HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 13122 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-functionaries. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.3 to take appropriate decision upon the objection dated 05.02.2025 filed by the petitioner in respect of change of alignment of existing National Highway No.7 in front of petitioner's house. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No.4 not to further demolish the petitioner's residential house till the appropriate decision is taken by the respondent No.3. (iii). Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice or else, the petitioner shall suffer irreparably. (iv). Award the cost in favour of petitioner." 3. This Court on 30.04.2025 has passed the following order:- "Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was petitioner no.12 in Writ-C no.32632 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Poorva Agarwal, Punit Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohammad Faruk Ahmed .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of 2023 (Smt. Chand Kapoor and 39 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others). Said writ petition along with others in a batch were disposed of by co-ordinate Bench on order dated 11th December, 2023. Two paragraphs from said order are reproduced below. "The respondents cannot demolish the constructions of the petitioners without there being an order in this behalf having been passed in accordance with law. Moreover, in case, respondents are interested in obtaining the land of the petitioners for widening of the road through mutual negotiations, it is always open to them to proceed with the said exercise but in case any person does not agree to it, he cannot be compelled to part with his land and in such case the only option available is to compulsorily acquire the land of that person as permissible under law. Accordingly, we dispose of all the writ petitions by providing that the respondents shall not demolish the existing constructions without following the procedure of law. However, it will be open to them to enter into negotiations with the petitioners for acquisition of title over the land which is going to be affected by widening of the road. In cases, where the person concerned has already given consent, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law." He submits, his client's house has been earmarked for demolition. Respondent-authorities are intending to proceed purportedly for purpose of widening of the road. His client is before Court for protection. Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. On query he submits, he does not have instruction on any step taken to challenge said order dated 11th December, 2023. State has adjournment to issue written instructions on their intention, particularly in respect of petitioner and claim of his house being in the line of altered alignment of the road and, therefore, to be demolished. List on 15th May, 2025, as fresh. Status quo be maintained till next date of hearing." 4. The instructions have been produced by Sri V.K. Dixit, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Alongwith the instructions, an affidavit of petitioner has been enclosed. According to which, the petitioner has acceded to the request for vacating the house in question on payment of compensation. The amount of Rs.39,81,064/- has been credited in the account of the petitioner. WRIC No. 13122 of 2025 2 5. The petitioner has not disclosed the fact of submitting any such affidavit in the writ petition and thus, the petitioner is guilty of concealing material fact. 6. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if he is aggrieved by the fact that the compensation awarded to him is not adequate. October 6, 2025 SS WRIC No. 13122 of 2025 3 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad