Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2368-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 293 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jugrani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue U.P. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Chandra,Jitendra Kumar Yadav,Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Pancham Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard. 2. The only ground raised by the petitioner's counsel during argument was that although the land of the petitioner is of commercial nature the compensation being proposed is of agricultural nature. However, learned Standing Counsel says that as of now what has been challenged herein is a notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is analogous to Section 4 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereas subsequently after filing of the objections by the petitioner the same have been rejected and the notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 which is analogous to Section 6 of the erstwhile Act, 1894 has also been published. The stage of ascertainment of compensation has not reached as yet. 3. On being confronted, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner apprehends that compensation would be paid only on agricultural rates. 4. As no other ground has been pressed before the Court, we see no reason to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the pending proceedings to raise relevant pleas at the appropriate stage and to seek remedies as may be prescribed in law. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench