Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109608-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10475 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Jitendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief: "1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents an ad-interim mandamus commanding the respondents to stop the illegal construction of road in the middle of petitioner agriculture land without acquiring land of Gata no.301, area 0.260 Hectare, and Gata no 636 area 0.1460 Hectare situated at Village Rampur sohad, District-Mau. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation for the land Gata no.301, area 0.260 Hectare, and Gata no 636 area 0.1460 situated at Village Rampur sohad, District- Mau, at the new rate." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an apprehension that the respondents may construct a road through the middle of the petitioner's agricultural land without proper acquisition. He confines his prayer to the limited extent that the petitioner's representation be considered by the appropriate authorities. 4. Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, has vehemently opposed the writ petition, relying on detailed instructions dated 26.04.2025 received from the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department, Mau. The instructions are taken on record. He submits that although the petitioner claims ownership of Gata Nos. 301 and 636 and alleges road construction by the PWD, there is no ongoing construction at present. The existing road (Dharoli-Bhoji) was constructed approximately 30 years ago and does not affect Gata No. 301. Only a small portion of Gata No. 636 (0.042 hectare) is marginally affected. There is neither any new encroachment nor any proposal for fresh road construction. Hence, the writ petition is premature, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts as stated in the instructions, we find that there is no existing cause of action warranting invocation of writ jurisdiction at this stage. However, if the respondents initiate any developmental activity in the future, we hope and trust that the same shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except by due process of law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 NLY Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad