High Court Rejects Plea That Only A Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC Lies Against Decisions Of Inter-Village Territorial Customary Courts
Itanagar, June 16: The Gauhati High Court has held that an appeal against an order passed by an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court (Keba) or Apex Customary Court in Arunachal Pradesh is maintainable before the competent Civil Court under Section 15(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2022, and cannot be treated as a "Second Appeal" directly maintainable before the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Justice Budi Habung passed the judgment while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition filed by Bomli Basar challenging the maintainability of an appeal pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo. The petitioner had contended that once the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court had already exercised appellate jurisdiction, any further challenge could only be by way of a Second Appeal before the High Court under Section 100 CPC.
Background
The dispute arose out of a long-standing ancestral land ownership conflict in Basar, Arunachal Pradesh. Following proceedings before the Village Authority and subsequent appeals before the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court/Apex Customary Court, the customary appellate forum held in February 2026 that only half an acre of the disputed land had been sold and that the remaining land belonged to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by that decision, the respondent approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo, under Section 15(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2022. The Civil Court admitted the appeal and granted interim protection, prompting the petitioner to invoke the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Petitioner's Argument
The petitioner argued that the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court functions as a first appellate authority. Therefore, any further challenge would amount to a "Second Appeal" and could only be entertained by the High Court under Section 100 CPC. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments dealing with repugnancy between State legislation and Central laws, including Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann and Secretary to Government of Kerala v. James Varghese.
It was further contended that allowing another appeal before a Civil Judge would effectively create an additional appellate layer not contemplated by the CPC and would render Section 100 CPC redundant.
Court's Analysis
Rejecting the contention, the High Court examined Section 15(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2022 and observed that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous.
The Court noted that the provision specifically creates a two-tier appellate structure:
- Appeals from Village Authorities or Customary Courts lie before the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court/Apex Customary Court; and
- Appeals against orders of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court/Apex Customary Court lie before the competent Civil Court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
According to the Court, the legislature deliberately provided a separate appellate mechanism for customary adjudicatory institutions operating in Arunachal Pradesh and expressly designated Civil Courts as the next appellate forum.
Special Statute Prevails Over General CPC Provisions
The High Court held that the right of appeal is purely a statutory right and its scope, form and extent are governed by the statute creating such right. The Court observed that Section 15(4) constitutes a special statutory appellate mechanism and therefore prevails over the general provisions of the CPC.
The Court further observed that Section 100 CPC governs second appeals arising from appellate decrees passed under the CPC by courts subordinate to the High Court. However, disputes originating from customary courts in Arunachal Pradesh are governed by a special legislative framework, making the statutory appeal under Section 15(4) distinct from a conventional second appeal under the CPC.
No Repugnancy With CPC
Addressing the argument based on Article 254 of the Constitution, the Court held that no repugnancy existed between Section 15(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act and Section 100 CPC.
The Court reasoned that the State legislation merely creates a special appellate forum for customary court decisions and does not conflict with the CPC. Since the legislature expressly provided for appeals from Apex Customary Courts to Civil Courts, the statutory mechanism must be given full effect.
Decision
Dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court held that:
- The appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo, is maintainable under Section 15(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2022;
- Such appeal cannot be treated as a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC directly maintainable before the High Court; and
- The order admitting the appeal and granting interim stay does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Court accordingly vacated the interim protection granted in the revision proceedings and directed the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aalo, to proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.