By the Court.—The admitted case of the petitioner is that his father Ram Lal was granted a lease of certain agricultural land on 1.7.1950 for a period of thirty years. During the period of the lease, in the year 1964 a small portion of the land leased to the father of the petitioner (comprising an area of 0.45 acre) was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1984 for which due compensation was paid to the father of the petitioner who was the lease holder at the time of acquisition of the land. The remaining 10.88 acres of land continued in the possession of the father of the petitioner. In the meantime the father of the petitioner expired and the lease which was granted in favour of Ram Lal, was transferred in favour of the petitioner and his brother Rajendra Kumar and the names of the petitioner as well as Rajendra Kumar Suri were entered in the revenue records. The petitioner’s claim is that under the provisions of U.P. Government Estate Thekedari Abolition Act 1958 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959), the petitioner has acquired right of heritable tenant, as such even on the expiry of the lease on 30th June 1980,the right of the petitioner had continued.

2. After the expiry of the lease granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, the respondent authorities proceeded to evict the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner filed a civil suit in which temporary injunction was rejected. The petitioner as well as his brother filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner as well as his brother filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 1984 (Rajendra Kumar Suri and another v. State of U.P.and others) in which this Court, after considering the totality of the circumstances, held that the claim of the petitioners was upto 31st June 1982 but since the land revenue had been deposited by the petitioner and his brother upto 31.3.1983, thus, while dismissing the writ petition, allowed the petitioner to continue in possession till 31st March 1983. The petitioner as well as his brother also gave an undertaking that they shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the land in question to the respondents on or before 31st March 1983. While dismissing the writ petition on the basis of the said undertaking, the petitioner continued to be in possession till March 1983. It is not disputed that the petitioner has handed over the possession in terms of the said undertaking.

3. The grievance of the petitioner did not end here. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the State Government claiming compensation for his eviction from the land in dispute which was denied to him by the State Government vide order dated 14.1.1986. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue directions to the respondents to immediately start proceedings for grant of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. We have heard Sri K.R.Sirohi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and perused the record.

5. The claim of the petitioner rests on the basis of handing over the possession of the land in question in terms of the High Court’s order dated 26.11.1982 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 1982 wherein according to the petitioner, he had made an endorsement that the handing over of the possession is subject to the such rights as may be available to him for receiving compensation. It has been contended that the father of the petitioner had acquired heritable right in terms of the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1959 and as such the petitioner was legally entitled to continue in possession and since they were required to hand over possession which was not in accordance with law, thus, they would be entitled to payment of compensation.

6. In our view, such contention of the learned counsel for the p