Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040016982025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/94/2025 Minjom Bagra Son of Late Imin Bagra, a permanent resident of Village Lipu Bagra, PO Bara, PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Bomli Basar Son of Shri Tobom Basar, a permanent resident of Village Gori-III, PO and PS Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 Heard Mr. Kemo Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By filing this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; the petitioner has challenged the second Parwana, dated 21.09.2025, issued by the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex Customary Court, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, in appeal preferred by the respondent against the Keba Decision, dated 16.07.2025, passed by the Customary Court of Gori village, Basar, Leparada, Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/3 3. The contention of the petitioner is that being aggrieved by the Keba order, dated 16.07.2025, both the petitioner and the sole respondent have preferred separate appeals before the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex Customary Court, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh. However, parwana has been issued only in respect of the appeal filed by the respondent. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since both the appeals preferred by the petitioner as well as the sole respondent are against the same Keba decision, dated 16.07.2025; therefore, the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex Customary Court, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, ought to have clubbed both the appeals together and taken-up for hearing, and by not taking up both the appeals together, caused prejudice to the petitioner as there would be no Keba member representative from the petitioner side. 5. From the documents available, it appears that both the appeals have arisen out of the Keba decision, dated 16.07.2025, and both the petitioner as well as the respondent have preferred separate appeals before the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex Customary Court, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, and under such circumstances; the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex Customary Court, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, ought to have clubbed both the appeals together and taken-up for hearing. 6. However, in the instant case, it appears that despite a separate appeal being filed by the petitioner, the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court has Page No.# 3/3 issued parwana only in respect of the appeal filed by the respondent. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and considering that both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, dated 16.07.2025, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if both the appeals are heard together by the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court. 8. Accordingly, while not entering into the merit of the case, this civil revision petition is disposed of at the motion stage. The Inter Village Territorial Customary Court is directed to club both the appeals preferred by the petitioner as well as by the respondent and proceed to hear and dispose of the same together in accordance with law. The appellate Inter Village Territorial Customary Court shall also ensure that equal number of Keba members from both sides are appointed so as to maintain fairness and impartiality in the proceedings. 9. As a result, the parwana, dated 21.09.2025, fixing the Keba on 01.10.2025, is hereby set aside and quashed. 10. With the above directions, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant