieng in Kebang Appeal Case No.01/96 communicated and received by the petitioners on 15.10.96.

(2.) The first Kebang decision was on 12.5.96 in a dispute between Boken Jopir and Smti. Tabur Jopir. The decision was that the disputed land at Kome will not be divided in between the parties. From this day onwards, Shri Boken Jopir shall take the possession of the disputed land as absolute owner. Subsequently the decision was communicated to the circle officer, Jengging and that communication is as follows: " From now onwards Smti. Tabur Jopir shall continue to cultivate the land which was cultivated by her. Shri Boken Jopir is stqpped from cultivating the said land (disputed land) Smti. Tabur Jopir shall not sell or dispose the said land without prior consultation with the Jopir Clan members."

(3.) An appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner and that was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner held as follows: "(i) As per Adi customary law, it is well established rule and practice that a person does not adopt a child atleast of the same sex as long as he has one child (especially) male one). Therefore, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the appellant that the husband of the respondent No. 1 had adopted late Boni Jopir as his own son. (ii) It is established beyond doubt that Mithun was sacrificed by late Anyok Jopir husband of respondent No. 1 in exchange/ consideration for the disputed land. (iii) The land was developed by late Anyok Jopir, husband of respondent No. 1 into WRC/ TRC in the year 1964 i.e., more than 30 years ago. (iv) An amount of Rs 2500/- which has been spent as fees in earlier meeting by the appellant be returned to Boken Jopir (appellant No. 1) since it was not an accepted Kebang decision. The fees has been returned to the appellant in my presence. (v) The Gaoburas have agreed upon the verdict and signed in a separate list in my presence. Hence, this revision petition.