2026:UHC:1724 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2967 of 2022 13th March, 2026 Harsh Saini ……….Petitioner Versus National Highway Authority of India and others ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, through video conferencing. Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, through video conferencing. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State/respondent no.2. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement which was made by respondent no.2 on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 3H(4) of The National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1956”), whereby the disbursement of the compensation was stopped by respondent no.2. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application under Section 3H(4) of Act of 1956 was moved by the petitioner for the reason that the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.178 of Village- Gopalpur and Khasra Nos.61 and 93 of Village-Mehwar Kalan ad-measuring 15 bigha, 9 biswa, 2 biswansi for the construction of National Highway- Bharatmala Project. 3. Undisputedly the said land belongs to the petitioner and after acquisition by the respondent compensation of the said land was calculated and deposited by respondent no.1 before respondent no.2. Some dispute with regard to the apportionment of the said compensation erupted which resulted into filing of the application under 1 2026:UHC:1724 Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 on 13.09.2022. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-SLAO passed the endorsement and stayed the payment of the compensation to the respective parties in view of the dispute with regard to the ownership and right to receive the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner limited his argument only to the extent that a direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to decide the said application dated 13.09.2022, in accordance with law. 6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that some part of the compensation has wrongly been disbursed to the respondent nos.3 to 6. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 6 submitted that they are ready to return the said amount which has wrongly been disbursed to them by respondent no.2. 8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stand disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the application dated 13.09.2022 under Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law and if need arise the matter may be referred to the Competent Authority under the Act. 9. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.03.2026 SK 2