ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner seeks directions for payment of the compensation amount pursuant to the Land Acquisition proceeding. 3. The petitioner claims to have purchased the acquired land with his brother by a sale deed in 1967. He contends that notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was given to his brother. The lands were fraudulently sold by respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 5 in the year 2009. In Land Acquisition Case No. 12/06-07, respondent no. 6 has wrongly collected the compensation amount. The petitioner is stated to have represented to the District Magistrate on 12.7.2010. 4. Counsel for the State submits that disputed facts appear to be involved. The writ petition is lacking in essential details with regard to the necessary facts regarding objections under Section 9 and the final award etc. He next submits that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy before the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even this right is required to be exercised within reasonable time and no one can be allowed to wake up at his leisure in such matters. 5. In the nature of the dispute sought to be raised and the availability of an appropriate remedy under Section 30 before the Collector, who if satisfied can refer the matter to the appropriate Court, there is no occasion for the writ Court to assume first jurisdiction in a controversy which appears to be involving question of facts. 6. The representation stated to have been filed on 12.7.2010 is acknowledged to be lacking in necessary factual details. Only if the petitioner supplement the same within a maximum period of three weeks from today, the District Magistrate is required to apply his mind and pass reasoned and speaking order. If he is satisfied he shall proceed to refer the matter to the appropriate Court. If he is not satisfied it shall be his jurisdiction to hold accordingly by a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application stands disposed.