JUDGMENT 1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellants (respondents before the Single Bench) for assailing the stay order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8304/2022 in favour of the respondent-writ petitioners in relation to the land acquired by the appellants for the purposes of the water pipeline being laid for the Pachpadra Refinery. 2. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar, representing the appellants, urged that the Government of India has exercised its statutory powers for acquiring the land for the purposes of establishing the refinery and as a consequence, the right of usage of the land has been vested in the refinery, which is a project of national importance. He submits that the only objection advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Single Bench was that the authorities concerned took the thumb impressions/signatures of the petitioners on the acquisition notices by keeping them in dark and hence, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In this regard, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Bhaniyana Vs. Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15018/2021 decided on 27.10.2021). He has also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ichchapur Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Competent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Ors. [ (1997) 2 SCC 42 ] and urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has clearly observed that an oil refinery is a project of national importance and any individual inconvenience has to yield to the national interest. 3. He urges that the objections raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are unsustainable. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved of the acquisition order/quantification of the compensation, the statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') and they would have to avail the same. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in these circumstances. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh, representing the respondents-writ petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that as a matter of fact, notices of acquisition proceedings were never served on the petitioners or their family members and as such, the entire acquisition is bad in the eyes of law. 5. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in these circumstances. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh, representing the respondents-writ petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that as a matter of fact, notices of acquisition proceedings were never served on the petitioners or their family members and as such, the entire acquisition is bad in the eyes of law. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. On the face of it, the submission of Mr. Birkh that the notices of acquisition proceedings were not served upon the writ petitioners or their family members is incorrect and untenable. In this regard, we may take note of the fact that even in the pleadings of the writ petition, all that the petitioners have alleged is that the thumb impressions/signatures on the notices were procured by keeping them in dark and giving them an allurement that water connection would be provided to their houses. Ex facie, this plea made in the writ petition is in conflict with the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the writ petitioners in this court. It is trite to mention here that admittedly, the notice for acquisition of land to lay down the water pipeline for the refinery through the village of the petitioners was published in newspapers and a proclamation thereof was also made by public announcement. The compensation awardable to all the land holders has been assessed after following the process prescribed under the Act of 2013. This assessment includes the component of loss caused to the standing crops. It at all the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the quantification of compensation, they can always avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act of 2013. However, we are of the firm opinion that there is no justification for passing a restraint order against the appellants herein from using the land acquired as per the purpose of acquisition. The oil refinery is a project of national importance and thus, personal inconveniences have to yield to the national interest. Thus, the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained and is hereby reversed. 7. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.