P. K. MUSAHARY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M. Boje, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also heard Mr. T. Leriak, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.04.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class-cum-Circle Officer, Koyu, East Siang District in Case No. Ky/HT-02/2007-08, whereby the petitioner has been directed to abide by the decision taken by the Kebang held on 14.03.2008. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in possession of a plot of land at Saku village since 1966, which was developed into cultivating paddy field by his father. The petitioner belongs to Boje clan while the respondent belongs to Kadu clan. The land in question situates in the area pre-dominantly inhabited by the Kadu clan. The petitioner is the only family, who belongs to Boje clan. According to the petitioner, the respondent with the help of some other people have been trying to encroach upon the petitioner's land. He made a written complaint before the Circle Officer, Koyu, East Siang District, on 07.01.2008 in this regard. Without forwarding the matter to the Police for registering a criminal case, the said Circle Officer forwarded the matter vide dated 21.02.2008 (Annexure-III to the revision petition) to the Head G. B. of Saku village with a direction to convene a meeting at 'Saku Dere' on 28.02.2008 and to give right decision/judgment. But the Keba was held on 14.03.2008 in which several decisions were taken. Although, the petitioner was present in the said 'Keba', he was not ready to accept the said decision of the 'Keba' and therefore, he made a representation dated 18.03.2008 (Annexure-V to the revision petition) to the Magistrate-cum-Circle Officer, Koyu requesting him to transfer the case from Kadu village to Circle Office at Koyu and decide the matter after convening a 'Keba' under his supervision. The Circle Officer, Koyu did not accede to the said request and passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2008 (Annex-ure-VI to the revision petition) upholding the decision of the 'Keba' and directing the petitioner to abide by the decision taken by the 'Keba' on 14.03.2008. Mr. Boje, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 19.04.2008 was passed by the Circle Officer-cum-Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Koyu without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such, it is illegal and unsustainable in law.
(3.) PER Contra, Mr. Leriak, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits that a spot verification was made by the learned Circle Officer on 07.04.2008. According to him, the petitioner was also informed and asked by the said Circle Officer to be present on the spot on 07.04.2008 but the petitioner remained absent inspite of being informed. Mr. Leriak further submits that some Public Interpreters were also informed to be present and accordingly they were present at the time of spot verification on 07.04.2008. In support of his submission, he refers to the statement made in para 10 of the counter affidavit, which is quoted below : "That as regard to the statement made in Para 9,10 and 11, the deponent state that the petitioner made a complaint to Circle Officer, Koyu and CO made a verification on 7.4.2008 with P.I. (Public Interpreter) and both parties were summoned to his office on 18.4.2008 and accordingly the deponent appeared but the petitioner did not appear and thereafter on 19.4.2008, the Circle Officer issued an order to comply the kebang decision which was decided on 14.3.2008 and the copy was served to the petitioner." Further submission of Mr. Leriak is that there is a provision for appeal under Section 47 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 before the Deputy Commissioner from any decision, original or appellate passed by the Assistant Commissioner which includes the Circle Officer. According to him, the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the decision/order of the Circle Officer, Koyu passed on 19.04.2008, the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner but he has not filed any such appeal and as such, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed, as being not maintainable.;