HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30849 of 2025 (Sl. No. 13) Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ishan Deo Giri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-UPEIDA. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred for a direction commanding the respondents to ensure correct valuation of property in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent authority had adopted pick and choose policy. On one hand, the higher valuation of the land had been accorded for a part of land, which is situated adjacent to the petitioner's land on the other hand, the petitioner had been offered lesser compensation. 4. Per contra, Shri I.D. Giri, learned counsel for the respondent authority had vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the instant writ petition is premature and definitely, the authority is inclined to acquire the land through negotiation. At present, there is no cause of action to agitate the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature. 5. Considering the factual situation, we find that the respondent authority must ensure that the land is to be acquired strictly in accordance with law, either through compulsory acquisition or through mutual consent. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Rajiv Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ishan Deo Giri Kamlesh Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 4, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 30849 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad