Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109503-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8338 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ganesh Chandra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Pant,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Yadav,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. In compliance with the previous order, learned Standing Counsel has filed a detailed instruction, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri J. Nagar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Nitin Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, Shri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent authorities to pay compensation to petitioners for acquisition of 0.5360 hectare of land, forming part of petitioners plot no. 99, situated in Village Majhola, Tehsil Bhogaon, District Mainpuri as determined by the respondent no.2 in award no. 14 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are recorded Bhumidhars with transferable rights over Plot No. 99, measuring 1.4000 hectares, and possess a one-fourth share in Plot No. 5, ad-measuring 0.709 hectare, both situated in Village Majhola, Tehsil Bhogaon, District Mainpuri. In the year 2015– 2016, a portion of the petitioners' land measuring 0.5360 hectares was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for road widening, pursuant to due notification. An award regarding the said acquisition was passed on 13.12.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, the petitioners filed an application for arbitration before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, which was dismissed on 26.03.2021. Thereafter, Arbitration Case No. 66 of 2022 was preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which too was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Challenging the same, the petitioners have preferred Arbitration Appeal No. 273 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court. 6. Despite the passage of over seven years since the acquisition, no compensation has been paid to the petitioners. The respondents' action in taking possession of the land without disbursing compensation as per the award, and without complying with the rehabilitation and resettlement requirements under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, constitutes a blatant violation of statutory mandates. This arbitrary deprivation of property, without following due process, infringes the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioners submitted a representation to respondent no.2 highlighting their grievance, no remedial action has been taken to date. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received from the concerned authorities, submits that as per paragraph-7 of the instructions, the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation only upon furnishing all requisite and credible documents substantiating their title and lawful ownership over the acquired land. It is submitted that, till date, the petitioners have failed to produce any satisfactory or conclusive evidence before the Competent Authority to establish their entitlement to the compensation claimed. It is further contended that the issues raised by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact— particularly relating to title and possession—which necessitate proper adjudication by the Competent Authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and other applicable laws. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced and the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh and detailed representation before the Competent Authority within a period of two weeks from today. 9. In the event such a representation is submitted and all the requisite and credible documents substantiating their title and lawful ownership over the acquired land are furnished, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's claim for adequate compensation on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the petitioners. The decision shall be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of submission of the representation. It is further directed that the existing status of the land in question shall be maintained and shall not be altered, disturbed, or interfered with by any of the parties during the pendency and till final disposal of the proceedings before the Competent Authority. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad