JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of direction to the respondents to provide employment and to make payment of compensation as per the present market value with interest in the light of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy in lieu of acquisition of the valuable land of the petitioner.” 3. This case was taken up on 04.11.2022 and following order was passed: “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tejo Mistri is present. He submits that through this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking payment of compensation as well as employment pursuant to acquisition of land which was purchased by the petitioner and his brothers vide Registered sale-deed dated 03.02.1981. He has further submitted that as per Para-8 of the writ petition, the land was acquired for the establishment of CCL through SO No. 3295 dated 10.11.1980. Thus, it appears that the sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner after the acquisition of land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall produce judgment before this Court to submit that if the land is acquired through sale-deed after acquisition of the land, the purchaser of the land gets a right for employment under land loser scheme.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not have a copy of the records of this case. 4. Office is directed to provide a soft copy of the entire records of this case to Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, on his Email ID amitdas15.akd@gmail.com. 5. Post this case on 07.11.2022 for further hearing.” 4. Today, when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has not taken such plea in the counter affidavit that the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brothers was executed after the acquisition, although it is not disputed from perusal of the writ petition itself that registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brothers was executed after acquisition of land. 5. Learned counsel submits that fact remains that application for appointment under land losers scheme was filed by the petitioner, but it has not been taken to a logical end. 5. Learned counsel submits that fact remains that application for appointment under land losers scheme was filed by the petitioner, but it has not been taken to a logical end. He also submits that petitioner had also given legal notice on 16.03.2009 but no steps having been taken, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that the appointment in connection with the acquisition of land has been given by way of package deal which has attained finality in all respects. He has also submitted that as many as 55 persons were offered employment in lieu of their land as per agreement of package deal after due consideration by tripartite agreement. He submits that otherwise also, the petitioner is not entitled for any employment under the land losers scheme as applicable on the date of acquisition. He also submits that the fact that the land was purchased after acquisition cannot be ignored, although no specific stand has been taken to that effect in the counter affidavit. So far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remedy as per the provisions of law depending upon the provision under which the land has been acquired and no such direction for payment of compensation be passed by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had filed his application seeking appointment but no order has been placed on record regarding denial or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it appears that the petitioner has been claiming employment under land losers scheme and had filed application, but ultimately no such order has been passed in connection with the claim of the petitioner, although specific case of the respondents is that all the employment as per the land losers and through package scheme has already been provided and the matter regarding appointment is already closed. The fact remains that no order as such has been annexed in connection with the claim of the petitioner regarding appointment. 9. The fact remains that no order as such has been annexed in connection with the claim of the petitioner regarding appointment. 9. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the General Manager, Land and Revenue, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, who according to the respondents is the competent Authority to deal with the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner shall file a detailed representation along with this order and the writ records within a period of one month from today. Upon filing of such representation, the General Manager, Land and Revenue, Darbhanga House, Ranchi is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation taking into consideration the applicable scheme/circulars. So far as claim of compensation is concerned, this court is not inclined to issue any mandamus for compensation, as the claim of compensation is governed by the various statutes for which the petitioner has remedy as per prescribed law and procedure. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.