JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. Heard Shri T. Tsering, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for the State and Shri K. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “1. Call for the record; 2. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 issued by the EAC-cum-Executive Magistrate, Taliha Upper Subansiri District [Annexure-I]; 3. Direct the private respondent Shri Panam alias Tanam Maki to approach appropriate civil court for redressal of his case; 4. Pass such other order or orders as proper Your Honour may deem fit and in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner, who is the owner of a plot of land, had gifted a portion thereof to the respondent No. 4 in the year 2013. However, certain boundary disputes came up, which led to the dispute being settled on 23.05.2013. Subsequently, a letter was issued by the Circle Officer on 13.07.2013 making certain observations in favour of the respondent No. 4. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had applied for stone quarry permission, and on 22.01.2016, a preliminary notification was issued in the names of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4. However, the final notification dated 01.03.2016 was issued only in the name of respondent No. 4, pursuant to which the respondent No. 4 installed a crusher machine. 4. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4 had instituted a complaint against the petitioner on 02.08.2023, on the ground that the petitioner was causing disturbance. The same was enquired into vide a communication made by the Superintendent of Police dated 02.08.2023, and as per the report, it was held that the dispute was civil in nature. Subsequently, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District on 07.09.2024, which was forwarded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The ADC, vide communication dated 19.08.2024, directed the Gaon Burah to settle the dispute. The dispute was taken up for settlement on 09.09.2024. Though such settlement was signed by the Gaon Burah, it is the case of the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 4 had signed the same. The ADC, vide communication dated 19.08.2024, directed the Gaon Burah to settle the dispute. The dispute was taken up for settlement on 09.09.2024. Though such settlement was signed by the Gaon Burah, it is the case of the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 4 had signed the same. Consequently, the petitioner lodged another FIR against the respondent No. 4 on 12.09.2024, which was enquired into, and as per the report dated 26.09.2024, no fraud was found with regard to the first settlement of the year 2013. 5. In the meantime, the Executive Magistrate, Taliha, has taken up the matter and vide the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 has cancelled the Keba proceeding. 6. Shri Tsering, learned counsel, has primarily contended that the earlier Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 has been repealed by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, which has been subsequently amended in the year 2022. He has submitted that the Executive Magistrate does not have any jurisdiction to examine the validity of an order passed by the Keba. 7. On the other hand, Shri Tama, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has submitted that there are disputed questions of fact which have been raised in the present petition and, therefore, the writ petition may not be maintainable. He has, however, fairly submitted that after the coming into force of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, the jurisdiction would lie with the appropriate Civil Court to adjudicate any dispute with regard to the Keba proceeding. 8. Ms. Sangeeta, learned State Counsel has submitted that the order has been passed based on the facts and circumstances. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that, without going into the detail facts, it appears that by the impugned order dated 10.09.2024, the Executive Magistrate has interfered with the Keba proceeding held on 09.09.2024. It is, however, not in dispute that both the contesting parties have not signed the settlement and, therefore, the aspect of its binding nature would be a question which would be required to be answered if the same is put to challenge. 10. Since the prejudice is expressed by the petitioner is with the adverse effect which the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 would have, in case a challenge is instituted in the appropriate Civil Court. 10. Since the prejudice is expressed by the petitioner is with the adverse effect which the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 would have, in case a challenge is instituted in the appropriate Civil Court. In view of the above, this Court clarifies that in the event, any of the contesting parties, challenges the Keba decision dated 09.09.2024 before the appropriate Civil Court, the order dated 10.09.2024, passed by the Executive Magistrate shall not have any impact in the decision making process. 11. It is needless to say that in the event of any challenge is instituted, the affected parties are to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.