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