JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This proceeding has been initiated seeking following reliefs:- "In view of the premises stated above, it is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased:- (i) To admit this writ petition and issue rule Nisi. (ii) A writ of Mandamus shall not be issued, directing Respondents to de-notification/re-notification/alteration of boundaries of Dibang Wild Life Sanctuary to exclude the economic activities/commercial activities areas like cultivation of like mishmi teeta, cancer curing plant - Taxas Becata (local name of Etoh Framboo), herbal, pine vegetation, bamboo in high altitude area and horticulture, mithun rearing, bamboo plantation, kiwi, orange, ginger in low altitude area of in different villages. (iii) A writ of Mandamus shall not be issued, directing Respondents to pay compensation after following proper procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or other appropriate laws. (iv) A writ of Mandamus shall not be issued, directing respondents to allow Idu Mishmi tribe's sacred pilgrimage place "Popu" should be left out of Wildlife Sanctuary. (v) A writ of certiorari shall not be issued, to setting aside and quashing of impugned Notification memo No. DWL/D/42/92/744-844 dated 12th March 1998 for declaration of Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary measuring total area 4149 Sq. Km. (which is indigenous tribal areas). (vi) A writ of certiorari shall not be issued, to setting aside and quashing of impugned letter No. 1-9/2007-WL-I dated 31 July 2013 for submission of proposal to the States for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries and ministry has decided not to extend time and a default area 10 km. from the boundary will be Eco-Sensitive. (vii) To award the cost of the litigation to the Petitioners and; (viii) To issue any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the impugned letter No. 1-9/2007-WL-I dated 31 July 2013 (Annexure-4) till the disposal of the matter for the interest of justice." We have heard Mr. S. Mow and Mr. M. Opo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. S. Mow and Mr. M. Opo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The facts, projected by the petitioner in this proceeding, in brief, are that the petitioner tries to highlight the case of those poor illiterate tribal people living in most backward district of the Country who are reportedly deprived of their centuries old right over some land which is made part of parts of the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary (in short, Sanctuary) in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. It has been stated that an area comprising 4149 Sq. Km. of the land which is the part of aforesaid Sanctuary had been owned and possessed by them and before them by their ancestors since time immemorial. 3. In 1998, however, such land measuring 4149 Sq. Km. was declared part of said Wildlife Sanctuary and same was done without following the procedure prescribed under the law. The people, who the petitioner represents, came to know about such Notification only in 2013, when the respondent authorities prohibited them from enjoying their century's old right over such land. Thereafter, they approached the concerned authorities seeking withdrawal of notification of 1998 in so far the petitioner's land is concerned and in that connection, they had run from pillar to post seeking withdrawal of the Notification aforesaid but all in vain. 4. Having found no other way out, those affected people had approached this court seeking reliefs aforementioned. 5. The aforesaid proceeding was resisted by State respondents contending that the allegation to the effect that the land aforementioned was made part of the Sanctuary without following the procedure prescribed under the law is without any substance. More importantly, a good amount of money had already been paid to those people who were affected by the notification of 1998. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that such arrangements were made although the ownership of the land in question always remains with the State only. 6. More importantly, a good amount of money had already been paid to those people who were affected by the notification of 1998. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that such arrangements were made although the ownership of the land in question always remains with the State only. 6. It has also been stated that an area up to 10 km., from the outer limit of the Sanctuary has been declared to be Eco-Sensitive Zone by the Government of India affecting the people living in the fringed area more and more but then the process for implementation of the same is also going on and in that connection too, State respondents have tried to involve all the people likely to be affected for declaring the land in aforesaid area as Eco-Sensitive Zone although the Govt. of India makes it clear that the delay in implementing the aforesaid process may entail serious consequences for the defaulting State/States. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Centre of Environment Law, (CEL), WWF Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. No. 337/1995), it has also been contended that no forest, National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary can be de-reserved without prior approval of Hon'ble Apex Court Since the land aforesaid had already been made part of the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary, it can be de-reserved in so far land in question is concerned only on obtaining necessary permission from the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country. In view of above, the learned Addl. Accountant General, Arunachal Pradesh, submits this court to dismiss the proceeding. 8. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the materials on record. A bare perusal of the petition and documents, annexed therewith, would reveal that there is no dispute over the claim that the land measuring 4149 Sq. miles had already been made part of the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary as back as 1998. During argument, learned Addl. Advocate General verbally submits that the ownership over the land in question had never been in dispute since the ownership of the land in question has always been with the State, and none else. 9. miles had already been made part of the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary as back as 1998. During argument, learned Addl. Advocate General verbally submits that the ownership over the land in question had never been in dispute since the ownership of the land in question has always been with the State, and none else. 9. Such episode, we find, shows that the claims of the parties project to the for some seriously controversial question facts which debar this court from exercising its authority over the matter in question, more so, since claims of the petitioner over the land in question are found to be too vague, too unclear and too uncertain to act upon inasmuch as the petitioner fails to identify properly the land aforesaid. Nor does it provide any information as to how it becomes the owner of the land aforesaid. Equally important, there is also no material on record to show as to how the people who the petitioner represents affected by 1998 Notification. 10. Situation being such, we are of the opinion that present proceeding cannot be adjudicated upon on the materials on record, more so, in view of various stances, taken by State respondents. Still then, we find it necessary to direct the petitioners herein to prefer a detailed and proper representation before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for redressal of their grievances which allegedly accrued following proclamation of Notification of 1998 in an illegal manner. In the event of filing such a representation by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, he would look into the matter in accordance with the existing Rules and Procedures and then dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the representation.