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

The Court was considering an Application assailing the decision of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court allegedly decided on June 09, 2025, but, shown as May 29, 2025, in Appeal against the order of the Customary Court.

The bench of Justice Budi Habung held, "It is evident from the record that the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court initially gave a split verdict(7:7) on 29.05.2025 and thereafter, the strength of the forum was enlarged by adding three more HGBs. 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 Applicant was represented by Advocate Marto Kato while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Kemo Lollen.

Facts of the Case

The father of the Petitioner who is a grandfather of the Respondent, made a declaration that whosoever takes care of him till his death, shall be entitled to his land known as “Kesa Rike”.

The Respondent, herein, being the son of the Petitioner’s deceased elder brother, claims to have looked after his grandfather till his death. The Petitioner, opposing the declaration made by his father, lodged a complaint before the Head Gaon Burah(HGB). The said complaint was allegedly not attended to by the Keba for decision during the life time of the father

After the father’s death on March 03, 2025, the Petitioner filed a Second Complaint before the same Head Gaon Burah(HGB), seeking division of the father’s properties among all brothers.

By order, dated April 19, 2025, the Customary Court divided the properties, whereby the disputed land “Kesa Rike” was allotted to the Petitioner, contrary to the father’s earlier wish to be inherited by a person, whosoever, takes care of him till his death.

Aggrieved of the same, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the InterVillage Territorial(Apex) Customary Court. On May 29, 2025, the Keba delivered a split decision(7:7) and, being unable to reach a conclusion, the Keba issued a ReParwana fixing June 09, 2025 for further hearing and this time, increased the members of the Forum by appointing three additional HGBs in the bench.

The Petitioner objected to the fresh Parwana and appointment of the additional forum members. The petitioner also indicated that he would not be attending the Re-Keba on the matter. Nevertheless, on June 09, 2025, the Bango Kebang decided the matter in the absence of the Petitioner, but, noted the date of the decision retrospectively as May 29, 2025.

The Petitioner alleged that only those members who had earlier supported the Respondents, had participated in the said Re-Keba and signed the decision. Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the impugned decision was passed and signed back-dated with retrospective effect, contrary to law and custom. He contended that the participation of newly appointed HGB members who were not part of the earlier deliberations vitiates the proceedings as they did not even exist when the decision was made.

The Counsel argued that the procedure adopted by the Keba(Customary Court) violates the provisions of Section 44(1) of the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, which provides for an exparte decision only after a party willfully remained absent for three consecutive occasions with 30-day intervals, after giving due opportunity of hearing.

Reasoning By Court

The Court accepted the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner that 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.....Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and in view of the willingness expressed by both parties for a lawful reconsideration, the impugned decision deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to the appropriate forum for adjudication of the matter, afresh, in accordance with law", the Court ruled.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak (2025:GAU-AP:1326)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Marto Kato, Advocate Liya Keche, Advocate Tony Meto, Advocate Kamin Teri, Advocate Yasmin Gao, Advocate Mepe

Ete,Nyali Sora

Respondent- Advocate Kemo Lollen, Advocate Arun Yun, Advocate Nyali Sora, Advocate Nyai Loyi, Advocate Geli Taye, Advocate D Ado

Click here to read/ download Order

Gauhati High CourtJustice Budi Habung

Sheetal Joon