paragraph 5 thereof could be settled in an Adalath and in paragraph 6, it was stated that once the cases are settled as above, the remaining property owners could seek redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A of the Act. Insofar as the settlement envisaged in Ext.P3 is concerned, Ext.P4 common judgment rendered by the Sub Court itself show that the settlement did not materialise and the references made at the instance of the concerned claimants were closed by the court. Consequently, the petitioners also lost their opportunity to seek redetermination of the compensation as provided in paragraph 6 of Ext.P3. Insofar as, Ext.P5 is concerned, Ext.P5 does not disclose any agreement either by the Government or by the NHAI to make any additional payment. In pursuance to Ext.P5, the District Collector issued Exts.P6 and P7 which were replied by the NHAI as per Ext.R4(c) and (d) and nothing further turned out of this. Therefore, neither Ext.P3, nor Ext.P5 contains anything entitling the petitioner to seek a direction from this Court requiring respondents 1 and 2 to determine the land value of the acquired land on the basis of these two documents.
