Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135816 Court No. - 35 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 696 of 2025 Appellant :- Shri Tejveer Singh (Since Deceased) And 2 Others Respondent :- Shri Shobir Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rishi Kant Rai,Shailesh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- K.R. Singh,Pramod Shukla Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants is present along with learned Standing Counsel. 2. It appears that the references under Section 20-H (4) of the Railways Act, 1989 have been decided by the Court below vide impugned order dated 06.01.2025, which has been challenged by filing the instant first appeal. 3. Earlier, an objection was raised by the Stamp Reporter that for entertaining the appeal, court fees of Rs. 12,50,502.50/- is required, this deficiency of court fees has not been fulfilled by the appellants till date. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that no statutory remedy of first appeal has been provided to the appellants against the impugned order, as such, the impugned order can only be challenged by filing a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 5. In view of this legal position, learned counsel seeks permission from the Court to withdraw the instant first appeal and to pursue the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the withdrawal of the first appeal on the ground that the appellants seek to not press the first appeal solely to avoid payment of court fees. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 8. Section 20-H (4) of the Railways Act, 1989, reads as follows:- "If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated." 9. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2025, it appears that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the apportionment of compensation. As such, the court below decided that issue, against which no statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Railways Act, 1989. 10. In view of the above facts, since the appeal itself is not legally maintainable for want of jurisdiction, the appellants should be permitted to withdraw this first appeal for challenging the impugned order in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the instant first appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to challenge the impugned order, in accordance with law. 12. The office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order to the learned counsel for the appellants, and in its place, a photocopy of that order be kept on record. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad