HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33689 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 3, 4, and 5 and Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing for National Highways Authority of India (respondent no.2). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction commanding the respondents to ensure payment of adequate compensation to the petitioners as per provisions contained in Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 26, 27, 28 & 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the Act, 2013) in respect of land bearing Arazi No.229-M situated at Village & Pargana Jaswantnagar, District Etawah. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was certain construction of the petitioners on the land, which was acquired by the State Government for National Highway and the same has been demolished by the respondents. In most arbitrary manner, the respondent authority has not considered the grievance of the petitioner and the award has been passed. In this regard, the petitioners have already moved a detailed representation dated 11.01.2024, wherein it has been prayed that the adequate compensation may be paid to them in the light of provisions contained under Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 26, 27, 28 & 31 of the Act, 2013. 4. Per contra, Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel appearing for National Highways Authority of India has resisted the relief on the ground that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akanksha Gaur, C.S.C. Maharaj Singh And 8 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) admittedly, the award had been passed. In case the petitioners are aggrieved with the quantum of the compensation, adequate remedy of the petitioners is to prefer an application before the Arbitrator under Section 3(G)5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 but instead of invoking the appropriate proceeding, the enhanced compensation cannot be provided to them. She further submits that adequate compensation has already been deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is always open to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as available in law. 5. Considering the factual situation and in view of the objection so raised by the respondents, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy. However, in the interest of justice we provide that in case the petitioners invoke the proceeding under Section 3(G)5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 within two weeks from today, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 RKP WRIC No. 33689 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad