JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Shri Dorjee Phurba Chukla has put to challenge the order passed by the Umpire on 11.07.2016, and also the action of the Umpire in impleading the respondent No. 2 at the last stage of arbitration proceeding without any authority of law. 2. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned Judgment and award, dated 11.07.2016, the Umpire has decided the land dispute in favour of the respondent No. 2. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner-Shri Dorjee Phurba Chukla has right and title over a plot of land known as Duleyang Land, since the year 1962. The said land was gifted to the petitioner’s wife by her Lt. Father Tashi Goum and accordingly, the petitioner hosted a community feast, and there was no objection from any corner till the construction of PMGSY road, which was passing through the petitioner’s land. The respondent No. 1 Shri Tashi Dorsom filed an application claiming the said land and prayed for conducting Keba. Upon the said application, the ADC, Mechukha passed an order directing the village authorities to conduct Keba. Pursuant to the said direction, Keba was held on 10.05.2012 and passed its order and the respondent No. 1 & 2 have accepted the Keba decision. But, the petitioner had preferred an appeal on 21.10.2014 under Section 46 of the AFR, 1945 before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Mechuka, who, instead of taking up the matter himself, passed an order directing the arbitration board members and staff of the land management department to carry out the demarcation of the disputed land by upholding the Keba decision, dated 10.05.2012. Thereafter, an order has been issued on 08.05.2015, and against the said order, the petitioner has preferred one Civil Revision Petition being CRP No. 25 (AP) 2015 before this Court and after hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to set aside the impugned order vide order, dated 19.09.2015 and ordered the ADC, Mechuka to hear the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of the order. Thereafter, the ADC, Mechuka issued an order, dated 12.04.2016 and directed the contesting parties, namely, Shri Dorjee Phurba Chukla and Tashi Dorsom to nominate 5 members from each side for formation of Panchayat. Thereafter, the ADC, Mechuka issued an order, dated 12.04.2016 and directed the contesting parties, namely, Shri Dorjee Phurba Chukla and Tashi Dorsom to nominate 5 members from each side for formation of Panchayat. Accordingly, both the parties submitted their respective list of the members and date of arbitration proceeding was fixed on 14.06.2016 by the Arbitration Umpire Shri Raju Diru (Ex-ASM) Tato. On the scheduled date, both the parties appeared before the Arbitration Board, which was continued till 18.06.2016. On the last day of Arbitration Proceeding i.e. 18.06.2016 one Shri Phurba Tsering Maney (respondent No. 2) submitted an appeal before the Umpire to implead himself as a respondent to the Arbitration proceeding. Accordingly, his application was accepted by the Umpire without any order from the directing authority and thereafter, in the open darbar the Umpire pronounced award in favour of Shri Phurba Tsering Maney and the same was counter signed by the ADC, Mechuka, later on”. 4. Being highly aggrieved by the award and action of impleadment of respondent No. 2 by the Umpire, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is to be noted here that originally the petitioner has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 and read with Section 115 of the CPC for setting aside and quashing the impugned Judgment and award, dated 11.07.2016. Thereafter, notice was issued to both the parties and during course of hearing on 09.05.2022, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. D. Panging on the basis of a judgment of this Court passed in CRP 23 (AP) 2012, submits that only writ petition will lie not Civil Revision Petition and therefore, prayed for converting the petition into writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is converted into writ petition and accordingly, the Cause Title is amended. 6. I have heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. 6. I have heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. D. Loyi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the Umpire in impleading the respondent No. 2 Shri Phurpa Tsering Maney as a party in the arbitration proceeding, despite written objection of the petitioner deciding the disputed land in favour of respondent No. 2 in absence of any provision in the AFR, 1945, suffers from manifest illegality and therefore, it is contended to direct the ADC, Mechukha to conduct a fresh proceeding. 8. On the other hand Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Umpire has rightly allowed the impleadment petition filed by the respondent No.2 and allowed him to participate in the proceeding and the same is as per the provision of Section 38 of the AFR, 1945. Mr. Panging, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that as per the provision of Section 52 of the AFR, 1945, CPC is applicable, though, there is no provision in the AFR. Mr. Panging further submits that the impugned judgment and award suffers from no illegality or infirmity and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 9. In his reply to the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. Loyi submits that the dispute was between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner not with the respondent No. 2 and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned Judgment and award. 10. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Loyi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the dispute was between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and the Keba was held on 10.05.2012 to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Having dissatisfied with the decision of the Keba, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the ADC, Mechukha and then instead of taking up the matter, the ADC, Mechukha has passed the order directly to the arbitration board. Having dissatisfied with the decision of the Keba, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the ADC, Mechukha and then instead of taking up the matter, the ADC, Mechukha has passed the order directly to the arbitration board. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred one Civil Revision Petition being CRP 25 (AP) 2015 and vide order, dated 19.09.2015, this Court was pleased to direct the ADC, Mechukha to hear the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of submission but again the ADC, Mechukha referred the matter to the panchayat and directed the parties to submit the list of respective members and accordingly, the parties have submitted the list of members to the arbitration Umpire Shri Raju Diru (Ex-ASM), Tato. While the proceeding was being conducted by the Umpire Shri Raju Diru, then, the respondent No. 2 suddenly appeared and filed one petition for impleadaing himself and after his impleadment decided the disputed land in his favour. It also appears that there is no provision in the AFR for impleading parties while the arbitration proceeding was going on. Admittedly, there was also no direction from the ADC, Mechukha to that effect. 11. A careful perusal of the order, dated 12.04.2016 passed by the ADC Mechuka which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-9 reveals that there was only 2 parties before the ADC, Mechukha and the ADC, Mechukha directed both the contesting parties to nominate 5 numbers each from their side for formation of panchayat and accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 has submitted the list of Umpire which is reflected in the order, dated 13.05.2016, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-10, and vide circular, dated 30.05.2016, the Umpire has fixed the date as 14.06.2016 at Mechukha Keba Hall at about 10.00 AM. Thereafter, on the basis of the petition filed by the respondent No. 2, the Umpire has impleaded him as party despite the objection filed by the petitioner and thereafter, decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 2. Till filing of the petition for impleadment, respondent No. 2 was a stranger as he was not in the picture. Thus, it appears that without any direction from the ADC, Mechukha and without any provision of law, the Umpire has impleaded the respondent No. 2 as party. Till filing of the petition for impleadment, respondent No. 2 was a stranger as he was not in the picture. Thus, it appears that without any direction from the ADC, Mechukha and without any provision of law, the Umpire has impleaded the respondent No. 2 as party. Therefore, action of the Umpire and judgment/award passed by him to the considered opinion of this Court fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. 12. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Umpire and counter signed by the ADC, Mechukha stands set aside and quashed. 13. And in view of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2013 (4) GLT 1109] and also in view of proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, notified on 12.04.2021, in Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, the matter is remanded to the Court of learned District Judge, Aalo. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Aalo, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. On receipt of the order of this Court, the learned District Judge, Aalo, shall proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of 3 (three) months from today. 14. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of.