JUDGMENT By the Court.—With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have proceeded to decide the writ petitions at the admission stage without calling for the counter-affidavit and both the writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment as the controversy involved therein is the same. 2. Indian Potash Limited (petitioner in Writ C No. 28670 of 2016) has prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159M, 641, 658M, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1M, 635/2, 635/3, 635/4 situated at Begampur and Baheri, District Muzaffarnagar and not to demolish the building and structure standing thereon. 3. Pawan Kumar and 9 others (petitioners in Writ C No. 29782 of 2016) have prayed for prayed for direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the shops situated over Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159M, 641, 658M, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1M, 635/2, 635/3, 635/4 situated at Begampur and Baheri, District Muzaffarnagar and not to demolish the shops and structures standing thereon. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ C No. 28670 of 2016 are being noted below for deciding the controversy : 5. On the matter being taken up on 17.6.2016, this Court had proceeded to pass following interim orders : “The petitioner is a purchaser of a unit of U.P.Sugar Corporation by means of a sale-deed dated 7.12.2010. The schedule to the sale-deed indicates that various pieces of land were sold to the petitioner. The respondent, namely, the Public Works Department in the garb of widening the road has demolished the boundary wall and is planning to make the road on the land, which has been sold to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the land belongs to the Government by virtue of a notification issued on 30.11.1965. On the other hand, the recital of the sale-deed indicates that the land has been granted to the petitioner by virtue of a sale-deed. Let a counter-affidavit be filed by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 within three weeks. List on 11.7.2016. In the meanwhile, no construction of any road will be made on the land being Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159ma, 641, 658ma, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1ma, 635/2, 635/3 and 635/4 till the next date of listing.” 6. Let a counter-affidavit be filed by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 within three weeks. List on 11.7.2016. In the meanwhile, no construction of any road will be made on the land being Khasra Nos. 154, 155, 159ma, 641, 658ma, 666, 609, 613, 625, 626, 627, 633, 634, 635/1ma, 635/2, 635/3 and 635/4 till the next date of listing.” 6. Record in question reflects that the petitioner is a unit of Indian Potash Limited (Sugar Division) and is engaged in manufacturing of crystal sugar through vacuum pan process. In the year 1993, Amrit Sugar Mill was established but under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, the Amrit Sugar Mill was acquired by the State Government on 28.10.1984. Thereafter, it was known as U.P. State Sugar Corporation, Unit Rohana Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar. In order to overcome the financial constraints the State Government had proceeded for disinvestment policy and the petitioner being the highest bidder entered into the Slump Sale Agreement with U.P. State Sugar Corporation on 12.10.2010. Thereafter the sale-deed was executed on 7.12.2010 between the petitioner and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited for plant and machinery and the land. After execution of the sale-deed the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. 7. In the present matter, the dispute arose when the Public Works Department had proceeded to widen the Muzaffarnagar-Deoband Road. As per case of the petitioner, on 3.6.2016 the respondent No. 2 illegally and arbitrarily demolished the boundary wall of sugar mill and encroached upto 12 feet land inside the sugar mill and as such it has been contended that the respondents are only entitled to remove the construction upto 55 feet from the middle of the road under the provisions of U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (in short, “the Act of 1945”). 8. Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that the boundary wall of the petitioner sugar mill is not situate within the restricted area and at no point of time the petitioner had ever raised new boundary wall. In fact the property in question was auctioned by the State Government and being as the highest bidder, the petitioner had purchased the property in question and whatever construction were existing, they were made prior to the purchase of the property and at no point of time the petitioner has altered the situation. In fact the property in question was auctioned by the State Government and being as the highest bidder, the petitioner had purchased the property in question and whatever construction were existing, they were made prior to the purchase of the property and at no point of time the petitioner has altered the situation. Once the State Government executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner with full description of the boundary wall and in case the road is to be widened, then definitely the petitioner is entitled for adequate compensation under the provisions of Sections 11 to 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the Act of 2013) and as such, it has been contended that without following due process of law, the petitioner could not be dispossessed from their own land in the garb of the road widening. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions so received from the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-1, Public Works Department, Muzaffarnagar dated 16.6.2016 has submitted that the disputed boundary wall was within the restricted area and as such, the authority on the spot had every right to act as per the Act of 1945. He has also placed his reliance on the notification dated 30.11.1966, which was issued by the State Government for the present road as per provisions contained under the Act of 1945 wherein the restricted area is upto 67.056 feet. He has also placed his reliance on the notification dated 30.11.1966, which was issued by the State Government for the present road as per provisions contained under the Act of 1945 wherein the restricted area is upto 67.056 feet. For ready reference the instructions sent by the Executive Engineer dated 16.6.2016 read as under : ^^voxr djkuk gS fd eqt~Qjuxj lgkjuiqj ok;k nsocUn ekxZ esa nks ysu pkSMk gSA bl ekxZ dks pkjysu pkSMk dj fuekZ.k djus dk dk;Z m0iz0 jkT; jktekxZ izkf/kdj.k (U.P. State Highway Authority) }kjk djk;k tk jgk gSA fnukad 30-11-1965 dks eqt~Qjuxj lgkjuiqj ekxZ ¼ jkT; ekxZ½ ds eqt~Qjuxj izHkkx dk xoZuj egksn; mRrj izns'k }kjk uksfVfQds'ku tkjh fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftlesa ekxZ ds e/; ls 67-056 QhV dk uksfVfQds'ku tkjh djrs gq, dLcksa@xzkeksa ds uke vafdr fd;s x;s gSA iz'uxr isfV'ku ua0 28670 esa csxeiqj rFkk cgsMh ds [kljk uEcjksa dk mYys[k gS] rFkk bl uksfVfQds'kuksa ds xzkeksa esa ;g nksuksa xzke csxeiqj ,oa cgsMh lfEefyr gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd bf.M;u iksVk'k fyfeVsM dh nhokj ekxZ ds e/; ls 42 ls 45 QhV dh nwjh ij fLFkr gS] tksfd ljdkjh Hkwfe ij fLFkr gSA vr% ;g ihfV'ku [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA layXu& uksfVfQds'ku dh Nk;kizfrA g0 16-6-2016 vf/k'kklh vfHk;aUrk fu0[k0&1 yks0fu0fo0] eqtQQjuxjA^^ 10. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the State Government through U.P. State Highway Authority had proceeded to widen the ‘Muzaffarnagar Saharanpur via Deoband Road’ from Two-Lane into Four-Lane and as per the notification dated 30.11.1965, which was issued by the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of U.P. Roadside Land Control Rules, 1964 wherein the restricted area was 67.056 feet from the mid centre of the road. Relevant portion of the said notification is extracted below : “NOTIFICATION Under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (UP Act No. X of 1945) the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to notify for general information that the State Government proposes to declare the land described in the Schedule hereto annexed to be controlled areas for the purposes of the said Act. Under sub-section (3) of the said section of the said Act, any person interested in the land may, at any time before the expiration of thirty days from the last date on which a copy of this notification is published by the Collector of Muzaffarnagar, object to the making of the declaration or to the inclusion of his land or any part of it within the said boundaries specified in the schedule. SCHEDULE The land lying on either side of the road described below within the boundary lines drawn parallel to the centre line of the road at a distance of 67.056 feet from it.” 11. Once this is the factual situation that for the same very road the State Government had already issued notification way back on 30.11.1965 and as per the said notification the restricted area was upto 67.056 feet from the mid centre of the road. It is also relevant to indicate that the Rules have also been framed under the Act of 1945, which is known as U.P. Roadside Land Control (Sansodhan) Adhiniyam, 1965 (in short, the Rules of 1965). Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 provides for permissible distance for construction of building from the road. For deciding the present controversy, Rule 7 is relevant and the same is reproduced as under : “7. Principles on which permission will be granted.—In determining the grant of permission on an application, the Collector shall take into consideration the following : (1) (i) Bus stand should be set back sufficiently from the general building line limit prescribed for the road so as to permit of a service road subject to a minimum distance of 100 feet from the centre of the road. Access to the stand should be limited to the one point on the main road. (ii) Construction of buildings shall not be allowed within the building lines, i. e., within the distances specified below from the centre line of any road of the description given in the following table : Sl. Access to the stand should be limited to the one point on the main road. (ii) Construction of buildings shall not be allowed within the building lines, i. e., within the distances specified below from the centre line of any road of the description given in the following table : Sl. No. Categories of roads Open and agricultural areas Urban and industrial areas 1 2 3 4 1 National and Provincial Highways 75 60 2 Major District Roads 60 45 3 Other District Roads 50 30 4 Village Roads 20 20 5 Cement Concrete Tracks 30 30 6 Motor Roads (in hills) 50 Question does not arise 7 Bridle Roads (in hills) 25 Ditto (2) The opening of sullage towards the road shall not be permitted. (3) The approach should be in such a manner as not to interfere with or endanger the flow of traffic on the road. (4) No construction or excavation likely to affect public health shall be allowed within the controlled area except after obtaining the advice of the Health Officer.” 12. A bare perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964, this much is reflected that 7 different categories of roads have been mentioned wherein there is categorical demarcation for open and agricultural areas and urban and industrial areas. The present matter relates to item No. 1 “National and Provincial Highways” wherein for open and agricultural areas the restriction is 75 feet, and for urban and industrial areas the restriction is 60 feet. As per Rules of 1965, there is full fledged mechanism and if an incumbent is inclined to raise certain construction, the Competent Authority has every right to process said application and proceed as per provisions of the Act of 1945 and the Rules of 1964. Section 6 of the Act of 1945 also provides for declaration of controlled areas and the incumbent may seek permission for construction and Form-1 in First Scheme also provides that in case a person is interested to seek permission to raise constructions under the regulated area, he has to proceed in accordance with Form-1, which has been issued under Rules 3, 4 and 5 to the Collector on the given format. For very same road the State Government had already issued the notification way back on 30.11.1965 under the Act of 1945 wherein the permissible limit was prescribed to the extent of 67.05 feet from the middle of the road and the said area is restricted zone where no construction can be raised. From their own pleadings, this is admitted situation that the alleged boundary wall was within the restricted area and as such, the same was hit by the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 13. In this background, the submission was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that at no point of time the petitioner company had encroached the roadside and never altered the boundary wall and they were only confined to the area, which was given by the State Government. Once the property in question has been transferred by the State Government in the year 2010, then definitely we are of the considered opinion that in case the land in question has been taken by the department concerned for widening the road, then certainly the petitioner can set up his claim for fair compensation under the Act of 2013. The said aspect can very well be examined and remedied by the competent authority, who is entrusted with such job and if the land of the petitioner is being utilised by the respondents for widening of the road in question, then in that eventuality the Competent Authority has every right to accord adequate compensation. These aspects are highly disputed, which cannot be resolved by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. In the interest of justice, we direct the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar to convene a meeting with all the concerned departments and on the spot the measurement of the property is required to be made. In case it is found that the land in question has been utilised by the department concerned for widening of the road, then definitely the petitioners are entitled for the adequate compensation as per the Act of 2013. The entire exercise may be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 15. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. 16. It is made clear that we have not stayed the construction of the road in question in between. ——————