( 1 ) AN order dated 3/09/2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP 5364/2001 has been questioned in this Letters Patent. Appeal, whereby and whereunder notice has been issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted limited to the extent as to why the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of alternative plot of land and as to why no reference under Section 18 has been made to the Court of the District Judge for enhancement of compensation.

( 2 ) APPELLANT was owner-Bhumidar of certain land in revenue estate of village Maidan Garhi, Delhi. The said land was acquired in relation to which award No. 23/86-87 was passed. The appellant has also received payment of compensation in terms of the said award.

( 3 ) THE notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in respect of 13 villages. Admittedly, one Balak Ram Gupta filed a writ petition questioning the said notification in relation to one of the villages and the same was quashed by the Court. Contention of the appellant is that as the judgment of this Court in the said writ petition was a judgment in rem, and thus the learned Single Judge ought to have issued rule nisi in respect of all the prayers of the appellant.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the decision of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta has been upheld by the Apex Court, as the SLP filed by the respondents there against has been dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that the decision of the Apex Court, having regard to the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India is binding on all. Reliance in this regard has been placed on State of U. P. v_ synthetics and Chemicals Ltd1 and A-One Granites v_ State of u. P. 2

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that in the instant case, the appellant has received compensation and sought for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as also allotment of alternate plot and in the said situation, this Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would contend that the question of withdrawing the notification was in terms of exercise of its power under Section 48 would not arise having regard to the position as already taken. Strong reliance has been placed on Secretary Jaipur Development authority Jaipur v_ Daulat Mal Jain and others3. Learned counsel would submit that having regard to the subsequent decision of this Court also the Apex Court in Ajit Singh and Ors v Union of India,4 the LPA should not be entertained. Acquisition proceedings were started on 25. 11. 1980, when the notification under Section 4 was issued. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 7. 6. 1985. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in July, 1987. The appellant filed an application for reference as regards quantum of compensation in terms of Section 26 of the said Act immediately thereafter. The decision of this Court in Balak Ram Gupta v UOI5 was rendered on 18. 11. 1988. Following the said judgment various writ petitions filed by others were allowed in March, 1989. The Apex Court upheld the judgment in Balak Ram Gupta on 20. 9. 1991. The appellant filed a writ petition on 2. 8. 2001. Learned Single Judge having regard to the fact, as noticed hereinbefore, issued a limited notice to show cause to the respondent.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge in his impugned order has noticed that the-Apex Court has held that judgment of this Court in Balak Ram s case would be a judgment in personam and only those persons who had applied would be eligible to get the benefit.

( 7 ) IN the instant case the following facts are not in dispute. The award was made and the appellant has received payment. He has filed an application for reference to the civil court praying for enhancement. The said application is still pending. The appellant has received the paymen