HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10195 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that after the competent authority had determined the compensation payable to the land owners an application for correction of the said order/award was filed by the National Highway Authority of India before the Collector under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During pendency of the said application an order was passed on 26.09.2018 by the Collector, who happens to be the Statutory Arbitrator under the National Highway Authority Act, 1956, to the Bank, for freezing the bank account of the petitioner on the allegation that the excess compensation has been paid. However, the said application under Section 33 came to be dismissed on 04.10.2021, as, informed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Pankaj Khare and is annexed at Page 45 of the writ petition. 3. On being asked as to whether there is any order wherein Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar Singh, Devansh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vimlesh Kumar Manoj Kumar Chauhan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) there may be a finding that excess compensation has been paid to the petitioner or deposited in his bank account learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Collector fairly submitted that as far as his clients are concerned there is no such order. 4. When we confronted learned counsel for the Bank he submitted that vide order dated 26.09.2018 of the Statutory Arbitrator i.e. the Collector, the account of the petitioner had been frozen and thereafter, no order for unfreezing the account has been passed. 5. The net result is that there is no order determining that excess compensation has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has already withdrawn some amount, which was deposited as compensation in his bank account with the opposite party- Bank. 6. On being confronted learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner, therefore, obviously there is no action by the Investigating Officer under the erstwhile Cr.P.C. or the new B.N.S.S. for freezing the bank account nor has any been placed before us nor it is the case of the Bank' counsel that any such communication has been received. 7. We are, therefore, surprised as to how the bank account of the petitioner continues to be remain frozen. It appears that it is only on account of non communication of unfreezing order by the Collector even after rejection of the application under Section 33 on 04.10.2021. As, there is no determination by any authority or Court that excess compensation has been paid to the petitioner, as yet, therefore, we see no reason for freezing the bank account of the petitioner. We, accordingly, direct the opposite party no. 6-Bank to de-freeze the bank account and allow the petitioner to operate the same subject to the condition that if, in future, if such determination takes place that excess WRIC No. 10195 of 2025 2 compensation has been paid, then, process as may be prescribed in law can be resorted to for recovery of the excess amount or for taking such other action as may be permissible in law. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. November 3, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 10195 of 2025 3 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench