IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1025 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7311 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Ekramuddin son of late Md. Hassan, Resident of Village-Belwa Tapu, P.O. Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District-Araria. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Land Acquisition Department, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Araria, District-Araria. 5. The Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria, Collectorate Araria, District-Araria. 6. The Project Director, National Highway Authorities, Araria at Purnea, District Purnea. 7. Md. Gufran Alam, son of late Salimuddin, Resident of Village-Belwa Tapu, P.O. Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District-Araria. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kr., SC-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1025 of 2011 (6) dt.17-08-2011 2 / 2 2 6. 17-08-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27th April 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 7311 of 2011 the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is the apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded for acquisition of the land by the National Highway Authority for road widening. The writ petition has been dismissed on the premise that the petition involves disputed question of facts. Therefore, the present Appeal. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for a remedy on the precise issue. In view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the appellant, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant may avail of the remedy under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)