Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115981-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17823 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamal Singh And 10 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Pandey,Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India (in short "NHAI"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to compute the compensation of the petitioners for the land which has been acquired situated in Gata No.599 in Village Akbarpur Pargana Baran, Tehsil Sadar, District Bulandshahar in accordance with the First, Second and Third Schedules of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in a time bound manner fixed by this Hon'ble Court. II. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 11.03.2025 in a time bound manner fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for NHAI has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two fold submissions. He firstly submits that the petitioners were not recorded in the revenue record as per the preliminary notification under Section 3A of National Highway Act (in short "NH Act"). He secondly submits that after survey it was found that there were some constructions at the road side. As such adequate compensation were prepared and disbursed. While receiving the compensation for the superstructure, no such objection has been raised. Moreover, later on the Authority has no discretion to rectify in the notification under Section 3A of NH Act, which was prepared on the basis of tenure holders, whose name were actually recorded in the revenue record. Later on, once the petitioners had lifted the compensation, as an afterthought, now they claim that they had certain rights on the basis of some sale deed and without crystalising their rights by any competent court/ authority, the NHAI has no such discretion to disburse the same. Moreover, the competent authority/ Addl. District Magistrate has already quantified the compensation qua the holding and the compensation has also been lifted by the persons, who were recorded tenure holders. As such, at this belated stage, no such reprieve can be accorded in absence of any such rights crystalised by the competent court. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as categorical objection, it is admitted position that in the preliminary notification the petitioners were not recorded tenure holders. At the time of survey, there were certain superstructure for which compensation was fixed and that so was lifted without any protest. As such, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter qua right, title or claim over the land in question. However, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad