IN THE HIGH COUR OF UTTARAKHNAD AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2945 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 29180/94) Nagar Parishad Kashipur, district Nainital through Officer Incharge/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Parishad Kashipur, District Nainital. ......................Petitioner. Versus The State of U.P. through Secretary, Urban Development, Government of U.P. Lucknow and three others. ................Respondents. Sri Davesh Vishnoi, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Sri Gopal K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Dated:- November 25, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- (a) to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 8.6.1994 (Annexuer-1 to the writ petition). (b) to pass any other order, direction or writ in favour for the petitioner, which is fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (c) to award cost in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has claimed the title in the land which was acquired for Awas Evam Vikas Parishad by the State. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State has contended that there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to file objection before the Collector for making reference. According to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are not entitled to get compensation on the ground that they are assami and land belongs to Nagar Parishad, Kashipur-petitioner. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed the copy of the Judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, suit under Section 229-B of Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decided in their favour and whereby their names were recoded as assami on the land in question. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Neither the order passed by the Assistant Collector was assailed by the petitioner nor any application was ever filed under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act for appointment compensation or the compensation is not payable to the respondents. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, and interacted dispute of facts and law are involved in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 25.11.2008 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY