UKHC010038982018 2026:UHC:5575 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2329/2018 Anil Singh Gariya --Petitioner Versus Union of India Through Ministry Of Road Trasport And Highway and others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged orders dated 12.01.2018 and 16.01.2018 passed by Additional District Magistrate/Competent Authority, Land Acquisition. 3. By order dated 12.01.2018, competent authority, land acquisition determined the amount payable as compensation for the land which was acquired for construction of National Highway. By order dated 16.01.2018, the land owner (Pushkar Singh son of Meharban Singh) was asked to furnish necessary document so that the amount of compensation may be paid to him. 4. According to petitioner, respondents are proposing to give compensation to other persons who are not the owner of the land and petitioner who is the actual owner is not being offered compensation. 5. Learned State Counsel has referred to short counter affidavit filed by Mohan Singh Barnia, Special Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, Chamoli. Para 7 and 9 of short counter affidavit are extracted below: “7. That the contention of the petitioner that the compensation may be given to him to the other part of the share UKHC010038982018 2026:UHC:5575 of the land in question for being him in possession thereof cannot be accepted as there is no demarcation of the land in question of Khata No. 04 Khasra No. 139, 140, 142 and 144 have not been done, as such all the land owners are co-sharer of the land in question and are in joint possession of it. 9. That the determination of the compensation has also been done of the other co-sharer of the land in question according to their share in the land in question.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other co-sharers in the land in question have not been impleaded as party to the writ petition. He submits that the lis cannot be decided behind the back of the persons who have some interest in the property in question. 7. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 8. Since Section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 provides a Forum whenever a dispute arises as to the apportionment of amount of compensation, therefore petitioner could have availed of remedy provided under Section 3H(4) of the aforesaid Act. 9. This Court, while exercising power of judicial review cannot determine factual disputes, especially the share of the petitioner in the holding which was acquired for construction of road. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2026 Mahinder/