JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Lolang Bagang, has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order of Mel proceeding No. DC/ICC/JUD/MISC/2015, dated 28.09.2015, 16.10.2015 and 03.11.2015; the Mel Decision in Case No. DC/ICC/JUD/MISC/2015, dated 10.11.2015 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, dated 30.09.2016, vide No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under: “The petitioner, herein, Shri Lolang Bagang, had possessed a plot of land situated at Model Village Naharlagun comprising of an area of 216 Sq. Meters, by virtue of Gift Deed executed in his favour by Smti Techi Menia, the respondent No. 4 herein, dated 17.02.2014, and the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, vide LPC No. DC/CC/LPC-18/08, dated 05.10.2015, has issued fresh LPC to him. Thereafter, Smti Techi Menia, who is the private respondent No. 4 here in this case, lodged a complaint before the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Naharlagun, requesting for Mel Order and thereafter the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Naharlagun, respondent No. 3, has issued 3 (three) Mel Orders, dated 28.09.2015, 16.10.2015 and 03.11.2015, respectively, wherein, the list of Arbitrators for both the parties were readily prepared by the respondent No. 3. But, not a single copy of the aforesaid 3 (three) orders have been served to the petitioner though there is a provision under Section 38 (1) and (2) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945, for arbitration and Mel proceeding and on agreed by the parties, each party shall nominate as equal number of the Panchayat, Political Officer and Assistant Political Officer either to choose or direct the Panchayat to choose a further person a umpire, which is violated by the respondent No. 3 and all the members present in the so called Mel including the respondent No. 3, is aware of that the private respondent No. 4, Smt. Techi Menia, has gifted the aforesaid plot of land by virtue of Gift Deed, dated 17.02.2014, and the same Mel proceeding was conducted at the will of the complainant including the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Naharlagun, and there is no provision for single party hearing and the order dated 30.09.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, in Case No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08(Pt), reflects that the Mel order has been passed by the respondent No. 3, on 10.11.2015, in favour of the respondent No. 4 without hearing the writ petitioner and the Mel Order, dated 10.11.2015, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the cancellation order was also passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner is the apex authority in terms of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945, and hearing can be made by the Deputy Commissioner when it comes in the forms of Appeal or else the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to decide the Mel order. The order dated 30.09.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in the Case No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08(Pt), reflects that the civil suit was proceeded in the Court of Deputy Commissioner for land dispute case in between Smt. Techi Menia vs. Lolang Bagang over a plot of land measuring 216 Sq. Mtrs. and the order dated 10.09.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, is not valid in the eye of law and he has no jurisdiction and no authority to try the civil suit and it is the Civil Court to decide the matter after due proceeding and as such, the order dated 30.09.2016 is liable to be set aside. and the order dated 10.09.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, is not valid in the eye of law and he has no jurisdiction and no authority to try the civil suit and it is the Civil Court to decide the matter after due proceeding and as such, the order dated 30.09.2016 is liable to be set aside. That, after separation judiciary from administrative authority in the State of Arunachal in the year 2013 and in view of Notification dated 06.01.2014, the judicial powers of the executive authority of the Arunachal Pradesh, with all judicial matters, stood transferred to the judicial authority concerned and that the cancellation order of the LPC, dated 03.11.2015, was lately known by the petitioner as the Office of the Deputy Commissioner has not intimated him about the same and that the petitioner has approached the Deputy Commissioner on several occasion for recalling the order dated 30.09.2016, but no response has been received by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court.” 3. Private respondent No. 4, Smti Techi Menia, also submitted her affidavit-in-opposition and raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition on 2 (two) grounds, viz. (i) alternate and efficacacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 46 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945, to prefer appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, but the petitioner has not preferred the same and (ii) the issues involved in the petition are disputed question of fact which cannot be determined by the Writ Court. It is also stated that pursuant to an oral agreement between her and the petitioner, a Gift Deed, dated 17.02.2014, was executed and the petitioner has agreed to make payment on behalf of the respondent No. 4 of outstanding loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only to Smti Lusi Techi, Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only to Smti Kyochi Bagang and Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) only to Smti Sangte Bagang, and on the basis of the said oral agreement, respondent No. 4, on good faith, has executed the Gift Deed, of land measuring 216 Sq. Mtrs. of the respondent No. 4, situated at Model Village Naharlagun, in favour of the petitioner. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) only to Smti Sangte Bagang, and on the basis of the said oral agreement, respondent No. 4, on good faith, has executed the Gift Deed, of land measuring 216 Sq. Mtrs. of the respondent No. 4, situated at Model Village Naharlagun, in favour of the petitioner. But, the petitioner, without performing his part of the contract of liquidating the liabilities of the respondent No. 4 obtained fresh LPC of the said land and thereafter, he was trying to sell the said land to one Shri Kumar Tajo by way of Gift Deed, dated 09.10.2015. Then, she has lodged the complaint, dated 18.08.2015, against the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex. It is also stated that on the basis of the complaint lodged by her, the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, has forwarded and endorsed the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, for conducting Mel and accordingly, Mel proceedings were conducted on 16.10.2015, 03.11.2015 and 10.11.2015 as per Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945 and on 16.10.2015 and 10.11.2015, the petitioner has not attended the Mel proceeding. But, on 03.11.2015, he was present in the Mel proceeding where he had admitted before the Mel that he could not perform his part of agreement to liquidity the debt of the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, he does not have any right over the said land and accordingly, the Mel, conducted on 03.11.2015, where the petitioner remained absent and on the basis of petitioner’s statement made on 16.10.2015, has taken the decision and restored the land to the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner did not object to the Mel proceeding that was conducted on 16.10.2015 and the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, has never disposed of the application dated 02.11.2015 and 12.11.2015 of the respondent No. 4 in terms of Mel decision. It is to be noted here that averment so made by the respondent No. 4 in her affidavit in opposition in respect of the Mel Proceeding is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply to the same. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petition. It is to be noted here that averment so made by the respondent No. 4 in her affidavit in opposition in respect of the Mel Proceeding is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply to the same. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioner did not appeared before the Mel conducted pursuant to the order of the Extra Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner has admitted about non-performing of his part of contract and he intentionally remained absent on 10.11.2015 and then the village authorities have taken the impugned ex-parte decision. It is also stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, consequent upon forwarding of the Mel decision, dated 10.11.2015, as it was not an appeal of either of the parties, passed the impugned order and he only acted officially as per forwarding of the Mel decision dated 10.11.2015 and he has the jurisdiction to execute the Mel decision and accordingly, he has acted within his administrative jurisdiction and that by the notification, dated 06.01.2014, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner has not been taken away and the impugned Order No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08(Pt), dated 30.09.2016, was passed in consequent of a Mel Order No. DC/ICC/JUD/MISC/2018, dated 10.11.2015. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard Mr. X. Gyati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate representing State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 6. Mr. X. Gyati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Keba decision was taken in absence of the petitioner and that the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the LPC without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as such, the principle of natural justice is violated here in this case and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. Mr. Gyati further submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner by which the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the LPC. Therefore, Mr. Gyati contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned Keba decision and decision of cancellation of the LPC of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mr. Gyati further submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner by which the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the LPC. Therefore, Mr. Gyati contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned Keba decision and decision of cancellation of the LPC of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. Per contra, Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4, submits that the respondent No. 4 has some liabilities with some other persons and in order to liquidate all those loans, she has gifted a plot of land to the petitioner, who assured to liquidate all her loans. But, after the land is gifted to him, he has sold the land to another person without performing his part of agreement and as such, the respondent No. 4 has lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner and the same was referred to Village Level Keba and on 3 (three) sessions, the Keba was conducted. In the second sessions, the petitioner appeared. But, later on, he defaulted despite knowing about the same and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the decision of the Keba and cancelled the LPC issued to the petitioner. Mr. Kamduk further submits that the petitioner, before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has not exhausted the alternative remedy as there is provision for Appeal against the Keba decision and without exhausting that remedy, the petitioner approached this Court directly and as such, this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Mr. Kamduk further submits that the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to cancel the LPC if the same was issued erroneously. Mr. Kamduk further submits that the Court is not entitled to go into the disputed facts here in this case and as such, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Mr. Y. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate representing State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, submits that the Deputy Commissioner has simply affirmed the decision of the Keba while cancelling the LPC of the petitioner and he has every right to cancel the same if the same is found to be not in accordance with law. 9. 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 advanced by the learned Advocates at the Bar. 9. 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 advanced by the learned Advocates at the Bar. 10. The principle of law, which are required to be followed by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771 . In the said case it has been held as under: “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 28. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court in Chand Ratan vs. Pandit Durga Prasad, Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and Rajasthan SEB vs. Union of India among other decisions.” 11. Now, averting to the factual matrix of the case in hand I find that the Deputy Commissioner, vide its order dated 30.09.2016, has cancelled the LPC of the petitioner and restored the land measuring 216 Sq. Mtrs. at Model Village Naharlagun in favour of Smti Techi Menia, who is the private respondent No. 4 here in this case. Having carefully gone through the order dated 30.09.2016, I find that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order in the Case No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08(Pt) without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and he has affirmed the decision of the Keba, held on 10.11.2015, wherein, the Keba, taking its earlier decision dated 03.11.2015, concluded that the land in question belongs to Smti Techi Menia and in claim of ownership of the same, either by Shri Lolang Bagang or Shri Kumar Tajo, cannot be entertained. The Deputy Commissioner has observed that Shri Lolang Bagang has tried to cheat Smt. Techi Menia in furtherance of his ill intention, he got an agreement executed by Techi Menia in his favour and without performing his part of the agreement he again got the gift deed signed. Bu the statements of the witnesses revealed the ill intention of Lolang Bagang and, therefore, it was decided the matter in favour of Techi Menia and strongly recommends for restoring the land to Smt. Techi Menia. 12. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner has issued Land Possession Certificate (LPC) to the petitioner in respect of the said land. But, before cancellation of the same and before curtailing the right of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner. The notice requirement and the fair hearing requirements have not been complied with here in this case. But, before cancellation of the same and before curtailing the right of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner. The notice requirement and the fair hearing requirements have not been complied with here in this case. As no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, his right to fair hearing and consequently the principle of natural justice stands violated here in this case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.09.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, cannot withstand the test of correctness and accordingly, the same stands set aside. 13. But, having gone through the decision of Keba, I find that, before holding Keba on 16.10.2015, 03.11.2015 and 10.11.2015, the petitioner was duly notified by the concerned authority i.e. the respondent No. 3. But, in spite of being notified, the petitioner remained absent in the Keba, held on 16.10.2015 and although he appeared before the Keba on 03.11.2015 and took part for deliberation in the same and admitted the claim of Smt. Techi Menia and basis on which, the Keba has taken a decision on 10.11.2015, on which, the petitioner remained absent in spite of being duly notified. Therefore, the Keba, held on 10.11.2015, arrived at the decision on the basis of the deliberation of the Keba, held on 03.11.2015, and as such, it cannot be said that the decision of the Keba, held on 10.11.2015, suffers from any infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. 14. Though Mr. Therefore, the Keba, held on 10.11.2015, arrived at the decision on the basis of the deliberation of the Keba, held on 03.11.2015, and as such, it cannot be said that the decision of the Keba, held on 10.11.2015, suffers from any infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. 14. Though Mr. Kamduk has submitted that alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner who could have file an Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and after repealing of Section 46 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945 by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, the petitioner has the opportunity of filing an Appeal before the District Judge against the Keba decision and also the facts, here in this case, are disputed and as such, this Court cannot go and decide the question of disputed fact and issue writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet, in view of the ratio laid down in the Radha Krishan Industries (Supra), this Court left unimpressed by his submission and the case of the petitioner falls in the category of exception to the rule of alternative remedy as the principle of natural justice stands violated here in this case. 15. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 that the facts are disputed herein this case, and this court is not entitled to go into the same, yet, given the nature of controversy, this Court has the right to go into the same by exercising judicial discretion, as held by Hon’ble Supreme in the Case of Radha Krishan Industries (Supra) and in the case of ABL International Ltd. and Others vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 . 16. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, dated 30.09.2016, Vide No. DC/LM/LPC-18/08(Pt), stands set aside and quashed, as the same was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and by which, the principle of natural justice stands violated. It is provided that the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, will hear the matter of cancellation afresh, by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, thereafter, to take a fresh decision upon the same. It is provided that the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar, will hear the matter of cancellation afresh, by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, thereafter, to take a fresh decision upon the same. The above exercise has to be carried out within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner is directed to obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and to place the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, Itanagar. However, I find that the impugned Keba decisions require no interference of this court and accordingly, the same stands affirmed. 17. The writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above. The parties have to bear their own costs.