JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Ms. N. Danggen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. T.T. Tara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (for short referred to as the “Regulation”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Rumgong issued vide Memo No. RMG/JUD-20(K)/2016-17/1181. 3. The controversy which arises before this Court is in relation to the Power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the Regulation. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy, it is relevant to take note of the facts of the case. 4. Certain disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Respondents over a plot of land. The village authorities i.e. the Kebang gave a decision on 16.12.2011 thereby marking out the boundary of the stream and also to the extent of right of coverage of the stream owner in the land area in between the Jhum land and the stream. The Kebang further decided that starting from the stream up to 150 feet was declared in favour of the Respondents. The right, title and possession over 150 feet were decided in favour of the petitioner. The Petitioner thereupon received an order from the Circle Officer, Payum to attend a meeting. On getting the said order, the petitioner lodged a complaint stating inter-alia that the case has already been settled and both the parties agreed upon the decision. However a second Kebang was held on 16.03.2012 and an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner directing re-verification of the disputed land. However, the said re-verification did not take place as the petitioner refused to participate. 5. On 26.03.2012, the Respondents herein alongwith one Sri. Taling Tatan filed an appeal against the Kebang decision dated 16.03.2012 under Section 46 of the Regulation before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo. The petitioner herein raised various objections including the preliminary objection of Res-Judicata. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Basar. The said Court vide an order dated 24.02.2014 rejected the said appeal thereby on technical ground granting the liberty to the Respondents herein along with one Mr. Taling Tatan to file an appeal afresh. The petitioner herein raised various objections including the preliminary objection of Res-Judicata. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Basar. The said Court vide an order dated 24.02.2014 rejected the said appeal thereby on technical ground granting the liberty to the Respondents herein along with one Mr. Taling Tatan to file an appeal afresh. Thereupon, the said Respondents herein alongwith Sri Taling Tatan preferred an appeal before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Basar. The said Court vide an order dated 24.03.2014 directed the Circle Officer Payum to make necessary spot verification of the disputed land and to find out the real owner in the village level itself. Pursuant to that, an order was passed by the Circle Officer on 24.03.2014 whereby the parties were directed to appear at the spot verification without fail with all their witnesses and evidences in support of their claims so that the physical verification could take place on 26.06.2014. The parties were also directed to appear before the Circle Officer on 23.06.2014 for preliminary hearing. 6. The Petitioner submitted an application before the Circle Officer that he intended to prefer a revision application against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Basar and as such he shall not appear in such physical verification proceedings. The record further reveals that on 14.07.2014, the Circle Officer passed an order holding that the Respondents were the owners of the disputed land and the Petitioner’s claim over the disputed land was unfounded and consequently directed the Petitioner to refrain from taking up any activities of any nature on the disputed land as it belongs to the Respondents who are the actual owners of the said land. 7. The record further shows that against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 24.03.2014 as well as the consequential order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Circle Officer, a Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court which was registered and numbered as CRP No. 16 (AP)/2014. This Court vide a judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 observed that the impugned report of the Circle Officer was beyond his jurisdiction and accordingly liable to be set aside and quashed. This Court vide a judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 observed that the impugned report of the Circle Officer was beyond his jurisdiction and accordingly liable to be set aside and quashed. It was further observed that the learned Additional District Judge, Basar had disposed of the appeal simply by referring the matter to the Circle Officer without any finding on merit and as an appeal against the village authority lies to the Deputy Commissioner, the Petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law and the Deputy Commissioner was directed that upon filing of such appeal he shall dispose of the same in terms with Section 46 of the Regulation. 8. From the record, it further appears that the Respondent herein thereafter preferred an appeal against the decision of the Kebang dated 16.12.2011 as well as 16.03.2012. The said appeal so filed by the Respondents herein was transferred to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Rumgong for disposal by the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District. The Additional Deputy Commissioner vide an order dated 25.08.2016 passed an order wherein it inter alia observed that on perusal of the materials on record, it appeared that the case needs to be settled at the Banggo level in connection with the land dispute between the Petitioner and the respondents herein and as such a Banggo level Kebang was fixed on 07.09.2016 at Row Village for amicable settlement of the case. The HGB, GBs of various villages were directed to attend the said case without fail and it was further mentioned that one Mr. Tanye Gaduk, Payum Circle Gaon Bura President was appointed as the Kebang Chairman and Sri. Tagom Pajing, P.I. ADC Office Rumgong and Sri. Tanjir Panggam, P.I. Payum shall supervise the proceedings to the case supervisors. 9. The petitioner on receipt of the said order dated 25.08.2016 submitted a representation on 07.09.2016 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rumgong, District Siang praying for recalling the order dated 25.08.2016 as such order was ultra-vires Regulation. However, on 07.09.2016, the Kebang rendered a decision holding inter-alia that the disputed land belongs to the Respondents and the Petitioner does not possession over the disputed land. On 26.10.2016, the appeal was taken up for consideration by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, passed an order dated 26.10.2016. However, on 07.09.2016, the Kebang rendered a decision holding inter-alia that the disputed land belongs to the Respondents and the Petitioner does not possession over the disputed land. On 26.10.2016, the appeal was taken up for consideration by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, passed an order dated 26.10.2016. A perusal of the said order dated 26.10.2016, would show that the learned counsel for the Petitioner herein sought for sometime for filing their reply/written statement against the petition and the said Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner fixed on 29.11.2016. The record further reveals that the Petitioner filed his written statement in the said proceedings as well as also an application challenging their maintainability of the said proceedings. 10. The Court of the Additional District Commissioner, Siang District thereafter on 29.11.2016 took up the matter. The said Court after hearing the parties held that the appeal was maintainable as it was not time barred. It was observed that as the Petitioner could not attend the Banggo Level Kebang on 07.09.2016 and an opportunity of being heard at the Kebang ought to be given to the Petitioner and therefore, the Banggo level Kebang dated 07.09.2016 was set aside. It was further decided that the disputed area is located in a dense and typical location and relates to ownership and title as per customary law, the case needs to be decided through the village authorities. The learned Court below further directed de novo trial in the larger interest of the justice under the provisions of Section 46(3) of the Regulation. It was also directed that the village authorities shall also make a spot verification of the disputed area and furnish the detail reports/findings to the Court and the village authority shall sit on 22.12.2016 at Chiying to decide over the disputed land area lying around Ngorung stream and the said Kebang shall be supervised by Sri. Mukjum Tally, P.I. and Sri. Ongir Panggam P.I. EAC Office Kaying. One Mr. Tanye Gaduk GM President Payum Circle Offficer was to chair the said Kebang. It is against the said order dated 29.11.2016 that the Petitioners are before this Court under Section 50 of the Regulation and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Mukjum Tally, P.I. and Sri. Ongir Panggam P.I. EAC Office Kaying. One Mr. Tanye Gaduk GM President Payum Circle Offficer was to chair the said Kebang. It is against the said order dated 29.11.2016 that the Petitioners are before this Court under Section 50 of the Regulation and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. This Court vide an order dated 19.12.2016 issued notice making it returnable by 3 (three) weeks and in the interim, stayed the operation of the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District Rumgong. The records further reveals that the Respondents herein have filed their Affidavit-in-opposition. From a perusal of the said Affidavit-in-opposition, it shows that the revision application was not maintainable in law as well as devoid of any merits. It was the specific stand taken that the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner vide its impugned order dated 29.11.2016 had referred the matter for arbitration under the provisions of Section 46(3) of the Regulation and as such there is no illegalities in passing of the said order. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter. From the contentions so made by the learned counsels for the parties, the points for determination which arise for consideration is as to whether the order dated 29.11.2016 by which the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner amounts to a reference to arbitration by the Panchayat and secondly as to whether the Court below had exercised the jurisdiction in terms with Section 46 of the Regulation. Another aspect which arises for consideration is that in the meantime during the pendency of the instant proceedings, the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 came into force w.e.f. 12.04.2021 and as such the effect on the present proceedings in view of the said Act of 2021. For the purpose of deciding the said points for determination as culled out, it would be relevant to take into consideration some of provisions of Chapter-IV of the Regulation. Section 38 deals with Arbitration. The said Section 38 is quoted herein-below: “38. (1) [The Deputy Commissioner] and [Assistant Commissioner] shall in every case in which both parties are indigenous to the [Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh] endeavour to persuade them to submit to arbitration by a panchayat. Section 38 deals with Arbitration. The said Section 38 is quoted herein-below: “38. (1) [The Deputy Commissioner] and [Assistant Commissioner] shall in every case in which both parties are indigenous to the [Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh] endeavour to persuade them to submit to arbitration by a panchayat. (2) If the parties agree, each party shall nominate an equal number of members of the panchayat, and the [The Deputy Commissioner] or [Assistant Commissioner] shall either choose, or direct the panchayat to choose, a further person as umpire. (3) The names and addresses of the members of the panchayat and umpire and a statement of the matter in dispute shall be recorded, and the [The Deputy Commissioner] or [Assistant Commissioner] shall direct the village authority or some other person to assemble the panchayat and witnesses within such time as he may specify, and also fix a date on which the decision of the panchayat shall be announced before him. (4) The umpire shall have no vote as a member of the panchayat, but shall enter on and decide the matter in dispute if the panchayat, or a majority of its members, are unable to agree on their decision before the date fixed under sub-section (3). (5) On the date fixed for the announcement of the decision, the umpire and the parties shall appear before the Court which directed the arbitration, and the Court shall record the decision together with any order which if considers reasonable for the payment, or apportionment of the costs of the panchayat’s proceedings. (6) The decision so recorded shall be enforceable as if it was a decision of the Court recording it and shall be final.” 13. A reading of the above quoted provision would show that as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 38, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Deputy Commissioner shall in every case in which both parties who are indigenous make an endeavour to persuade the parties to submit to arbitration by Panchayat. Sub-Section (2) stipulates that if the parties agree, each party shall nominate an equal number of members of the Panchayat and the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner shall either choose or direct the Panchayat to choose a further person as an umpire. 14. Sub-Section (2) stipulates that if the parties agree, each party shall nominate an equal number of members of the Panchayat and the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner shall either choose or direct the Panchayat to choose a further person as an umpire. 14. The use of the words “endeavour to persuade them to submit to arbitration by Panchayat” in Sub-Section (1) of Section 38 and the words “if the parties agree” in Sub-Section (2) of Section 38 makes it clear that the Court of the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner cannot impose upon the parties to submit to arbitration by Panchayat but would depend upon the volition of the parties to submit to arbitration by the Panchayat. Further to that, it would also be seen from Sub-Section (2) of Section 38 that upon the parties agreeing each such parties shall nominate an equal number of members of Panchayat and the power has been vested upon the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner to either choose or direct the Panchayat to choose a further person as an umpire. This would therefore show that if a party does not agree, then in that case, there cannot be a valid Constitution of the Panchayat as each party has to nominate an equal number of members to the Panchayat. 15. In the backdrop of the above, if this court takes into consideration the directions which have been passed in the order dated 29.11.2016, it would be seen that there is no element of the parties agreeing to submit to arbitration by a Panchayat is present. On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court below was of the opinion that as the disputed area is located in dense and typical location and relates to dispute of ownership and title under customary law, the case needs to be decided through the village authorities. Further to that, it also appears from the directions that the village authorities were directed to sit on 22.12.2016 to decide over the disputed land to be supervised by the 2 (two) PIs and the Gaon Bura cum President Payum Circle. These directions under no stretch of imagination can be said to be a reference to the Panchayat. Further to that, it also appears from the directions that the village authorities were directed to sit on 22.12.2016 to decide over the disputed land to be supervised by the 2 (two) PIs and the Gaon Bura cum President Payum Circle. These directions under no stretch of imagination can be said to be a reference to the Panchayat. Apart from that the directions of the impugned order make a specific reference to the village authorities and not to a Panchayat to be constituted in accordance with Section 38(2) of the Regulation and as such it cannot be said that by the impugned order, there was a reference to arbitration by the Panchayat. Furthermore, a reference to Panchayat for Arbitration under the Regulation stands on a different pedestal that a decision to be rendered by the village authorities as is discernible from a reading of Section 39(2) and Section 46 of the Regulation. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to take note that w.e.f. 12.04.2021, the question of referring to Arbitration by the Panchayat has been done away with inasmuch as by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, Sections 38, 39 and 46 of the Regulation stands deleted. 16. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Court below had exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with Section 46 of the Regulation. For the purpose of convenience the said Section 46 is quoted herein-below: “46. (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of a village authority may appeal to the [Assistant Commissioner] in suits not exceeding Rs.500 in value and to the [Deputy Commissioner] in suits exceeding that value. (2) If such an appeal is filed, a record shall be made of the matter in dispute, and of the decision of the village authority. (3) The appellate court shall, if necessary, examine the parties, and if the decision appears to be just, shall affirm and enforce the decision as its own. (2) If such an appeal is filed, a record shall be made of the matter in dispute, and of the decision of the village authority. (3) The appellate court shall, if necessary, examine the parties, and if the decision appears to be just, shall affirm and enforce the decision as its own. If the appellate court sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision, it shall try the cases de novo or refer to a panchayat; in any case so referred, the provisions of section 38 shall apply as if the parties had agreed to submit to arbitration.” A perusal of the above quoted provision would show that Sub-Section (1) of Section 46 enables a person aggrieved by a decision of the village authority to appeal to the Assistant Commissioner in suits not exceeding Rs.500 in value and to the Deputy Commissioner in respect of suits exceeding that value. In other words, the Court of the Assistant Commissioner or the Court of the Deputy Commissioner depending on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit shall be Appellate Authority. At this stage, it may also not be out of place to mention that Section 40 of the Regulation stipulates that the village authorities shall try all suits without limit of value, in which both the parties are indigenous to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and live within their jurisdiction and which are not submitted to arbitration under the provisions of Section 38. Thus, the Appellate power to be exercised under Section 46(1) is in respect to a suit decided by a village authority in which both the parties are indigenous to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and live within their jurisdiction. Sub-Section (2) of Section 46 stipulates that if any such appeal is filed, a record shall be made of the matter in dispute, and of the decision of the village authority. 17. Sub-Section (3) of Section 46 is relevant for the purpose of instant dispute. It empowers the Appellate Court, subject to necessity, to examine the parties and if the decision of the village authorities appears to be just, the Appellate Court shall affirm and enforce its decision on its own. 17. Sub-Section (3) of Section 46 is relevant for the purpose of instant dispute. It empowers the Appellate Court, subject to necessity, to examine the parties and if the decision of the village authorities appears to be just, the Appellate Court shall affirm and enforce its decision on its own. Now at this stage, it would also be noteworthy to mention that Section 52 of the Regulation stipulates that the High Court, the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner shall be guided by the spirit but shall not be bound by the letter of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, if the Appellate Authority sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision, it shall try the case de novo or refer to a Panchayat and in any case so referred, the provisions of Section 38 shall apply as if the parties had agreed to submit to arbitration. Therefore, it would be seen that when an appeal is before the Appellate Authority, the said Authority either affirm and enforce the decision of the village authorities as its own upon the decision appearing to be just or sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision, it has two options, either the Appellate Court shall try the case de novo or refer to a Panchayat. The power to try a case de novo is a jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and such de novo trial cannot be exercised by the village authorities. If a reference is being made to the Panchayat, the same has to be within the limits of the provisions of Section 38 as if the parties have agreed to submit arbitration. 18. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Appellate Court while setting aside the decision of the Kebang dated 07.09.2016 was of the opinion that the ownership and title of the disputed land was required to be decided through the village authorities and as such observed that the instant case requires for de novo trial under the provisions of Section 46(3). As held above when the Appellate Court sees grounds to doubt the justice of decision, it has two options of which either to try the case de novo or to refer to the Panchayat. As held above when the Appellate Court sees grounds to doubt the justice of decision, it has two options of which either to try the case de novo or to refer to the Panchayat. In the instant case, the learned Court below though on one hand held that the ownership and title needs to be decided by the village authorities and on the other hand ordered de novo trial in exercise of powers under Section 46(3) of the Regulation. This is in the opinion of this Court is on the face of it contradictory inasmuch as the Appellate Court having decided to go ahead with de novo trial, the Appellate Court ought to have exercised such jurisdiction and carry out the said de novo trial by itself. The question of remand to the village authorities is completely foreign to the scheme of Section 46 of the Regulation. 19. Consequently, this Court therefore, is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 46 of the Regulation. For the reasons aforesaid, the said impugned order is set aside. 20. Now, the question arises as to what directions are required to be passed in view of the coming into effect of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 (for short the “Act of 2021”) more so upon setting aside of the impugned order dated 29.11.2016, the appeal proceedings revives. In terms with Section 27 of the said Act of 2021, there has been various amendments to the provisions of the Regulation whereby amongst others, Sections 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 55 have been deleted. A further perusal of the various Sub-Clauses of Section 27 of the Act of 2021 would show that though the Appellate powers of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner under the Regulation has been taken away by the said Act of 2021 to the extent indicated therein but the power of the village authorities still remains to try all suits without limit of the value in which both the parties are indigenous to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. At this stage, it is also relevant to take note of Section 15 of the Act of 2021 which is quoted herein-below: “15. At this stage, it is also relevant to take note of Section 15 of the Act of 2021 which is quoted herein-below: “15. Appeals: (1) Appeals from the decree or order passed by a Court of District Judge and Courts of an Additional District Judge in original suits and proceedings of civil nature shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the High Court. (2) Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in original suits and proceedings of civil nature, shall when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the Court of the District Judge of that district or in the Court of Additional District Judge where such Court exists or the High Court as the case may be. (3) Appeals from the decree or order passed by a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in original suits or proceedings of a civil nature, shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) of the district. Provided that, any appeal on civil suits pending in the Courts of Deputy Commissioner shall be disposed of by the concerned Deputy Commissioners under the provisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 as expeditiously as possible but, not later than one year from the date of coming into force of this Act. Provided further that, from the date of commencement of this Act, in case an appeal is preferred against the judgment of Customary Court in the Court of District Judge or in the Court of Additional District Judge as the case may be, the Court of District Judge or the Court of Additional District Judge, may dispose of the same or proceed with the case de novo.” 21. For the purpose of the instant dispute, the 2 (two) provisos to Section 15 of the Act of 2021 are most pertinent. The first proviso stipulates that any appeal on civil suits pending in the Court of Deputy Commissioner shall be disposed of by the concerned Deputy Commissioners under the provisions of the Regulation as expediously as possible but not later than 1 (one) year from the date of coming into force of the Act. In other words, the appeals pending before the Court of Deputy Commissioner had to be adjudicated upon and disposed off on or before 11.04.2022. In other words, the appeals pending before the Court of Deputy Commissioner had to be adjudicated upon and disposed off on or before 11.04.2022. The second proviso stipulates that on and from the date of commencement of Act of 2021 i.e. w.e.f. 12.04.2021 in case an appeal is preferred against the judgment of Customary Court in the Court of District Judge or in the Court of Additional District Judge as the case may be, the Court of District Judge or the Court of Additional District Judge, may dispose of the same or proceed with the case de novo. The Act of 2021 is however silent as for that matter do not taken into account circumstances like the present case where the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner being set aside revives the Appeal proceedings but the period given in the 1st proviso of Section 15 of the Act of 2021 of one year from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2021 had expired. 22. Thus, in order to resolve the problem which has arisen, this Court is of the opinion that the second proviso to Section 15 of the Act of 2021 may throw some light inasmuch as the second proviso conceives of a situation when an appeal is against a judgment of the Customary Court which is a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 2021, is preferred to the Court of the District Judge or the Additional District Judge, power has been given to the said Courts to dispose of the same or proceed with the case de novo. The expression “dispose of the same” is very relevant inasmuch as the Court of the District Judge or the Additional District Judge have been conferred with the powers of the Appellate Court. The expression “or proceed with the case de novo” implies that the Court of the District Judge or the Additional District Judge shall have the power in the alternative to try the suit de novo or in other words decide afresh like a trial Court. It is also pertinent to mention that in view of the first proviso to Section 15 of the Act of 2021 the Courts of the Deputy Commissioner are divested of the powers under Section 46 of the Regulation w.e.f. 11.04.2022 for any appeal on civil suits. 23. It is also pertinent to mention that in view of the first proviso to Section 15 of the Act of 2021 the Courts of the Deputy Commissioner are divested of the powers under Section 46 of the Regulation w.e.f. 11.04.2022 for any appeal on civil suits. 23. Another question also arises as to what procedure to be followed inasmuch as reading of Section 18 of the Act of 2021 stipulates that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall save as otherwise provided in the Act of 2021 as the procedure followed in all Civil Courts except the Customary Courts and Section 52 of the Regulation was deleted by Section 27(xii) of the Act of 2021. Taking into consideration that in the Customary Courts, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not the procedure to be followed, it is observed that when the District Judge or the Additional District Judge is exercising Appellate jurisdiction against the judgment of the Customary Court, the said Courts of the District Judge or the Additional District Judge shall be guided by the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is so because the Appeal is a continuation of the civil proceedings adjudicated by the Customary Court. This Court hastens to add that when the Court of the District Judge or the Additional District Judge exercises the jurisdiction to proceed with the case de novo the said Courts shall be bound to follow the procedure mandated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 24. In view of the decision rendered hereinabove that the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 is set aside and quashed, for the reasons assigned hereinabove and taking into consideration that the coming into effect of the Act of 2021, this Court therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India transfers the appeal filed by the Respondents herein against the Petitioner i.e. in the matter of Takeng Taten and Another vs. Sri. Tarong Yapi in respect of which the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Court of District Judge, Pasighat, for adjudication. Tarong Yapi in respect of which the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Court of District Judge, Pasighat, for adjudication. The Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Rumgong shall forthwith transfer the records of the Appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District and not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry is directed to intimate both the Court of the District Judge, Pasighat and the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Rumgong for effective compliance. It is further directed that upon receipt of the records, the Court of the District Judge, Pasighat shall be at liberty to decide on the basis of the material available to either decide the Appeal as an Appellate Court or proceed with the case de novo on the basis of the observations made hereinabove. 25. With above observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.