Gauhati HC rules that customary courts in Arunachal Pradesh must adjudicate disputes on merits once jurisdiction is assumed and evidence recorded

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 338

May 5, 2026 : The Gauhati High Court has set aside an order by a village authority in Arunachal Pradesh that declined to settle a local property dispute, emphasizing that customary courts cannot abdicate their legal duties. In a recent judgment, Justice Budi Habung ruled that once a customary court begins proceedings and records evidence, it is obligated to decide the matter on its merits rather than simply directing the parties to a regular civil court.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Smti Techi Menia against Taba Tem regarding immovable property in Model Village, Naharlagun. Menia alleged that the respondent denied his step-father, Late Taba Tagra, owned land in the area, despite witnesses claiming the respondent had received a payment of ₹1,00,000 for a land measurement on the deceased’s behalf. While the respondent initially participated by filing a written statement, he failed to appear for the subsequent hearing.

Instead of passing a final judgment, the village authority of Model Village issued an order on August 30, 2025, advising the petitioner to seek relief in a regular civil court. The petitioner challenged this “MEL” order via a civil revision petition, arguing that the customary court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

The respondent’s counsel argued the petition was not maintainable, claiming that the petitioner should have filed an appeal instead of a revision. However, Justice Habung rejected this argument, noting that the village authority’s order was not a “final decision” or decree that could be appealed. The court found that because the customary court had already assumed jurisdiction and recorded evidence, its refusal to adjudicate the dispute was “unknown to law.”

Citing the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2023, the High Court clarified that customary authorities have the power to take ex-parte decisions if a party willfully remains absent after multiple opportunities to be heard. Justice Habung noted that a court cannot simply decline its duty because one party is uncooperative.

As a result, the High Court allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter back to the customary court of Model Village. The village authority is now directed to restore the case, issue fresh notices to the respondent, and provide a decision on the merits of the property claim.

Case Reference : CRP/102/2025, Smti Techi Menia is represented by Mr. D. Kamduk , while the respondent Taba Tem is represented by Mr. K. Tama, ld. Adv.