JUDGMENT : (Devashis Baruah, J.) Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Soren, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. P. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the IOCL; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam and Ms. M. Barman, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the District Administration. 2. The instant batch of writ petitions are filed by the petitioners who are aggrieved by the acquisition process carried out in connection with LA Case No.7/2011 whereby their lands have become landlocked and unusable. 3. The case of the petitioners, therefore, is that this Court should issue direction upon the respondent authorities to spare sufficient portions of the land which were acquired for passage for free ingress and egress from the main road to the left out portion of the acquired lands of the petitioners. It is relevant to mention herein that in the said land acquisition proceedings, certain portions of the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired. Neither at the time of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor at the time of filing claims at the stage of enquiry, the petitioners objected. They woke up only when the Award was passed and possession was taken and more particularly at the time of construction of the boundary wall. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the instant batch of writ petitions, this Court issued notice and further observed that the petitioners may approach the Deputy General Manager (Operations), State Office, Noonmati, to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement and if such a move is taken by the petitioners, the respondent No.4 could also explore the possibility of such an amicable settlement. 5. The record further reveals that the approach was made by the petitioners to the said Official of the respondent Corporation, but the same did not receive a favourable response. Under such circumstances, the question arises as to whether this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directs the respondent authorities to spare sufficient portions of the land which were acquired for passage of the petitioners for free ingress and egress from the main road. 6. Under such circumstances, the question arises as to whether this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directs the respondent authorities to spare sufficient portions of the land which were acquired for passage of the petitioners for free ingress and egress from the main road. 6. It is a settled principle of law that when in an acquisition proceedings, the award is passed and the possession has been taken in accordance with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) or under Section 16 of the said Act of 1894, the land vests absolutely upon the State without free from all encumbrance {see Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 (para119)}. It is also seen that pursuant to the vesting of the land, the land also has been handed over to the respondent Corporation the beneficiary and the possession accordingly has been handed over. Mr. P. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOCL further submits that all construction activities in the meanwhile have also been completed. 7. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the question of issuance of a writ as sought for in the instant proceedings does not arise. 8. Before parting with the record, this Court however finds it relevant to observe that the materials on record show that the petitioners have filed objection to the award as regards the inadequacy of compensation. Sections 26 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) stipulates what are the basis for determining the compensation. It includes in ‘thirdly’ of Section 28 of the Act of 2013 that compensation would be awarded if damage is sustained by the persons interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of securing such land from his other land. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are given liberty to amend the objections and if reference had already been made, then amend the claim settlement. 9. With the above observations and directions, the instant batch writ petitions stands disposed of.