Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116683-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20668 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Bansal Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Yadav,C.S.C.,Rajesh Tripathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for Union of India, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2025. 3. Facts in brief are that the Union of India issued a Notification under Section 3A of National Highway Act, 1956 on 05.10.2009 to acquire the land for road widening, in consequence thereof, the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.68 area 0.6400 hectare situated in revenue Village Birjapur, Tehsil & District Mathura was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed on 05.02.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land was acquired under the old Act, 1894, the petitioner is also entitled for solatium. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have raised two fold objections qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition as the award was passed in the year 2013 but till date the petitioner has not agitated the same for payment of compensation/solatium and against the said award the petitioner is also having efficacious remedy to press his relief under Section 3 (g) (5) of the National Highways Authority Act, which outlines the process for resolving disputes regarding compensation amounts determined by the competent authority for land acquired under the Act. If either party disagrees with the amount, they can apply to have the matter decided by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. 6. Considering the factual situation, we dispose off this writ petition asking the respondent No.2, Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mathura to examine the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to all Stakeholders. 7. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 S.P. (Prashant Kumar,J) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad