The Gauhati High Court ruled that an inter-village territorial customary court forum cannot enlarge its bench after the conclusion of hearing, nor can it back-date a decision without granting a fresh hearing to the parties involved. The case before the Court concerned a land dispute over a plot known as “Kesa Rike.” The petitioner’s father had declared in 2022 that the land would belong to whichever son took care of him until his death. After the father died, the petitioner applied for division of property among all sons. A lower customary court at the village level initially allotted “Kesa Rike” to the petitioner. The respondents, the sons of the petitioner’s deceased elder brother, challenged that decision before the inter-village customary court (Kebang), which delivered a split verdict: 7 votes in favour and 7 votes against on 29 May 2025.
Subsequently, the customary court issued a fresh notice (Parwana) scheduling further hearing on 9 June 2025, and enlarged its forum by adding three additional Head Gaon Burahs (village headmen) who had not formed part of the court on 29 May 2025. The petitioner objected and refused to attend the rehearing. Nevertheless, the customary court proceeded to decide the case on 9 June 2025, in the petitioner’s absence, and recorded the date of decision as the earlier date of 29 May 2025—i.e. back-dating the verdict.
Challenging this procedure, the petitioner filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court, in its judgment, observed that such enlargement of the forum after the conclusion of the hearing, and the retrospective dating of a decision without a fresh hearing, violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that neither traditional customary practices nor the statutory instrument governing customary justice in the region, the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, permitted such a procedure. The Court noted that passing an order in the absence of one party—especially when the earlier proceeding ended in a split decision—rendered the order legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the decision of the customary court. It granted to the parties the liberty to either approach a competent Civil Court under the relevant statutory framework for setting aside the decision and seeking fresh adjudication of the dispute over “Kesa Rike”, or to approach the appropriate inter-village or apex customary court under the Assam Frontier Regulation.
In doing so, the Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that customary courts, while operating under community practices, must respect basic tenets of fair hearing; they cannot retroactively adjust their composition after proceedings have concluded, nor can they claim past dates for decisions taken later — doing so amounts to a denial of natural justice and is vulnerable to being struck down in law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.