“13. In the factual matrix of the present case, it transpires that the claim of the petitioner is with respect to the amount paid by him to the owners of the land which were purchased in the representative capacity of M/s Abhijit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent no.5). The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has invested huge money in purchasing the land for the said coal blocks on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and as such, the respondent no. 2 is duty bound to decide his claim while disbursing the compensation in favour of the prior allottee. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Act, 2015 specifically provides the manner in which the sale proceeds are to be disbursed. Except Secured Creditor and prior allottee(s), the claim of any other person is not covered in the scheme of the Act, 2015 and the Rule framed thereunder. Since the petitioner is neither the secured creditor nor the prior allottee, his claim has rightly been rejected by the respondent no. 2 for the reasons assigned in the letter dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure- R/1 to the counter affidavit). 14. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the petitioner does not come under the category of “secured creditor” or “prior allottee”, his claim is required to be decided by the respondent no. 2 on the ground of the principles of equity and fair play. The said contention is also not worth acceptance primarily for the reason that the Act, 2015 very specifically deals with the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 by reason of which he is duty bound to act in the manner provided under the Act, 2015 and the Rules, 2014. As such, there is no scope of applying principles of equity and fair play. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the notion that no other court has jurisdiction to decide the claim of the petitioner and thus he is remediless. I am of the view that the petitioner has misconstrued the provisions of the Act, 2015. It only ousts the jurisdiction of other courts in relation to the matter which are in the domain of the Act,2015. The disputes which are not covered under the Act, 2015 being the private dispute between the prior allottee and the third party, can certainly be agitated before different forums in accordance with law.”
