Sujit Narayan Prasad,j. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondents to pay the entire amount of compensation in his favour on account of the acquisition of land pertaining to Khata No.70 Plot No.1234, Area 0.07 acres of Mouza- Ormanjhi, P.S.- Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi which has been acquired for expansion of road of NH-33 vide Land Acquisition Case No.10 of 2009-10.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is to absolute owner of the land in question but after conclusion of the land acquisition proceeding, the compensation amount pertaining to the land has been disbursed in favour of the private respondents without examining their right and title. Further submission has been made by referring to the stand taken by the State respondent in the counter affidavit that the amount of compensation pertaining to the house constructed over the land in question is Rs.1,94,583.00/- the same is lying and the moment by the petitioner will approach to the competent authority, the same would be paid. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in view of such stand taken by the State-respondent, has relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No.1595 of 2010 in the case of Etwa Oraon Vrs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2013) 1 JBCJ 607 (H.C.). His further submission is that even in the counter affidavit document has been annexed as contained under Annexure-A series at page No.30 thereof, it has been referred that the total amount of Rs.1,76,400.00/- has been paid in favour of the private respondents and thereafter, the rest amount of Rs.2,14,065.00/-, therefore, what has been contented regarding the quantum of amount at Paragraph-11 to the counter affidavit i.e. sum of Rs.1,94,583.00/- instead thereof the petitioner is entitled to sum of Rs.2,14,065.00/-.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State respondent as also appearing for the National Highway Authority of India, has jointly submitted that the petitioner is relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Etwa Oraon (supra) but the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the fact that the said order has been passed considering the stand taken therein regarding disbursement of amount in favour of the wrong person which has been admitted by the State-respondent it is evident from Paragraph-5 thereof, but herein no such admission has been made by the State respondent in the counter affidavit, therefore, the submission has been made that the petitioner raising disputed question of fact regarding disbursement of money in favour of the private respondents which cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding like the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further submission is that the statute provides that the alternative remedy for determination/adjudication in such nature of dispute by making an application under the provision of Section 3 (H)(4) of the National Highway Act, 1956 and as such the petitioner needs to ventilate the grievance before the competent authority to act in pursuance to the provision of Section 3 (H)(4) of the Act, 1956. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he is ready to receive the admitted amount and as also he will approach before the competent authority for adjudication of the dispute regarding disbursement of amount of compensation in favour of the private respondents. The record suggests that order was passed for issuance of notice but even after service of notice upon the respondents none appears to represent them. ;