ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed for following prayers:- (1)(a) for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter as contained in Letter No.2021 dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure no.5) whereby and where under the land which belongs to the petitioners has been allotted in the name of Amrit Park for the constriction of Food Park which is highly arbitrary and illegal. (b) for issuance of writ order/direction to immediately restore the land of the petitioners to its original as petitioners are the original title holder of the land and the land, which was acquired for the purpose of setting an industry in the name of Bokaro Steel Plant and possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioners although land was acquired and still the petitioners are paying rent and land in question is in the physical possession of the petitioners and the same cannot be allotted by the State Government as the land was acquired for the Bokaro Steel Plant under the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the action of the respondent in allotting the acquired land, which was acquired for the purpose of setting an industry in the name of Bokaro Steel Plant, to Amrit Park is highly arbitrary and illegal. (c) for issuance of direction upon the respondent-State and respondent- Steel Authority of India to pay enhanced compensation of the land of the petitioners, which was acquired vide Award No.3 vide Notification No.5054 dated 13.02.1963, 1877 dated 17.10.1977 for development and extension of Bokaro Steel Plant. Being the Awardee vide Panchat No.111 D.P.L.R. No.1052, they are entitled for revised compensation as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and/or by the Hon’ble High Court.” 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.08.2018 as contained in Memo No.2021 (Annexure-5) whereby and where under the land in question has been decided to be developed as a Park in the name of Amrit Park. The petitioners being aggrieved with the said decision is before this Court on the ground that the land in question in his possession and therefore, before taking no objection, consent ought to have taken from the petitioners and therefore, the impugned decision is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved with the said decision is before this Court on the ground that the land in question in his possession and therefore, before taking no objection, consent ought to have taken from the petitioners and therefore, the impugned decision is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent as well as Bokaro Steel Limited have jointly submitted that the land in question has been acquired by the State Government and now the State Government is the exclusive owner of the said land and even if the petitioners are in possession, he will be held to be in illegal possession, therefore, the petitioners have no right to object such decision of the State Government, wherein decision has been taken to develop the area by way of park. 4. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is the admitted position as per the pleading made in the writ petition that the land in question has been acquired by virtue of a proceeding of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Government. The petitioners have availed the opportunity in terms of the notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereafter the land has been acquired after following the due procedure laid down therein and the award has also been passed and amount of compensation has already been paid. The petitioner’s contention is that the amount of compensation is meagre and as such, it needs to be enhanced but he has not filed any application for the enhancement of amount of compensation in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, he cannot raise this point without raising this issue before the competent authority in terms of the said statutory provision. Learned counsel for the petitioners are objecting only on the basis of the possession but merely on possession he has got no right to dispute or question the decision taken by the State Government wherein the decision has been taken to develop the land in question for construction of the Park as admittedly after acquisition, land has been vested with the State Government. 5. 5. In view thereof and according to the considered view of this Court on the basis of reasoning discussed hereinabove, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for making any interference by this Court. 6. In view thereof, this writ petition fails and dismissed.