HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15657 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as the petitioners have purchased the land bearing Arazi No. 456ka/.3720 hectare from one Sri Ram s/o Raj Vansh on 19.07.1996 and accordingly the name of the petitioners were also mutated in the revenue record on 30.06.2003. He submits that due to mistake by the revenue officials, some other names were recorded whereas, the erstwhile owner had sold the entire his holdings in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a recall application along with delay condonation application against the order dated 11.04.1997 before the Naib Tehsildar, Bayalsi, District Jaunpur, which was registered as Case No. RST/7754/2024 computerized case no.T202414360507754, under Section 209(Ja) to recall the order dated 30.06.2003 and consequently vide an order dated 01.01.2025, order was recalled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation on the recorded tenure holder and the direction be issued to the the respondents to disburse the compensation. 4. Per contra, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anaam, Jitendra Upadhyay, Suraj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Umashankar And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel has placed detailed instructions dated 02.08.2025 sent by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jaunpur indicating therein that dispute viz-a- viz between the parties is still there as the cancellation of a sale deed in Case No.255 of 2025 (Ghanshyam Vs. Om Shankar and others) is pending consideration. Only in this backdrop, the respondent authority had taken stand that the actual compensation cannot be disbursed and has also placed reliance on the representation moved by the petitioners. They had also made a request to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jaunpur wherein, they had prayed that the authority may not disburse the compensation. He submits that once the parties themselves have moved applications for restraining to disburse the compensation on account of dispute viz-a-viz between the parties till date and the matter has not been stayed by any competent court as such, the authority has no other option except to deposit the compensation qua the land in question to the competent court. Considering the factual situation at this stage, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not in a position to positively direct the authority to pass the appropriate order for disbursement. However, we leave it open to the petitioners to agitate the same before the competent forum in accordance with law. With the instant leave, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. October 9, 2025 Priya WRIC No. 15657 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad