JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. 2. The petitioners, in this writ petition, are seeking compensation in respect of land covered by Gata Nos. 540, 543-Ka, 546-Kha, 547-Ka, 549-Ka & 549-Kha, measuring 0.392 hectare, situated in Village -Kota, Pargana -Agori, Tehsil -Robertsganj, District -Sonbhadra, which has been utilized by the State Highways Development Authority for widening of Varanasi -Shaktinagar State Highway (SH-5A). 3. Briefly stated, the facts, which emerge from the documents on record and the pleadings of the parties, are that the land in question is stated to have been notified on 08.07.1965 under the Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1945'). This declaration was in respect of Robertsganj -Dudhi road starting from 78.859 kilometres of Robertsganj -Dudhi road and ending at 73.025 kilometres of the road near PWD rest House at Dudhi. The land of the petitioners is in Village Kota, Pargana -Agori, Tehsil -Robertsganj, District -Sonbhadra. Village -Kota is mentioned in the notification. 4. It is stated that thereafter, a notice was also published on 18.08.2009, directing the persons, who had made unauthorised encroachments upon the land so notified by the State Government, to remove their encroachments, forthwith; otherwise, they will be saddled with penalty. 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the Gatas in question were originally recorded in the name of their father, Shamshuddin Khan, and after his death, in mutation proceedings, the names of the two petitioners were recorded in the revenue records in the fasli 1422-1427 dated 31.05.2016/19.07.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners and their father have been in occupation of the land in question for a very long time and therefore, if the land has been encroached upon for the purposes of Highway or construction of road, the petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners and their father have been in occupation of the land in question for a very long time and therefore, if the land has been encroached upon for the purposes of Highway or construction of road, the petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation. 6. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has denied the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation relying upon the notification of 8th July, 1965 and submits that this land was already notified by the State Government as far back as 1965 and therefore, the petitioners are mere encroachers upon the said land and they are not entitled to any compensation and that, even after publication of notice dated 18.08.2009, no response or reply was submitted by the petitioners or their father, Shamshuddin Khan. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the document filed at Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition, which shows that a three-member Committee had been constituted by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and submits that its report has not been submitted till date. The averments, with respect to Annexure No. 15, are made in paragraph no. 20 of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, filed by the Tehsildar on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4, the reply to paragraph no. 20 of the writ petition has been denied and it is stated that the reply has been given in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. 8. We, therefore, peruse paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit, in which it is admitted that earlier, a report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector, which was stated to be incorrect because the concerned Gatas were not demarcated in the map and therefore, the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra constituted a three-member Committee by his order dated 18.10.2017 for actual demarcation of the Gatas in question, but the proceedings of the Committee are stated to be still under process. It is, therefore, clear that before the land is notified or even if the land is notified, the Gatas, which stand in the respective villages, have to be notified and demarcated. This is in consonance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1945. 9. It is, therefore, clear that before the land is notified or even if the land is notified, the Gatas, which stand in the respective villages, have to be notified and demarcated. This is in consonance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1945. 9. Sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) of section 3 of the Act of 1945 read as under:- "Section 3 - Declaration of controlled area:- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare any land within a distance of four hundred and forty yards from the centre line of any road to be a controlled area for the purpose of this act: Provided that in the case of national highway, the highway itself shall not be a controlled area. (2) Not less than three months before making a declaration under Sub-section(1), the State Government shall cause to be published in the official Gazette and in at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English, notification stating that they propose of making such a declaration and specifying therein the boundaries of the land in respect of which the declaration is proposed to be made, and copies of every such notification or of the substance thereof shall be published by the Collector in such manner as he thinks fit at his office and at such other places as he considers necessary within the said boundaries. (3) Any person interested in any land included within the said boundaries may, at any time before the expiration of thirty days from the last date on which a copy of such notification is published by the Collector, object to the making of the declaration or to the inclusion of his land or any part of it within the said boundaries." 10. A perusal of these sub-sections clearly show that the declaration, under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 declaring a controlled area under the Act of 1945, has to be published in the official Gazette in, at least, two newspapers printed in a language other than English, and the notification shall also specify the boundaries of the land, in respect of which the declaration is proposed to be made. Sub-section (3) of section 3 provides that any person interested in any land included within the said boundaries may, at any time before the expiration of 30 days from the last date on which a copy of such notification is published by the Collector, can file his objection to the making of the declaration or to the inclusion of his land or any part of it within the said boundaries. 11. A perusal of the notification dated 08.07.1965 (Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 6 & 7) shows that it only refers to Village -Kota. It does not mention any Gata number or that, any boundaries have been demarcated in Village -Kota. We fail to understand as to how the occupier of a particular Gata, which falls within the notification, could file his objection under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act of 1945 if the Gata number is not mentioned in the notification and the boundary is not demarcated and if that be the position, he cannot be declared to be an encroacher, merely because the notice has been issued on 18.08.2009. 12. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure No. 5 to the rejoinder affidavit, which is the fasli record of 1422-1427 pertaining to the same Village -Kota, Pargana -Agori, Tehsil -Robertsganj, District -Sonbhadra, which is the same village in which the concerned plots are situate and in this revenue record, it is clearly demarcated that the plots, mentioned therein, are recorded in the name of Public Works Department. This is not the case in respect of the Gatas of the petitioners as per the revenue records filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 13. Our attention has also been drawn to the Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Tehsildar dated 24.04.2019, in which it is stated that the three-Member Committee has submitted its report on 18.04.2019. A perusal of this report shows that all that has been stated is that Village -Kota, Pargana -Agori, Tehsil -Robertsganj, District -Sonbhadra has been notified under the Act of 1945 on 08.07.1965 and that, the petitioners have never filed any objection with respect to the press notices dated 18.08.2009 and 11.05.2012 and therefore, they are encroachers. 14. A perusal of this report shows that all that has been stated is that Village -Kota, Pargana -Agori, Tehsil -Robertsganj, District -Sonbhadra has been notified under the Act of 1945 on 08.07.1965 and that, the petitioners have never filed any objection with respect to the press notices dated 18.08.2009 and 11.05.2012 and therefore, they are encroachers. 14. In our opinion, the matter needs to be examined in its correct perspective in the light of observations made above and the provisions of the Act of 1945. The respondents shall also explain as to how in the revenue record of 1422-1427 fasli (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), the mutation of name has been carried out and it stands in the name of the petitioners, in place of their father, Shamshuddin Khan. 15. We also refer to the letter of U.P. State Highway Authority dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit filed by the Tehsildar); wherein, there is a clear averment that the Gatas in question have not been acquired and no resolution has been placed before the U.P. State Highway Authority in respect of these Gatas and that, these Gatas have not been included in the road widening by the U.P. State Highway Authority. In paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit of the Tehsildar, it is further stated that since the Gatas of the petitioners have not been included in the widening of the road, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation. 16. We find that these aspects of the matter need to be examined by the competent authority. We, therefore, refer the matter to the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra (the respondent no. 3), who shall examine each and every aspect of the matter, considering our observations, made above, and thereafter, decide the claim of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. In case the District Magistrate, after his inquiry, comes to the conclusion that the land of the petitioners has not been notified under the notification of 08.07.1965, but it has been encroached by the State -respondents for the purposes of road widening or for construction of the road, as the case may be, he shall determine the compensation to be paid to the petitioners and the time period within which such compensation is to be paid. 18. 18. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of.