JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL and Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned AC to SC (Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to prohibit the respondent-BCCL from using the land of the present petitioners. It is further prayed for making payment of compensation and further prayer is made for consideration of the representation. 3. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the ancestor of the present petitioners were recorded khatiyani raiyat of Mouza-Chandrabad, Mauza No.159, Khata No.26, Plot No.17 area 5.38 acres and Plot No.18, area 34 decimal. He further submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs and are currently in occupation of the aforesaid land. He submits that the petitioners are carrying agricultural activities on the land in question. He further submits that without acquiring the land of the present petitioners, the respondents, specifically BCCL are now trying to take over the land for its excavation activities on the land of the present petitioners. He further submits that due to this act the agricultural land of the petitioners are being deteriorated. He further submits that they were filed the detailed representation before the Deputy Commissioner. By way of referring Annexure-3 he further submits that the respondent-BCCL informed the petitioners that the land in question was acquired by way of L.A. Case No.55/60-61 and compensation thereof was paid to the tune of Rs.2,89,398.04. He submits that on examining L.A. No.50 of 60-61 it transpires that the plot no.17 and 18 were not acquired in L.A. Case No.55/60-61. He further submits that the letter dated 06.09.2013 of the Land Acquisition Officer is erroneous as the inadequate payment to the tune of Rs.1,88,102.46 was only paid. He further submits that he has also lodged FIR in which investigation is also going on. He submits that by way of referring paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the State, he submits that the original records with regard to the L.A. Case No.55/60-61 is not available with the Dhanbad district. 4. Mr. He further submits that he has also lodged FIR in which investigation is also going on. He submits that by way of referring paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the State, he submits that the original records with regard to the L.A. Case No.55/60-61 is not available with the Dhanbad district. 4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenged the acquisition of the land proceeding on the ground that so far land of these petitioners are concerned, it has not been acquired which is also communicated by Annexure-5 a letter dated 26.09.2013 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad. He further submits that as the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, the section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2003 is applicable in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the section 24 (2) is being considered by a Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the land in question was earlier acquired by SAIL and the said land was transferred to the BCCL later on. He further submits that there is no averments in the counter affidavit that whether the ancestors of the petitioners or the petitioners have been paid compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-BCCL submits that the land in question has already been acquired in the year 1960-61 and the compensation has already been paid. He further submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the land in question was acquired in the year 1960-61 and the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of 60 years. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for BCCL submits that the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to acquisition of the land by the SAIL and later on transferring to the BCCL are concerned, he is not in a position to submit anything as the SAIL is not a party in the present case. He further submits so far section 24(2) of the said act is concerned, this is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as the compensation has already been paid to the beneficiary. 6. Mr. He further submits so far section 24(2) of the said act is concerned, this is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as the compensation has already been paid to the beneficiary. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the State by way of referring the paragraphs of the counter affidavit submits that the land in question was acquired and the adequate compensation has already been paid. He further submits that the land in question under the present writ is part of Block ‘B under L.A. Case No.55/1960-61. By way of referring Annexure-D to the counter affidavit he submits that a total of Rs.2,18,557.83 was paid to the different awardees of the L.A. Case No.55/60-61 pertaining to Mauza Chandrabad @ Kulatanr. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the above submissions and looking in to the writ petition as well as counter affidavit of the BCCL and the respondent State, this Court finds that the land in question was acquired in the year 1960-61. The documents annexed with the counter affidavit of the respondent State also suggests that the compensation has also been paid to the awardees as this compensation has already been paid and the land in question has already been acquired in the year 1960-61, the section 24(2) of the said Act has not no relevance in the case in hand. Moreover, there is disputed question of fact involved in this writ petition and this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as submission of Mr. Shresth Gautam the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that in the last paragraph, it is further stated that the record was sent to the then Special Officer, Land Acquisition Directorate, Bihar, Patna along with the Deputy Commissioner’s letter No.2416/T.C. dated 25.09.1968 and this has been confirmed by the letter of the then Additional Collector, Dhanbad addressed to the DLAO, Dhanbad (lt.No.13/C dated 20.01.1969) and said letter is annexed as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. Thus, there is no relevance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit of the State. 8. Thus, there is no relevance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit of the State. 8. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.337 of 2014 stands dismissed.