By the Court.—The petitioner claims to be co-owner of Khasra Plot No. 1690 ad-measuring 2.795 hectares and Khasara Plot No. 1691 ad-measuring 5.122 hectares situated in Village Kasana, Pargana-Dankaur, Tahsil-Sadar, District Gautam Budha Nagar. About 159.684 hectares of land situated in Vilalge-Kasana, including the aforesaid land, were acquired for planned industrial development by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Greater Noida). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) is dated 5 October 2002. The declaration was made on 30 October 2002. It is stated that the petitioner received compensation under the provisions of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules 1997 (the Rules) in the year 2003. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay additional 64.70% compensation to the petitioner and also provide 10% developed land in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(11) ADJ 1.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act seeking to acquire land admeasuring 159.684 hectares, including the land of the petitioner, was not under challenge in Gajraj but what he contends is that the same benefit should be conferred upon the petitioner, more particularly when co-sharers were given this benefit.

3. The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the benefit of the directions issued in Gajraj for providing additional compensation and land should be given to such tenure-holders also whose lands were not acquired by the notifications under challenge in Gajraj.

One of the plea that was raised before the Full Bench in Gajraj was that the State Government was not justified in dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act by invoking the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The Full Bench held that the State was not justified in dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. Three sets of directions were then issued. Some of the writ petitions that had been filed with unexplained delay and laches were dismissed. The notifications issued in respect of villages where no development had taken place were also quashed. However, in respect of some villages where substantial development had taken place, instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings even after accepting the plea that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were wrongly invoked, the Full Bench enhanced the compensation by 64.7% as well as issued directions for allotment of developed abadi plot. The operative portion of the directions issued by the Full Bench in respect of petitions where relief for additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot was granted, is as follows :

“3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions:

(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of land owners under Section 18 of the Act, if any.

(b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases wher