ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs :-- “(i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent No.3 to decide the case of the petitioner and pay the compensation amount of house of the petitioner Rs.1,17,150.00. and (ii) Any other order/direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, including cost of the litigation, may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents for the purpose of widening NH-07 have acquired the land bearing Khasra No.547/1. Father of the petitioner was the owner of the land in question and his name was recorded in the revenue record. The petitioner’s house is situated in Khasra No.547/1, which has been demolished and compensation amounting to Rs.1,17,150.00 was ascertained, but the same has not been paid to the petitioner. The father of the petitioner filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Hanumana/Mauganj for payment of compensation. A patwari report clearly stipulates that the house in question belongs to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed various representations before the authorities for payment of compensation for the house which was demolished, but of no consequences. 3. On notices being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 pointing out the fact that name of the father of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record with respect to Khasra No.547. After completion of the acquisition proceedings, an award was passed and in lieu of the award, the compensation has already been disbursed in the account of the respective land owners. An amount Rs.17,39,963.00 has already been paid to the land owners including the father of the petitioner who was a land owner. The amount includes the compensation towards the property (Kaccha House). That the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he is the owner of the property in question. The document which has been relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate his ownership, is a valuation report of the building and the same is not any revenue document. In absence of any revenue document in favour of the petitioner showing his ownership in the property in question, no benefit can be extended in the present petition. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. In absence of any revenue document in favour of the petitioner showing his ownership in the property in question, no benefit can be extended in the present petition. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The sole question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the house in question or not, which was demolished during acquisition proceedings. The document which is relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate his ownership, is a valuation report of the building and the same cannot said to be a ownership document. The reply filed by the respondents clearly points out the fact that the compensation in lieu of acquisition proceedings has already been ascertained and disbursed to the concerned including the father of the petitioner. The account details have been furnished by the respondents in support of their contentions. No document has been filed by the petitioner to show that he is the owner of the property in question, nor any revenue entry has been filed by him. In absence of any document to show the ownership coupled with the fact that the amount ascertained in lieu of acquisition proceedings has already been disbursed to the beneficiaries including the father of the petitioner whose name was found in the revenue record, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. 6 . The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to.