As per case facts, petitioners were dispossessed of land due to highway expansion and sought compensation. A notification indicated compensation for affected land. An assessment was made, and an estimate ... was approved by the Central Government. While other similarly situated persons received payment, petitioners were denied, with the State citing a Cabinet decision for claim verification and the land falling under a Reserve Forest. Petitioners forewent the solatium claim, focusing on the estimated amount. The question arose whether petitioners should be denied compensation despite prior assessment, approval, and payments to others, based on concerns about land category and subsequent verification decisions. Finally, the Court ruled that denying compensation is unreasonable given the approved estimate and payments to others. It directed the State to release the estimated amount after identity verification, clarifying that this order does not set a precedent.