JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Shri Raja Palong, has put to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15.01.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, constituting a District Level Kebang; the decision of District Level Kebang, dated 19.01.2018; and the impugned orders dated 22.05.2018 & 10.07.2018, reminding the mother of the petitioner to repay the debt amount; the order dated 23.10.2018, directing the mother of the petitioner to handover her Motung Patang (WRC Field) and Rs. 10,80,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs eighty thousand) only to private respondent No. 3; the summons dated 03.11.2021 & 22.11.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, and the order dated 14.03.2022; the order dated 14.03.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, directing the petitioner to handover the Motung Patang (WRC Field) to private respondent No. 3; and the proceeding and decision arising out of impugned order dated 15.01.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The father of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 3 entered into a Sale Agreement of timber, dated 07.08.2005, and the respondent No. 3, was allowed to cut timber from the land. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his mother reentered into an Agreement, dated 14.08.2014, with the private respondent No 3. Thereafter, one Marge Rolley, private respondent No. 4, has started stealing timbers from the land and, thereafter, the private respondent No. 3 has filed a complaint alleging that the mother of the petitioner is selling timbers to the respondent No. 4. Upon the said complaint, a Kebang proceeding was initiated and in the said Kebang, late mother of the petitioner submitted that she had not allowed the private respondent No. 4 to fell trees and to collect timbers from the land. Thereafter, the Kebang found that the late mother of the petitioner is innocent and the private respondent No. 4 is responsible for all the ruckus and, thereafter, the Kebang, on 29.04.2016, took a decision and imposed fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only upon the private respondent No. 4, which was to be paid to private respondent No. 3 and in failing to which, the respondent No. 4 has to surrender his JCB No. AR-01A-5669 3D. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only upon the private respondent No. 4, which was to be paid to private respondent No. 3 and in failing to which, the respondent No. 4 has to surrender his JCB No. AR-01A-5669 3D. Thereafter, the private respondent No. 3, filed an application for execution of the Kebang decision, dated 29.04.2016, before the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District. But the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, instead of initiating execution proceeding, has constituted a District Level Kebang, vide impugned order dated 05.01.2018, which, in fact, is a coram non judice. Subsequently, the District Level Kebang decision, vide order dated 29.01.2018, found the mother of the petitioner guilty and convicted her. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 again filed one Execution Application before the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, and vide impugned Execution Order, dated 23.10.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, directed late mother of the petitioner to handover Motung Patang (WRC Field) and Rs. 10,80,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs eighty thousand) only to private respondent No. 3, in spite of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to take up the matter in view of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, which was communicated to him on 19.08.2021. But, the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, ignored the said communication and issued summon to the petitioner vide orders dated 03.11.2021 & 22.11.2021 and finally, vide order dated 14.03.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, directed the petitioner to handover Motung Patang (WRC Field) to the private respondent No. 3 and further directed to stop cultivation over WRC Field at Kaying with immediate effect. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the entire proceeding and the decision arising out of the impugned order dated 15.01.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District.” 3. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no provision in the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, for holding District Level Kebang, which is a coram non judice and as such, the impugned order, dated 15.01.2018, by which the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Panging, ordered for holding District Level Kebang, suffers from manifest illegality and the said order and all subsequent proceeding and decision may be set aside and quashed and the parties may be directed to approach appropriate forum under appropriate provision of law, if so advised. 4. The above submission of Mr. 4. The above submission of Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner, is not disputed by Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. Mr. Soki submits that there is no provision of holding District Level Kebang in the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, and as such, the impugned order, dated 15.01.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, is not sustainable in law and that by setting aside the same and also by setting aside all the subsequent proceedings, the writ petition may be disposed of at this motion stage itself. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also considered the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides and I find sufficient force in the submission made at the Bar. 6. It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a petition for execution of the Kebang decision, dated 29.04.2016, by which, a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only was imposed upon respondent No. 4 and upon the said execution proceeding against the private respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, ordered for constitution of District Level Kebang vide order dated 15.01.2018, which, in fact, is a coram non judice. The impugned order, dated 15.01.2018, thus, suffers from manifest illegality and failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. And as agreed to by the parties, the same stands set aside and quashed. In view of quashing of the aforesaid order, dated 15.01.2018, all the subsequent proceedings and orders including the summons, dated 03.11.2021 & 22.11.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, stands set aside and quashed. 7. However, it is being clarified that this order would not stand in the way of approaching any appropriate authority by the affected parties under appropriate provision of law. 8. In terms of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own cost.