By the Court.—Heard Sri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 2.7.2012 passed by first respondent, whereby, representation made by petitioner has been rejected, holding that land has already vested in State pursuant to land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1894’) and therefore, no benefit under Section 48(1) can be given to the petitioner by releasing such land, in his favour.

3. In order to appreciate, it is necessary to refer brief material facts in the case. The basic pleading raised in the writ petition is to the effect that land of plot No. 664 area 0.879 and plot No. 661 area 0.712 hectares situated in Gulistanpur, Greater NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar was subject to the notification for acquisition issued by Government under Act, 1894. The further fact pleaded is that petitioner continued to enjoy possession over the land. The said notification under Section 4/17 and 6/17 came to be challenged before this Court by means of a bunch of writ petitions, led by Writ Petition No. 20156 of 2009. This Court quashed notification leaving it open for respondents to take appropriate action in the matter after complying with the provisions of Section 5-A(1) & (2) of the Act, 1894 and further direction was issued in respect of those tenure holders who not accepted compensation to the effect that in case if, no development has been made out on the land acquired, opportunity is given to petitioner to apply State Government by making proper application for release of their land under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1894.

4. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, petitioner seems to have made a number of representations and thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 65164 of 2011 and got a direction to the effect that his application may be decided.

5. The case pleaded before writ Court was that he has already made an application in compliance of order of this Court under Section 48(1) before appropriate authority but the same has remained pending. Thus, without going into the merits of the case of petitioner, this Court vide order dated 17.11.2011 directed competent authority to decide representation of the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter, seems to have made a number of representations, one after another, before competent authority and has annexed all of them alongwith writ petition. The first respondent vide order dated 2.7.2012 has disposed of representations of petitioner holding that petitioner’s land has already been acquired under acquisition proceedings and he has already been paid compensation and, therefore, no benefit could be given to him under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1894.

6. In order to appreciate the arguments being advanced by the petitioner that his representation is wrongly rejected and that he is entitled to the benefit of order of writ Court dated 30.5.2011 passed in bunch of writ petitions, it is necessary to trace out history of litigation by petitioner in connection with acquisition proceedings in the present case.

7. On careful examination of the pleadings raised in this writ petition as well as representation made by petitioner, as has been annexed with the writ petition, we do not find a single sentence that petitioner was ever party to any of the writ petition which were decided in the bunch vide judgment dated 30.5.2011, leading writ petition Smt. Rajni and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(6) ADJ 140 (DB). We also do not find any pleading to the effect that possession has not been taken from petitioner and that he continued to enjoy land in question and in effective possession thereof. Thus, there is no specific pleading to the effect that possession of land of petitioner was not taken pursuant to