ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. At the outset learned counsel for the State takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that the petitioner-Association is admittedly an unregistered Association of farmers whereas the relief claimed in the writ application is in the nature of individual relief for which the aggrieved persons ought to have approached this Court. In support of the stand learned counsel for the State has relied upon a large number of decisions of this Court and other courts, namely, K.C.Thomas Vs. R.L.Gadeock & Anr: AIR, 1970 Patna 163 (DB); Lawyears Association, Patna High Court, Ranchi Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1999 Patna 107 (DB); Sand Carrier’s Owners’ Union & Ors. Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta & Ors: AIR 1990 Calcutta 176; Umesh Chandra Vinod Kumar & Ors Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bharthana & anr.: AIR 1984 Allahabad 46(FB) and Parents Teachers Association & Ors. Vs. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors: AIR 2001, Rajasthan 35 (DB). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has sought to rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam and Ors: AIR 2010 Supreme Court 112(1). He has also relied upon the cases of Vidyut Board Anukampa Niyukti Sangharsh Samiti Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board: 2006(2) PLJR 259 ; State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh: (2011) 6 SCC 597 ; Minor Sunil Draon Tr. Guardian & Ors. Vs. C.B.S.E. & Ors: AIR 2007 SC 458 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti: (1995) 2 SCC 117 . 4. So far as the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the State are concerned, most of them pertain to the direct issue as to whether an unregistered Association may be permitted to file writ application and by and large the same has been negatived in the decisions cited by him. 5. So far as the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said issue has not been directly raised though in several of the cases unregistered Associations had filed the writ application which were under consideration. 6. 5. So far as the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said issue has not been directly raised though in several of the cases unregistered Associations had filed the writ application which were under consideration. 6. In my view, as a normal rule an unregistered Association not having any legal personality to sue or be sued in a Court should not be permitted to file a writ application but in exceptional cases particularly in matters involving public interest in PIL such Association may be heard in the interest of the general public. 7. In the present matter the relief sought is to enhance the award and pay the award amount of the land acquired by the respondents in the light of the present market value/as fixed by the Government of the land which was situated under Mauza Pali, Chesi and Mamrejpur under Naubatpur Block in Patna district which was acquired by the Government of Bihar for construction of State Highway No. 78, Bihta-Sarmera Path. 8. The grievance as raised by the petitioner is clearly in the nature of individual grievance of the concerned farmer. In such circumstances, the writ application on behalf of an unregistered and unrecognized Association like the petitioner ought not to be maintained. 9. Apart from the above, this Court has serious doubt as to maintainability of such a writ petition even by an individual when the statutory remedy for enhancing the amount of the award is available under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act itself by seeking a reference to the Court. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is dismissed as not maintainable.