1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, leaned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shivam Yadav, who has accepted notices for respondent no. 3.

2. This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 23.6.2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority-respondent no. 3 rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner for providing 64.70% Additional Compensation and 10% developed abadi land in view of the full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1.

3. Respondent no. 1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 30.6.1999 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 21.6.2000 for acquisition of the land situated in Village Barolla, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar for Planned Industrial Development.

4. The land belonging to the petitioners was included in the said notification and was the subject matter of acquisition.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid land acquisition notification. This fact has been accepted in paragraph 10 of the writ petition.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the notification acquiring the land of the petitioner was not the subject matter of challenge still they would be entitled to be extended the benefit of paying 64.70% of additional compensation and 10% of developed abadi land in view of the direction passed by the full Bench in Gajraj & Ors. (supra).

7. 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.

8. 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.