HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35357 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Upendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajeet Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Raghav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent - Project Director, National Highway Authority, Varanasi. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus either to pay commanding the respondents compensation to the petitioner or to provide her possession over her land of Arazi No. 561 area 0.13 hectare situated in Village Aidhe, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi in lieu of her land acquired by the respondents for construction of Ring Road within time bound period, which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner at an early date, in accordance with law. c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surendra Nath Dubey, Upendra Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mahendra Pratap, Raghav Dwivedi Smt Poonam Vishwakarma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) circumstances of the case. d) Award the costs of petition to the petitioner." 3. At the outset, Shri Raghav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent - Project Director, National Highways Authority, Varanasi, has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the acquisition of the land in question took place under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”), and the final notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 was issued on 04.03.2015. He submits that the petitioner is claiming rights on the basis of a Gift Deed executed subsequently. According to him, in view of the law laid down in Sursati vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (9) ADJ 547, it is well settled that acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged by a subsequent purchaser/ right holder. He further submits that in case the erstwhile owner has not withdrawn the compensation, the subsequent right-holder/title-holder may seek disbursement of the compensation, and such factual aspect may be examined by the competent authority, namely, the Additional District Magistrate/Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Varanasi. 4. A similar objection has been raised by Shri Ajeet Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. He submits that some time may be accorded to complete his instructions. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reliefs prayed for, this Court finds that insofar as the prayer for release/restoration of land is concerned, once the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1956 have attained finality and the award was declared on 03.04.2015, there exists no provision under the Act, 1956 for release of the acquired land or for restoration/repatriation of the same to the tenure- holder. The legal position regarding the rights of a subsequent purchaser is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by the Full Bench in Sursati (supra), wherein it has been held that a subsequent purchaser merely steps into the shoes of the erstwhile tenure-holder for the limited purpose of claiming compensation and cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. WRIC No. 35357 of 2025 2 6. In the present case, the notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 was issued on 04.03.2015 and the award was declared on 03.04.2015, whereafter the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The petitioner admittedly acquired rights over the land subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and taking over of possession, and therefore cannot claim any independent or enforceable right over the acquired land. At this belated stage, no challenge to the acquisition proceedings can be entertained, particularly at the instance of a subsequent purchaser/right- holder. 7. However, in case the erstwhile owner has not accepted the compensation, it is always open to the subsequent purchaser/title-holder to seek release/disbursement of the compensation. This aspect can appropriately be examined by the SLAO. 8. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner approaches the competent authority, namely, the Additional District Magistrate/Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Varanasi, the said authority shall consider and process the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. May 14, 2026 NLY WRIC No. 35357 of 2025 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad