JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the Union of India representing the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners claim to be the indigenous people of Mirem village in the East Siang District, having private lands along the side of the Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road(Length 15.586 kms). The grievances are that the lands of the petitioners are being used in the construction of the Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road(Length 15.586 Kms) without any acquisition proceeding being initiated. In the circumstance the petitioners instituted WP(C)414(AP)/2021, which was given a final consideration by an order dated 14.12.2021. In this respect the petitioners had also submitted a representation dated 17.09.2021, before the Deputy Commissioner East Siang District. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.12.2021, is extracted as follows:- “The petitioners contend that in the work to be executed by the respondent No.7, pursuant to the work order issued in terms of the NIT dated 13.11.2021, referred to hereinabove, the petitioners’ land, which are located in Mirem and Mekong village though likely to be affected, the State respondents, however, before awarding the work to the respondent No. 7, the land of the petitioners’ have not been acquired and consequently, no compensation have been paid to any of the petitioners. Aggrieved by such move of the State authorities, the petitioners had filed a representation on 17.09.2021, before the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, praying for payment of land compensation to the land affected parties, whose land would be affected on execution of rehabilitation and up-gradation of Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road (L-15.568 Kms), as indicated hereinabove, but the same has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat. The petitioners, therefore, submits that the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners, within a specified time frame by passing a speaking order.” 3. The petitioners, therefore, submits that the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners, within a specified time frame by passing a speaking order.” 3. A reading of the above extracted portion of the order dated 14.12.2021, makes it discernible that there was a requirement on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District to examine and verify from the records, as to whether the private lands of the petitioners are also included in the construction of the Mirem-Mikong-Jonai Road(Length 15.586 kms), and thereupon to pass a reasoned order on the matter, i.e., if the private lands of the petitioners are included for the purpose of construction of the road, such lands are to be acquired by following the due procedure of law. Accordingly, by the said order there was a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to give consideration to the representation dated 17.09.2021, which was submitted by the petitioners. In response thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, have passed an order dated 24.12.2021, which is extracted as below:- “Shri Wilson Jerang & 21 others present. In compliance to Hon’ble Gauhati High Court Itanagar Permanent Bench Naharlagun order No. WP(C) 414(AP)/2021, dated 14.12.2021, today the petition of dated 17.09.2021, submitted by Shri Wilson Jerang & 21 others heard. Shri Wilson Jerang submitted that they were not aware of Government notification and Gazette. Perused all records. As per ADC Ruskin’s report, the widening of the road is within the notified ROW of 15.00 meters. As per the enquiry report of ADC the construction of road is within the ROW notified in the State gazette on 02.08.2021 by Commissioner PWD Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Also, a Public Representation was received from the Public of Bilat Circle, wherein ZPM, GPCs, Senior Public Leaders and GBs have signed that MMJ road construction is within the notified ROW area. MMJ road seems to be lifeline of Ruskin sub-division and will enhance the quality of life of the residents will also smoothen the connectivity to Industrial Growth Center. EE PW is directed to expedite the work Given my hand and seal of the Court on this 24th day of December 2021.” 4. MMJ road seems to be lifeline of Ruskin sub-division and will enhance the quality of life of the residents will also smoothen the connectivity to Industrial Growth Center. EE PW is directed to expedite the work Given my hand and seal of the Court on this 24th day of December 2021.” 4. After reading of the above extracted order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, makes it discernible that the requirement of the earlier order of this Court dated 14.12.2021, to examine as to whether the private lands of the petitioners are also included in the construction of the road had not been undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner merely refers to a report from the ADC Ruskin which provides that the notified ROW is 15.00 meters and therefore, the road construction is done within the ROW. The question for determination of the Deputy Commissioner is not whether the construction of the road is within the ROW, but as to whether in the construction of the road, or as a matter of fact, the ROW, includes any private lands of the petitioners and if yes, to follow the due procedures of law for acquiring the land. 5. As the Deputy Commissioner had not examined the question, as to whether the private lands of the petitioners are included in the construction or in the ROW, we remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District to examine the question and pass a reasoned order thereof, as indicated above. The reasoned order be passed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Any construction of the road to be undertaken would be subject to the risk and cost of the State to the extent that, if ultimately, it is concluded that the private lands of the petitioners are included, the State would have to compensate the petitioners accordingly.