Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74546-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14517 of 2025 Petitioner :- Avnish Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupesh Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Learned Standing Counsel has been served with notice on behalf of the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the competent authority holding that there is no actual partition between the petitioner and the other co-sharers of the acquired land and, therefore, dispute is being referred to the civil court under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. The order also records that in pursuance of notice dated 03.04.2025 issued earlier, the compensation has already been disbursed to respondent no.5-Geeta Devi in respect of her share. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Plot no.400 measuring 0.8920 hectare belonged originally to his father, Markandey. After his death, his mother sold specified portions of the said plot in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 by separate sale deeds. The petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the remaining area, which according to the petitioner, is situated on the western side. 4. In pursuance of acquisition proceedings held under the provisions of National Highways Act, an area measuring 0.2588 hectare of Plot no.400 was acquired. A payment notice was issued to the petitioner and respondents no.4 and 5. The petitioner filed objections claiming the entire compensation amount to the exclusion of respondents no.4 and 5 on the ground that the portion of the land transferred in their favour was not affected by the acquisition. By the impugned order, the competent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the entire compensation amount on the ground that Arazi no.400 is joint holding of the parties and the dispute, being raised by the petitioner, relates to apportionment of compensation and, therefore, it should be decided as per Section 3-H(4) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that the part of Plot no.400, which was acquired, was the same land, which was in possession of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the entire compensation amount. 6. The impugned order records that the share of respondent no.5 in the compensation amount had already been disbursed in her favour, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We find no illegality in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the view taken by the competent authority. Definitely, the claim of the petitioner for payment of entire compensation amount would fall within the purview of Section 3- H(4) of the Act. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although, the impugned order has been communicated to NHAI but, since, it was not forwarded to the civil court, therefore, no reference has been registered so far. 9. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the competent authority would forward the order to the civil court also for doing needful in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to communicate the order dated 25.04.2025 to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the acquired land was situated so that further proceedings are held in accordance with law. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad