Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Sharad Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bal Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recovery citation and sale proclamation dated 23.1.2012, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer for recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,54,000/- towards compensation dues.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from pleadings of the parties are; the respondent No. 5, Bhumidhar of plot No. 20, area 1.4310 hectares, executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Sree Pal on 4.4. 2003. On the basis of power of attorney, the petitioner No. 1 executed a sale-deed on 23.1.2004 in favour of his wife Smt. Krishna Devi of 1/3rd share of respondent No. 5 in plot No. 20. On the basis of sale-deed, Smt. Krishna Devi moved an application for mutation of her name, which was allowed on 11.3.2005. Against the order dated 11.3.2005, an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 5 before the Sub-Divisional Officer which appeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.3.2006 by setting aside the order dated 11.3.2005. The case was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass fresh order on merit. After order of the appellate authority, the Tahsildar again passed an order dated 4.5.2007 by which the mutation application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi was rejected. Against the order dated 4.5.2007, passed by the Tahsildar, again an appeal was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi before the Sub-Divisional Officer which appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2007. The order dated 4.5.2007 was set aside. The mutation order dated 11.3.2005 was restored. By notification dated 12.3.2008 under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, plot No. 20 area 1.4310 hectare was sought to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 23.9.2008. In the meantime, the respondent No. 5 had field a revision against the order dated 31.10.2007 before the Commissioner and the Commissioner by order dated 21.5.2009 allowed the revision. The revisional Court set aside the appellate Court’s order dated 31.10.2007 and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar. Smt. Krishna Devi moved an application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation on which objection was filed by the respondent No. 5. Special Land Acquisition Officer however, by order dated 16.6.2009 rejected the objection of respondent No. 5 and directed for taking proceedings for payment of compensation to Smt. Krishna Devi with regard to plot in question. After the order dated 16.6.2009, again respondent No. 5 filed an application relying on the order dated 21.5.2009 of the revisional Court by which the order dated 31.10.2007 was set aside. The respondent No. 5 claimed to be recorded tenure holder and prayed that the compensation paid to Smt. Krishna Devi be recovered and a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act be made to the District Judge. Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notice to Smt. Krishna Devi and passed an order on 9.9.2009 setting aside the earlier order dated 16.6.2009 and also directed for recovering the compensation already paid to Smt. Krishna Devi. Special Land Acquisition Officer also made reference under Section 30 of the Act to the District Judge. Against the order dated 9.9.2009, a writ petition was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi in this Court being writ petition No. 56189 of 2009 which writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 6.1.2010.

4. One more fact relevant to be noticed is that the respondent No. 5 had also filed a suit being suit No. 195 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gautam Budhha Nagar praying for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 27.10.2004, in which an interim injunction order was passed on 14.10.2007 by Civil Judge (Junior Division) directing for maintaining status-quo with regard t