Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Hari Keshav, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present petition, a direction is sought commanding the respondents to pay additional compensation @ 64.70% and to allot 5% developed land to the petitioners in terms of the judgment of Full Bench in Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1.

3. The petitioners claim to be owners of certain land parcels situate in Village Baraula, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which were subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of notification dated 30.6.1999 issued under Section 4 (1)/17(4), and the notification dated 21.6.2000 issued under Section 6/17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioners admit to having received compensation under "The Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award Rules, 1997" (the Agreement Rules of 1997) made under Section 55 of the Act, 1894.

4. It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings. The writ petition is also silent as to whether the notifications under which the land of the petitioners was acquired, were under challenge in the bunch of writ petitions which were decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents and also the learned counsel for the Noida Authority have submitted that the benefit granted by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others would not be applicable to the case of the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners were neither parties in the writ petitions which had been decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others nor the notifications under which the land of the petitioners has been acquired were subject matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and others. Further more, it has been submitted that in terms of the direction contained in the Full Bench judgment, the Noida Authority has taken a decision not to allot the abadi plot to the extent of 10% to those land owners who had not approached the writ court and had not challenged the acquisition proceedings.

6. In the case of Gajraj Singh and others, the notifications in respect of land acquisition proceedings with respect to tracts of land situate in different villages were decided and the writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the following directions :-

"481. As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners had earlier come to this Court and their writ petitions have been dismissed as noticed above upholding the notifications which judgments have become final between them. Some of the petitioners may not have come to the Court and have left themselves in the hand of the Authority and State under belief that the State and Authority shall do the best for them as per law. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the above farmers and agricultures/owners whose land has been acquired are equally affected by taking of their land. As far as consequence and effect of the acquisition it equally affects on all land losers. Thus land owners whose writ petitions have earlier been dismissed upholding the notifications may have grievances that the additional compensation which was a subsequent event granted by the Authority may also be extended to them and for the aforesaid, further spate of litigation may start in so far as payment of additional compensation is concerned. In the circumstances, we leave it to the Authority to take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation shall also be extended to those with regard to whom the notifications of acquisition have been upheld or those who have not filed any writ petitions. We leave this in the discretion of the