The Gauhati High Court has held that an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court cannot enlarge its forum after the conclusion of hearing or retrospectively date a later decision without granting a fresh hearing.

Justice Budi Habung presiding over the case, observed, “Such enlargement of the forum after conclusion of hearing and retrospective dating of a later decision without further hearing, cannot be accepted, either, under the customary practices, or, the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.”

“The impugned procedure adopted by the Keba/Customary Court amounts to a violation of natural justice. Passing a decision in the absence of one party, especially, when the previous proceeding had concluded with a split decision, renders the order unsustainable in law,” the Court added

The above ruling was made in a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 CPC, challenging the decision of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court (Bango-level Kebang), Ubo Bango Circle.

The case arose from a dispute over a plot of land known as “Kesa Rike.” According to the record, the petitioner's father declared in 2022 that the land would belong to whichever son cared for him until his death. The respondents, being the sons of the petitioner's deceased elder brother, claimed to have looked after their grandfather, while the petitioner lodged complaints before the Head Gaon Burah seeking division of property among all brothers.

In April, 2025, the Customary Court (Kebang) allotted “Kesa Rike” to the petitioner. The respondents appealed to the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court, which delivered a split 7:7 verdict on 29 May 2025. The forum then issued a fresh Parwana fixing 9 June 2025 for further hearing and increased its strength by adding three additional Head Gaon Burahs.

The petitioner objected to the enlargement of the forum and indicated he would not attend the Re-Keba. The Bango-level forum nevertheless decided the matter on 9 June 2025 in his absence, but recorded the date of decision as 29 May 2025.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the decision was back-dated contrary to law and custom, and that newly appointed forum members who “did not even exist when the decision was made on 29.05.2025” had participated. It was submitted that the procedure violated Section 44(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, and that the petitioner had been present on 29 May 2025 when the final hearing ended in a split verdict.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter may be remanded to the appropriate forum for fresh adjudication.

After examining the record, the Court set aside the impugned decision “dated 09.06.2025, shown to have been decided on 29.05.2025,” and allowed the civil revision petition.

The Court granted liberty to either party to approach the competent Civil Court under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021(amended from time to time), for setting aside, or, fresh adjudication of the dispute relating to a plot of land i.e. “Kesa Rike”; or, in the alternative, either party may also approach the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex customary Court as may be competent under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

Case Number: CRP/70/2025

Case Title: Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak/Mayi & Anr.

Click here to read the judgment: