R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus or directions of quashing and setting aside the impuged award of Nil compensation under Sec. 48 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a further direction to award compensation at a of the value of the lands in question or in the alternative directing the respondent Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award under Sec. 48 (2) of the Act. The land was earlier proposed to be acquired and notification under Secs. 4 and 6 were issued on 5 and 24-2-1984 respectively. The acquisition was proposed for public purpose of Kalol Growth Centre. The final development plan under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act was submitted to the Government on 18-1-;983 for sanction under Sec. 16 of the Act. Under that development plan the land proposed to be acquired was reserved for the said purpose. Section 9 of L. A. Act notices for determination of compensation were issued. However no award was made. The petitioners had therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 3753 of 1985 for a direction to make an award and make the payment of compensation and on behalf of the respondents a statement was made that the award would be declared before 31 and therefore the petition was withdrawn. As the award was not made within the assured time Misc. Civil Application No. 394 of 1986 was filed for taking appropriate action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. However in that proceeding a statement was made on behalf of the respondents that the award will be declared on or before 30-6-1986. ( 2 ) ON 30-5-1986 the Government withdrew from the acquisition and therefore the award was not made. Thereupon Special Civil Application No. 5012 of 1986 was filed for a direction to the respondents to make an award under Sec. 48 (2) of the Act and for releasing the land from reservation under the Development plan under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. Another petition being Special Civil Application No. 1941 of 1987 was also filed for direction to the respondents to make an award under Sec. 48 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and for other prayers against reservation. Another petition being Special Civil Application No. 1941 of 1987 was also filed for direction to the respondents to make an award under Sec. 48 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and for other prayers against reservation. In that petition the High Court had passed an order to make an award within the specified time which was extended from time to time and ultimately the respondents passed the impugned award on 18-2-1988 awarding Nil compensation under Sec. 48 (2) of the Act. ( 3 ) THE grounds claiming compensation have been summarised in para 11 of the petition: mainly it is claimed that Rs. 12. 00 per sq. mt. should have been awarded as the lands could not be developed from the period Sec. 4 notification was issued till it was withdrawn. (i. e. from 1981 to 1986) Rs. 10. 00 per sq mt. should have been awarded as damages as crops could not be raised; costs were incurred in the litigation and that were required to be compensated. It was also contended that as no loans could be raised on the land for better agriculture and better crops Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mt. should have been awarded. ( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer negatived all these contentions and held that the petitioners have all along remained in possession and enjoyment of the land and cultivated the land and therefore there is no damage suffered by them on account of agricultural loss. He also came to the conclusion that even though the acquisition was withdrawn the reservation under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Land Development Act has continued and since this land has been under reservation under that Act the petitioners could not have developed or made construction on these lands and therefore on that count they have not suffered any damage and they are not entitled to any damage. The Land Acquisition Officer also came to the conclusion that on the quantum of compensation no particulars were given and no evidence was led regarding the actual damage suffered under any head by any of the land owners. Therefore he declared a Nil award under Sec. 48 (2 ). The Land Acquisition Officer also came to the conclusion that on the quantum of compensation no particulars were given and no evidence was led regarding the actual damage suffered under any head by any of the land owners. Therefore he declared a Nil award under Sec. 48 (2 ). ( 5 ) THE first petitioner is the Co-operative Housing Society; the second and third petitioners are land Folders and fourth petitioner which is Kalol Khedut Mandal is claiming to be an association representing large number of land owners agriculturists numbering about 700 and in this composite petition they have claimed the relief of quashing of the award and awarding compensation to the land owners or the alternative remanding the matter back to the Land Acquisition Officer for passing a fresh award. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that such a composite petition is not maintainable and the petitioner No. 4 is not a registered or recognised association It is also contended that each individual land holder has a different case on facts and each one has to prove the actual damage suffered by him and in such a case composite petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that if any person interested in the land is aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 48 (2) the law provides for ample remedies under Sec. 48 (3) by way of reference to the District Court which is a trial Court and judicial forum where the evidence oral as well as documentary can be led and the Court can decide about the damages and make an appropriate award and by passing that statutory effective and efficacious remedy the petitioners cannot rush to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution more in view of the highly disputed questions of facts to be decided on the evidence to be led and decided at the trial Thus the maintainability of the petition is objected at the threshold. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is a nullity and the remedy under Sec. 48 (3) by way of reference to the District Court is not really an efficacious remedy. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is a nullity and the remedy under Sec. 48 (3) by way of reference to the District Court is not really an efficacious remedy. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer did not give any opportunity to hundreds of land owners to give evidence and therefore there was denial of the principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned award is a nullity and the High Court should direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award after giving an opportunity to the land owners to lead evidence and when there are hundreds of land owners to ask each one of them to seek reference would hardly be practicable and if the High Court refuses to interfere then these citizens will have no remedy. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have relied on the judgment in the case of East India Company v. Official Liquidator 1970 GLR 457 for the proposition that an order or decision given in breach of audi alteram partem is void. It was an observation made in connection with the decisions of the Tribunals. The Land Acquisition Officer acting under Sec. 48 (2) of the Act cannot be said to be a Tribunal. Moreover it cannot be said that the Land Acquisition Officer has committed breach of the principles of natural justice. He has issued notices to the parties to file their claims and produce the evidence in support thereof. Although the claims were filed evidence in support thereof was not filed. It is also to be noted that at the instance of the petitioner the Land Acquisition Officer was bound by the High Court directions to pass the award as per the fixed time. The Land Acquisition Officer has considered the objections and claims for damages and compensation and he has passed an award for Nil compensation for the reasons stated in his award. We are not going into the merits of his findings. We are considering this only as a preliminary question about challenge to the award under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Land Acquisition Officer who had the jurisdiction to decide the question of compensation had issued notices to the parties; parties had appeared before him and he has given his award with his findings and the reasons. We are considering this only as a preliminary question about challenge to the award under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Land Acquisition Officer who had the jurisdiction to decide the question of compensation had issued notices to the parties; parties had appeared before him and he has given his award with his findings and the reasons. Such an award cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity in any manner. Moreover whenever Land Acquisition Officer gives his award of compensation adequate inadequate or nil the law provides for alternative and efficacious remedy before the judicial forum by way of reference where even the court fees are not required to be paid in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Lady Tanumatis case. In that proceding. each land owner will have full opportunity to lead his evidence get it tested and the Court will come to the conclusion whether and what amount of compensation is required to be awarded to each such claimant by the Court. It is the apprehension of the petitioners that when nil award is passed the District Court Cannot decide the question whether the compensation is payable or not. All questions that arise before the District Court have to be decided and answered. If under a particular head or for a particular reason the Land Acquisition Officer decides not to award any compensation it is still open to the Court to hear the reference and decide otherwise by awarding compensation. ( 9 ) EVEN if the Land Acquisition Officer erroneously refuses to award any compensation it cannot be said that his award is a nullity and therefore the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur 1987 (4) SCC 525 is of no assistance to the petitioners wherein it has been held that writ petition challenging a null and void order is maintainable notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy under the statute. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur 1987 (4) SCC 525 is of no assistance to the petitioners wherein it has been held that writ petition challenging a null and void order is maintainable notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy under the statute. It is also to be noted that even if the petition is maintainable it is discretionary for the High Court to exercise or not to exercise the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and in a case where highly disputed questions and other questions are required to be decided on oral and documentary evidence High Court may refuse to exercise constitutional jurisdiction and direct the party to resort to ordinary remedy provided by law. ( 10 ) IN the present case each land owner will have to lead evidence in Court to satisfy the Court about the actual damage suffered by him for which compensation is payable under Sec. 48 (2) of the Act. He will have not only to quantify but he will have to justify and satisfy the Court about such quantum as well as the liability to pay compensation. This can be done properly and satisfactorily if a proper trial takes place. The law has therefore made ample provisions under Act by way of Sec. 48 (3) for getting such amount determined by the Court subject to further appeal by either side to the High Court. When such alternative efficacious remedy is provided by law the High Court cannot entertain writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and decide the questions which properly arise for determination in the reference. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the preliminary objection against maintainability of this petition must succeed and the petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground that alternative and efficacious remedy provided by Sec. 48 (3) of the Act is available. Hence this petition is dismissed summarily at the admission stage. Notice discharged. Rule discharged .