JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to make the payment of compensation of 22 sq.m. land, situated in Village Kanaura, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as structure, made on it, to the petitioner. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents not to take the possession of remaining land of petitioner i.e. 40.36 sq.m. land, situated in Village Kanaura, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was not acquired by the respondents.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of land situated in Village Kanaura, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, measuring 86.36 sq.m. The respondent authority acquired only 46 sq.m. land of the petitioner for the widening of the National Highway. According to the petitioner, he has been paid compensation only of 24 sq.m. land; whereas no compensation has been paid to him for the remaining 22 sq.m. of land and structure made on it, the possession of which was also taken by the respondent no. 1. On 29.08.2016, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no. 2 ventilating his grievances; but the said representation has not been decided so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that direction may be issued to the respondents to make the payment of compensation of 22 sq.m. land, situated in Village Kanaura, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as structure, made on it, to the petitioner. 3. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though only 46 sq.m. land of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondent authority; but, the respondents are going to take possession of remaining land of the petitioner i.e. 40.36 sq. m. land, which, according to the petitioner, has not been acquired by the respondent authority as such. Though the petitioner has stated on oath that remaining 40.36 sq. m. land of the petitioner has not been acquired by the respondents; but, the petitioner has not annexed any documentary evidence in support thereof. In such circumstance, no direction can be issued to the respondents in this regard. However, it will always be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the respondents available to him under the law. m. land of the petitioner has not been acquired by the respondents; but, the petitioner has not annexed any documentary evidence in support thereof. In such circumstance, no direction can be issued to the respondents in this regard. However, it will always be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the respondents available to him under the law. It is expected from the respondent no. 1 that the respondent no. 1 will not take possession of the land of the petitioner, which has not been acquired and, in case, they have taken possession of the land of the petitioner, which has not been acquired, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court should not issue any direction in such matters; but, in my view, every Government Authority, even the respondent no. 1, should not take possession of the land, which has not been acquired. Such possession will not only be an unauthorized possession, rather illegal possession. 5. Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submitted that, in fact, the petitioner has already approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer, through Tehsildar concerned, by way of filing representation and the concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. 6. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel also submits that decision on the pending representation of the petitioner will be taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 7. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer alone is competent to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Udham Singh Nagar to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 9. Interim relief application also stands disposed of. 10. There will be no order as to costs.