The distinction between landowners who had filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition and those who had not filed writ petitions was upheld, and the Authority's decision to provide only 64.70% additional compensation to the latter was found to be non-arbitrary.

DILIP GUPTA, J.

1. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to allot 10% developed abadi land in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (11) ADJ 1. It needs to be stated that the petitioners have already been paid 64.70% additional compensation.

2. The petitioners claim to have been co-tenure-holder of certain land situated in Village-Chaprauli Bangar, Tehsil-Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar and their names have been recorded in the revenue record as bhumidhar with non transferable right. A notification dated 4 July 2003 was issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 The Act for acquisition of a large tract of land including the land of the petitioners. This notification was followed by a declaration dated 21 July 2003 made under section 6 of the Act. The enquiry contemplated under section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with.

3. 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 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 as contained in paragraphs 482(3) and 482(4) 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 allottee's. 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 where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots.

4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% be also given to ;

(a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and

(b) those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No. 3."

4. It is, therefore, clear that the Full Bench in Gajraj, instead of quashing