JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder a direction has been sought for upon the respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioners relating to acquisition of lands measuring 0.04 acres out of plot No.430 and 0.33 acres out of plot No.433 under Khata No.177 situated at village Kerukocha, P.S. Shyamsundarpur, Anchal Chakuliya, District East Singhbhum. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands have been acquired under the provision of National Highway Act, 1956 and in pursuance to the notice issued by the competent authority, they have approached by producing relevant documents but no decision has been taken and in the meanwhile, construction made over the land in question has been demolished and as such, it is a fit case where the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may interfere by directing the authority to compensate the petitioners in lieu of the lands acquired. 3. Ms. Sweety Topno, learned counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable at the first instance in the provision of alternative remedy available under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 since the claim of the petitioners are to be determined by the Arbitrator/competent authority and instead of approaching before the Arbitrator/competent authority, they have moved before the District Land Acquisition Officer and as such it is not available with the petitioners to take the plea that any delay has been caused rather the said plea would be available to the petitioners if the petitioners would have approached before the competent authority as per the provision made under Section 3-G(5) i.e., the Arbitrator. 4. The similar plea has been taken by Mr. Naveen Kumar, learned SC VII. 5. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the factual aspect and taking into consideration the provision of Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 is of the view that the statute provides a provision for re-determination of claim of the land users if the land has been acquired under the provision of National Highway Act, 1956 and the determination of the quantum of the amount of compensation would be made by the Arbitrator/competent authority duly been appointed by the authority. 6. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have not approached before the Arbitrator/competent authority in view of the provision of Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 rather they have moved before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the delay has been caused is not having any force, reason being that the delay would only be caused if the appropriate authority would be approached but the District Land Acquisition Officer is not the competent authority under the Act, 1956 rather it is the Arbitrator/competent authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to move before the Arbitrator/competent authority to take aid of the provision of Section 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 for redressal of their grievance. Such submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has not been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-N.H.A.I. or the State. 8. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to approach before the competent authority in the light of the provision as contained under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 which shall be looked into by the competent authority in accordance with law.