Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113101-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21107 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Kushwaha And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to stop the work forthwith despite authorities not pay the compensation as per the current circle rate of Arazi No. 30 to the petitioner no. 2 to 4 as well as to pay the compensation to petitioner no.1 of Arazi no. 56 Ka, 57 & 72 situated at Mauza Basantpur Ahtmali, Tappa Kasba, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar District Gorakhpur as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition/Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in pursuance of the road winding between Rajghat Bridge to Howard Bandha, District Gorakhpur. ii. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the representation dated 25.04.2025 of the petitioners, in respect of the illegal acquisition by the respondents, within stipulated period." 3. Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, opposed the writ petition by referring to the averments made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the lands in question are commercial in nature and are situated in close proximity to a project undertaken by the PWD Department. He submits that the said arazis are affected by the ongoing project, which is evident from the map on record. He further contends that the petitioners' apprehension that their land would be utilized for road widening is unfounded at this stage. He submits that, if the petitioners are aggrieved, they have an alternative remedy before the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, and therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted at this stage. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, we dispose of the writ petition with the observation that, in case the petitioners file a fresh representation ventilating their grievances before the authority concerned, constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, within two weeks from today, the said authority shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of the representation. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 NLY Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad