HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29790 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 5 - National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly respondent no.4 Special Land Acquisition Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Ghazipur to ensure apportionment of compensation to petitioner in respect of his share in Plot No.149 (new Plot No.266) area 0.0100 hectares situate in Village Devkali, Pargana Saidpur, Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur which has been acquired for the purposes of four lane road widening of NH-31." 3. At the very outset, Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 5 – NHAI, has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that under the provisions of the NHAI Act, 1956, if the petitioner claims to be a recorded tenure holder of the disputed land, the proper remedy for disbursement/apportionment of compensation is to move an application under Section 3H(3) of the NHAI Act, 1956. It is provided therein that where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who, in its opinion, are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. Such disputes cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Considering the factual situation and upon perusal of the revenue record of Fasli years 1426–1431 relating to the disputed land, we are of the opinion that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Geetanjali, Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Mahendra Pratap Munna .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to move an application before the prescribed authority so that the matter may be referred to the competent court. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner files an application before the prescribed authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer within one week from today, we hope and trust that the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. September 8, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 29790 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad