Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67332-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1217 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Yadav And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Dutt Mishra,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri R.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to pay compensation in respect of their share in Gata no.7 in pursuance of payment notice dated 31.05.2024. 3. The petitioners claim title over an area measuring 0.242 hectare of Gata no.731B on basis of two separate sale deeds dated 08.07.2021 and 22.01.2022. 4. The respondents acquired an area measuring 0.016 hectare of Plot no.731B under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. An award was declared on 31st May, 2024. Thereafter, notice was issued on 28.09.2024 to the petitioners and other co-tenure holders. 5. Indisputably, there is no partition of the plot by metes and bounds but it appears that one of the co-tenure holders sold specified portion to the petitioners. After the payment notice was issued to all the tenure holders including the petitioners herein, the respondents carried out exercise for spot inspection wherein, according to them, it transpired that the petitioners are in possession of 0.246 hectare, which was more than the area purchased by them. 6. The stand taken by the respondents is that in view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to show that the spot inspection was not in accordance with law as no fixed point was ascertained, consequently, the report is not correct. 8. In our opinion, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the spot inspection report carried out by the respondents, it is open to them to apply for demarcation of their holding, as per the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 so that their holding is properly demarcated and, if in the said proceedings, it transpires that any part of their holding has been affected by the acquisition proceedings, it shall be open to them to move to the Authority with their claim for payment of compensation. 9. 9. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad