HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30273 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri P.K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner; 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 quashing the impugned order dated 4.7.2024 passed by respondent no.3-Collector/ District Magistrate, Shamli and for a direction to respondents to assess and pay fair compensation to the petitioners for the acquired and utilized land for the construction of highways. 3. The record reflects that the petitioners are the co-owners of Khasra No.1894 (A and B) admeasuring 0.1130 hects. and Khasra No.1896 admeasuring 0.4410 hects. of Revenue Village Lak, Pargana, Tehsil and District Shamli. It is alleged that on account of widening of existing State Highway (14 mtrs. in width) while constructing National Highway (24.39 mtrs. in width), the lands of the petitioners had also been utilised without adequate compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the report dated 13.5.2022 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein it is mentioned that petitioners' holding had been utilised for road widening. Initially, the petitioner had preferred Writ-C No.36955 of 2022 (Satveer Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) in which an order was passed on 13.1.2023 asking the District Magistrate to constitute a revenue team of three revenue officials, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra Satvir Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) who shall carry out fresh measurement on the site in question in the presence of the officials of the National Highway Authority and thereafter the report would be examined by the District Magistrate, Shamli. Later on the matter was disposed of vide order dated 9.1.2024 asking the District Level Committee to decide the claim of the petitioners within twelve weeks after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He submits that the District Level Committee in most arbitrary manner had clubbed the entire holding and held that there was no shortfall in the petitioners' holding. It is submitted that the said exercise had been carried out behind their back and without according due opportunity. Moreover, on the spot there is shortfall of petitioners' holding. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel resisted the relief and submitted that the Division Bench had twice accorded indulgence in favour of the petitioners and the revenue officials had also carried out actual measurement on the site and only thereafter the District Level Committee had passed the order. He submits that in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they may avail the appropriate remedy to ensure actual demarcation under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code"). In absence thereof, no further reprieve can be accorded. Moreover, disputed facts cannot be agitated before this Court. 5. Considering the factual situation, we find that twice the indulgence had been accorded by the Division Bench in favour of the petitioners and the Court had directed the District Magistrate to constitute a team of revenue officials and submit report. Later on in the light of the relevant Government Order the matter was relegated to the District Level Committee, which had passed the order impugned with categorical finding. The said factual aspect of the matter cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the remedy before the competent revenue/ civil court. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 10, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 30273 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad