S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) ON 15. 1. 2004, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("act") notifying the land ad-measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas in Village Saleempur majra, Madipur, Delhi, of which the petitioner was 50% owner, for the public purpose of a primary school. On 5. 3. 2004, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and, simultaneously, a separate-jiotification was issued under Section 17 (1) of the Act directing the Land Acquisition Collector (North-West) ('lac') to take possession of the land. Thereafter notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Act were issued.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a response to the said notices under Sections 9 and 10, claiming compensation for the land at Rs. 84,000/- per sq. m. , along with other statutory benefits. On 19. 4. 2004, the petitioner was issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 67,99,561 towards the 80 per cent compensation of the land as required under Section 17 (3a) of the Act. The rate at which this amount was calculated was Rs. 3696/- per sq. m. However, this was done prior to the making of the Award, and on an approximation of the compensation payable.

( 3 ) ON 3. 3. 2006, the LAC issued an Award in which he assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,595/- per sq. yd. , and determined the total compensation at Rs. 89. 90 lakhs. The apportioned share of the petitioner was determined at Rs. 44,95,035. 24.

( 4 ) SINCE the compensation determined to be payable by the award was less than the compensation already paid in terms of Section 17 (3a) of the Act, a notice was issued on 7. 6. 2006 to the petitioner requiring him to refund the excess amount to the tune of rs. 23,04,526/ -. The petitioner was asked to deposit the said excess amount within 21 days of the receipt of the notice.

( 5 ) ON 20. 7. 2006, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

" (a) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the award No. 28/2005-06 in respect of land measuring 4 Bighas 4 biswas in the village Saleempur Majra, madipur, Delhi; and

(b) issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent authority to re-determine the award after hearing the petitioner and on the basis of evidence and instructions issued by the landb Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in relation to the acquisition proceedings finalized pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 28/04/2005 in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 1161/1988, titled as Udai Singh vs. UOI and Ors. ; and

(c) issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from recovering the compensation, which has been paid to the petitioner on the estimated 80% of the total compensation till the final adjudication of the present writ petition; and"

( 6 ) FROM a reading of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was aware of the existence of an alternative remedy under section 18 of the Act in respect of these very reliefs, but sought to offer an explanation in para 26 to the effect that "the remedy provided under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act of objecting to the Award is not an efficacious remedy to the petitioner. " it is contended that the jurisdiction of the high Court under Article 226 of the constitution is not excluded particularly where the Court comes to a conclusion that "the principles of natural justice have been violated or the procedure required for decision have not been adopted or that the authority has acted in violation of the fundamental rights. "

( 7 ) MR. Sumit Bansal, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court should overrule the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondent to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of the existence of an alternate statutory remedy. According to Mr. Bansal the LAC had wilfully ignored certain statutory instructions issued by the Land and Building department, Government of NCT of Delhi in compliance with certain directions issued by this Court on