ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- “(i) The impugned order of widening and straightening the road dated 17.07.2023 (Ann.5), mutation entries in the name of road dated 22.09.2023, 23.08.2023 (Ann.6) may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from widening and straightening the road from Gogamedi to Nethrana upto Haryana Border from Km.7/500 to15/00. (iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to first initiate the proceedings for acquisition of the land as per the Act of 2013 and after awarding the compensation they may be permitted to construct the road from Gogamedi to Nethrana upto Haryana Boarder from Km.7/500 to 15/00”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the Notification dated 30.09.1996 issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the khatedari lands of the petitioners are being mutated in the name of PWD. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land acquisition proceedings undertaken vide Notification dated 30.09.1996 was never carried forward and the proceedings were not concluded by issuing the award. Learned counsel submits that despite the fact that the khatedari lands of the petitioners have not been acquired in accordance with law, the respondent No.4 – the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh has muted certain portions of the lands of the petitioners in the name of PWD. Learned counsel submits that the lands, which are incorrectly acquired by the respondents, are being used for widening the road. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to change the mutation entries and restore them in the name of the petitioners and if the lands of the petitioners are required for widening of the road then the same may be acquired in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submits that the work of the strengthening the road is being done only on 25 ft. road, which was in existence. He further submits that no further lands of the petitioners are being utilized for widening of the road. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submits that the work of the strengthening the road is being done only on 25 ft. road, which was in existence. He further submits that no further lands of the petitioners are being utilized for widening of the road. He submits that if the work of widening of the road will be undertaken then the lands of the petitioners and other persons will be acquired in accordance with law. 5. Shri S.S. Ladrecha, AAG, learned counsel for the Revenue Department submits that in view of the Notification dated 30.09.1996, the lands have been muted in the name of PWD. However, learned counsel very fairly submits that in case of the petitioners, whether any award was passed or not is not clear from the revenue record and, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer for adjudication of the dispute with respect to the fact that whether the khatedari lands of the petitioner were acquired or not in pursuance of the Notification dated 30.09.1996. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. In view of the submissions made before this Court, it appears that there are number of factual disputes involved in the present writ petition as the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the lands of the petitioners have been muted in the name of the PWD without the acquisition proceedings having attained finality on the strength of Notification dated 30.09.1996 only. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the road is being widened by the PWD and for the purpose, the lands of the petitioners are being utilized, whereas, learned counsel for the respondent PWD submits that only the existing road of 25 ft. is being strengthened and there is no question of acquiring the lands of the petitioners for extension of the road. 8. In view of the above, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter is remanded to the respondent No.4 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh to enquire and verify all the facts in dispute with respect to the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands. 8. In view of the above, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter is remanded to the respondent No.4 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh to enquire and verify all the facts in dispute with respect to the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands. The respondent No.4 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh is further directed to give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and decide the matter afresh. 9. If the khatedari lands of the petitioners have been acquired for widening of the road then the appropriate proceedings for awarding the compensation to the petitioners may be undertaken. 10. If the Khatedari lands of the petitioners are not being utilized for extension of the road and the same are not acquired then the appropriate orders giving complete details be passed by the respondent No. 4 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh and requisite revenue entries be corrected in the name of petitioners. 11. Needful shall be done by the respondent No. 4 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. The parties shall be free to appear before the respondent No.4 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh by submitting requisite documents in support of their claim. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 14. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.