JUDGMENT : (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.) : 1. Heard Ms. N. Drangeen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R H Naban, learned Government Advocate, State of Arunachal Pradesh for the State respondents and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel for the Land Management Department. 2. These present writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal today as these writ petitions involve a common cause of action and the challenges made are also common. 3. Primarily, Orders dated 27th October’ 2022 and 9th December 2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Shi-Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh are being challenged. Under the aforesaid orders, the Deputy Commissioner had prepared a list, enlisting the persons, whose claims for land acquisition compensation were rejected and the list is marked as “Rejected List”. 4. The further challenge made is the order dated 29.03.2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby, certain persons/citizens/the present writ petitioners were asked not to carry on any construction over their private properties. 5. The grounds of challenge are, firstly, that such orders of rejection had been passed only on the basis of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.03.2021, which is not sustainable under law for the reason that the claims of the petitioners had been rejected on the alleged ground that their houses were constructed violating the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Public Notice dated 29.03.2021. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner is having no sanction and authority under law to issue the notice dated 29.03.2021 prior to the initiation of any land acquisition proceeding and thus the same resulted in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 as well as their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, they cannot be deprived of the compensation for the land and the property acquired by the State, only on the ground that such construction has been made in violation of the notice dated 29.03.2021. 7. The Deputy Commissioner has filed an affidavit and has taken a stand that the Executive Engineer (Civil) -cum- Officer Commanding (BRO) had written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner alleging encroachment of BRO land by civilians between Pene to Tato, on Kaying-Tato Road and requested him for necessary action. 8. 7. The Deputy Commissioner has filed an affidavit and has taken a stand that the Executive Engineer (Civil) -cum- Officer Commanding (BRO) had written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner alleging encroachment of BRO land by civilians between Pene to Tato, on Kaying-Tato Road and requested him for necessary action. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner that based on such request, the public Notice dated 29.03.2021 was issued and therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner had issued the order/notice without sanction and authority under law, since, the Deputy Commissioner being the head of the District, shall have power to issue such an order to stop construction. 9. The learned State counsel has further contended that under the land acquisition process, the petitioner had participated in negotiation, survey and assessment and when their claims were rejected, then only they had become wise and approached this Court for redressal of their grievances, therefore, they are estopped for raising such plea. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, let this Court first record the facts, which are not in dispute and are discernible from the pleadings made by the parties. I. As recorded hereinabove, a public notice was issued on 29.03.2021 asking the civilians not to carry out constructions in certain areas. By now it is an admitted position that such notice was issued at the request of the Executive Engineer (Civil) cum Commanding Officer, BRO.. II. On 03.06.2021 an Office Memorandum was issued by the State respondent laying down the parameters for assessing the structures/trees/any other properties which are subject of acquisition under Regulation 1947. The said OM prescribes payment of reasonable compensation and reasonableness was to be ascertained by giving due regard to the valuation of the land and standing assets on the date of notification under Regulation 1947, there nature including agriculture/horticultural crops/demurrage thereof and the loss of income to the individual/community right holders till the passing of the award.. III. On 11.02.2022, Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District issued a Public Notice in the exercise of its power conferred upon him in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum for carrying out the assessment of the properties. IV. III. On 11.02.2022, Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District issued a Public Notice in the exercise of its power conferred upon him in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum for carrying out the assessment of the properties. IV. A committee was constituted and it was proposed that the assessment will be made with effect from 17.07.2021 and the assessment report is to be submitted on or before 28.02.2022. V. Subsequently, on 24.05.2022, a notice under Section 10 of Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhumland Regulation, 1947 (in short Regulation of 1947), was issued, whereby, the intention of the Government was expressed to acquire the scheduled land for construction of new alignment widening/improvement of existing road to 2 Lane National Standard (NHDL) Kaying-Tato road from Pene village KM 45.000 to Tato KM 78.370 (Total Lenght 33.370 Km) existing road length 45.000 Km to 86.600 Km (Total length 41.600 Km). VI. Thereafter, another order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 13.08.2022 and re-assessment was directed to be carried out properly of properties standing in the proposed right of way and submit a report within 45 days from the date of issuance of the order dated 13.08.2022. VII. Accordingly, a Public Notice was issued vide Notice dated 22.08.2022 for such re-assessment and subsequently by the order impugned dated 27.10.2022, the final lists were published on the basis recommendation of such committee and the lists No.2 and 3 was prepared, which included the persons whose claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that the construction was made in violation of the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29.03.2021. 12. From the aforesaid sequence of events, as recorded hereinabove, it is clear that the lands of the petitioners were notified for acquisition under Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947 on 24.05.2022. It is also an admitted position that the reassessment was directed on 13.08.2022. It is also admitted that the reassessment report was submitted on 27.10.2022 and the reason for the rejection of the claim of the petitioners is that they had made construction in violation of the Deputy Commissioner Order dated 29.03.2021. 13. Admittedly, the notice dated 29.03.2021 was issued on the request of the Commanding Officer, BRO and not for any other reason. On the said date, the land acquisition process was not even initiated and it was initiated only on 24.05.2022. 13. Admittedly, the notice dated 29.03.2021 was issued on the request of the Commanding Officer, BRO and not for any other reason. On the said date, the land acquisition process was not even initiated and it was initiated only on 24.05.2022. Therefore, the land of the parties shall vest on the State on the date of such notification dated 24.05.2022 and not on 29.03.2021, when the notice was issued inasmuch as such notice was not issued in exercise of any statutory power under Regulation, 1947. There is no doubt that the respondent Deputy Commissioner, in the exigencies of administration, can pass such a restrained order in a given case, when he is authorised under law to do so. However, the State respondents have failed to bring to the notice of this Court any such provision of law or executive instruction empowering the Deputy Commissioner to pass such a restraint order in connection with the process of land acquisition under the Regulation, 1947. Therefore, in the absence of any such authority under law, in the considered opinion of this court, the right of a person under Article 300A cannot be taken away by the instrumentalities of the State without due process of law. The notice dated 29.03.2021, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be treated to be due process of law for purpose of land acquisition, in the given fact of the present case, more so, when such decision was based on a request on an authority who is not having any sanction and authority under Regulation 1947 having binding command over the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, such notice cannot deprive the land owners of its legal right to claim compensation based on Regulation, 1947, which was issued on 24.05.2022. 14. The petitioners might not have a right to start construction or to continue with construction, after the notice under Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947 was issued. Therefore, the respondent State may refuse them compensation against those properties constructed on or after 24.05.2022. However, that is not the case herein and admittedly the petitioners were placed in the List 2 and List 3 (lists of rejected claims) only on the ground of under construction houses after 29.03.2021. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, such rejection is not sustainable in law. However, that is not the case herein and admittedly the petitioners were placed in the List 2 and List 3 (lists of rejected claims) only on the ground of under construction houses after 29.03.2021. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, such rejection is not sustainable in law. The notice dated 29.03.2021 or any other similar notice, cannot have any nexus with the Land acquisition process initiated by the State under Regulation, 1947 on 24.05.2022. What is relevant for determination of compensation is the Office Memorandum dated 03.06.2021, which specifies the parameters for assessing reasonable compensation as recorded hereinabove. 15. That being the position, this court is having no hesitation to hold that the impugned reject list Nos. 2 and 3, so far relating to the petitioners are concerned are not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the same stands set aside so far same relates to the petitioners. 16. This Court is also having no hesitation, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, that assessment of the petitioners property needs to be made and compensation is required to be paid on the properties, which were acquired/damaged/would be damaged in pursuance of notice dated 24.05.2022, on which date notice under Section 10 of the Regulation, 1947 was issued and the assessment is to be made in terms of OM dated 03.06.2021. 17. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners be paid compensation in terms of the reassessment made/to be made in terms of Office Memorandum dated 03.06.2021. Such payment be made within 8 weeks from the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Shi-Yomi District by the petitioners. If such payment is not made within the said period, the same shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a. on the compensation assessed till its payment. With the determination made hereinabove, the writ petitions stands allowed to the extant as indicated hereinabove. 18. It is further made clear that till such payments are made, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. 19. While parting with the record, it is observed that the present order shall not debar the petitioner to claim compensation more than what has been assessed, however, such disputed determination be taken by the appropriate Civil/Referral Court.