Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21269-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42841 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kalpana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ishan Deo Giri,Suresh C. Dwivedi Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Singh Sengar for the petitioners, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey holding brief of Sri S.C. Dwivedi for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The prayer made in the instant petition is for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in light of a report dated 06.10.2022 by Tehsildar, Jalaun. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have not been paid compensation for their share in the acquired land. The acquisition was undertaken under the provisions of Act No. 30 of 2013 and award has been duly made. However, compensation amount has not been disbursed to the petitioners. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has placed on record the instructions received from District Magistrate, Jalaun, according to which the total area of Gata No. 104 is 1.757 hectare. It was recorded in the joint name of Ram Bahadur Singh and four others. Ram Bahadur Singh executed sale deed in respect of 4/5 portion in favour of Vansh Bahadur Singh on 17.07.2000. The Original Suit No. 146 of 2000 is pending between Dharmendra and Vansh Bahadur Singh for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.07.2000. During pendency of said suit, Vansh Bahadur Singh sold 1.405 hectare by sale deed dated 22.10.2011 in favour of Mahendra Singh and Jitendra Singh, his sons and they executed sale deed dated 29.04.2013 in favour of the petitioners. The dispute relating to mutation is pending before Board of Revenue in a revision filed by Raj Kumari under Section 110 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Suit No. 146 of 2000 is also pending. The release of compensation to the petitioners in the said situation is not warranted and the matter is to be dealt with as provided under Section 77(2) of Act No. 30 of 2013. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners have concealed about the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings and the civil suit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not aware of the civil suit and in view of the stand taken by the Competent Authority, the dispute be referred to the Authority, as stipulated under Section 76 of the Act. 7. Counsel for U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel have no objection to the same. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to refer the dispute relating to entitlement to the authority in terms of Section 76 of the Act within six weeks of communication of the instant order. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 gp Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad