Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040012602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/344/2025 Tajen Diru Son of Shri Libo Diru, permanent resident of Tato Village, PO and PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented through the Secretary, General Administration, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Mechuka Shi Yomi District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Smti Yaying Kochung Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Late Tanya Kochung Gapo Village PO and PS Mechuka Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 26.03.2026 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Shri-Yomi District, Tato, Arunachal Pradesh (DC hereinafter), dated 10.03.2025, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure No. 6, at page No. 55. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned letter dated 10.03.2025, the DC has directed the petitioner to approach the civil court for early disposal of the case. 4. Mr. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, there was a land dispute in respect of the land parcel called Pape Rangom, at Shi-Yomi District, Tato and though several initiatives were taken to resolve the dispute amicably, the same failed to yield any result. Thereafter, as per direction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tato, vide order dated 14.09.2020, the matter was referred to Kebang and accordingly, Kebang was constituted and a meeting of Kebang was held on 03.10.2020 and the said Kebang, without hearing and considering the land demarcation records, in most illegal and arbitrary and bias manner, had passed a decision on 03.10.2020 and thereby, decided the dispute of the land in favour of private respondent No. 3. 4.1. Mr. Lollen further submits that being aggrieved by the decision of the Kebang, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, under Section 46 of Assam Page No.# 3/4 Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (1945 Regulation hereinafter) before the DC, on 18.10.2020, for reviewing the Kebang decision, dated 03.10.2020, by re-scheduling a fresh hearing of the case by appointing a new Kebang body, supervisors and members. But, even after receipt of said appeal, the DC, failed to take up the same for hearing and same was kept pending for several years and in the meantime, the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 (2021 Act hereinafter) and Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2022 (2022 Act hereinafter) came into force. 4.2. Mr. Lollen also submits that the second proviso of Sub-Section 3 to Section 15 of the 2022 Act provides that in case the DC could not dispose of the pending appeals in their Courts, within one year from the date of commencement of the 2021 Act, it shall transfer such pending appeal to the courts of Civil Judge Junior Division, Civil Judge Senior Division, Additional District Judge or the Courts of District Judge, as the case may be, as per their territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. 4.3. Mr. Lollen further submits that, thereafter, the DC has issued the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, directing both the parties to approach the appropriate court for early disposal of the case. 4.4. Mr. Lollen also submits that though the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the DC, in the meantime the 2021 Act and 2022 Act came into force and as per proviso of Sub-Section 3 to Section 15 of the 2022 Act, the DC ought to have transfer the appeal to the competent civil court. But, instead of transferring the case to the court of learned Civil Judge, Alo, the DC has simply directed the parties to approach the civil court. 4.5. Mr. Lollen further submits that as per tone and tenor of the Page No.# 4/4 aforementioned order, a fresh appeal has to be filed before the civil court and in that event, the question of limitation may also arise. In that view of the matter, Mr. Lollen submits that this petition may be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order so passed by the DC dated 10.03.2025 and also contended for issuing direction to the DC to transfer the appeal, in respect of land called Pape Rangom, at Shi-Yomi District, Tato, being filed by the petitioner, to the competent civil court. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents, submits that he has no objection in disposal of the petition with the aforesaid direction. 6. Accordingly, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances on the record and also taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and as agreed upon, the impugned order of the DC, dated 10.03.2025, stands set aside quashed. Further, it is provided that the DC shall transfer the appeal, so filed by the petitioner, in respect of the land dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent No. 3 herein, to the competent civil court. 7. The aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent No. 2, within a period of one week from today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant