Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.8.2015 passed by Banggo Level Keba and the order dated 7.8.2015 passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The brief facts leading to the present civil revision are that respondent No. 6 obtained a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner by executing a promissory note-cum-agreement on 27.08.2009 undertaking to repay the same with interest. As the respondent No. 6 failed to repay the loan within the stipulated time, he executed another agreement-cum-promissory note on 05.09.2010 assuring to repay the money on or before December, 2010. It was further stipulated in the said document, that in case of failure to repay the loan as per the agreement, the ownership of the land situated at Pagle-Hotum area belonging to the respondent No. 6 should stand transferred to the petitioner. The respondent No. 6 failed to repay the loan and also in violation of the condition of the loan agreement sold out the land to another person. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner seeking relief.

3. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner by order dated 25.07.2014 referred the matter to village level keba for decision. Village level keba was held on 24.08.2014 and before the village level keba, the respondent No. 6 sought extension of time for repaying the loan amount and also agreed to give the land at Doyi Rike, in case of failure to repay the money. On such assurance, the village level keba allowed the prayer of the respondent No. 6 and by its decision dated 24.08.2014 held, that the respondent No. 6 shall return back the money on or before May, 2015 and in case of his failure to repay the money within the said period, the ownership of the land of respondent No. 6 at Doyi Rike would stand transferred to the petitioner automatically on expiry of the stipulated time for repayment of the loan. Even after expiry of the said time stipulated in the order of village keba, the respondent No. 6 failed to return the amount, and as such, the petitioner became the owner of the landat Doyi Rike belonging to respondent No. 6. When the petitioner started to fence and develop the land, respondent No. 3 put up resistance and damaged the fencing erected by the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the village authority and the village level keba by its decision dated 26.07.2015 decided the ownership of the land at Doyi Rike in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner suddenly received an order dated 07.08.2015, whereby the Addl. Deputy Commissioner constituted a Banggo Level Keba on the basis of a complaint of the respondent No. 3, and referred the dispute pertaining to the properties to the Banggo Level Keba.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and pleaded for recalling the order for referring the matter to Banggo Level Keba, as the matter was already decided by the village level keba. However, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner advised him to appear before the Banggo Level Keba. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Banggo Level Keba and submitted a representation to the Banggo Level Keba raising objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Banggo level keba. However, despite such objection raised by the petitioner, the Banggo Level Keba proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2015.

5. Thus, aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner referring the dispute to the Banggo Level Keba and also the decision of the Banggo Level Keba, the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Dabi submits, that the dispute relating to property having been decided by the village authority (Keba), such order of the keba was amenabl