JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Prem Chandra Saroj learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Saroj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allot developed abadi plot to the petitioners to the extent of 10% of their acquired land in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB).

4. The petitioners claim to be owners of certain land parcels situate in Village Soharkha Jahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which were subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of notification dated 31.07.2005 issued under Section 4 (1)/17(4), and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners admit to having received compensation amount and also additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and Others (supra).

5. 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.

6. 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 there is any assertion by the petitioners that the notifications under which their land had 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 had 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.

7. The question which thus falls for consideration is as to whether as per the directions in the case of Gajraj Singh and others, the petitioners, who were neither parties in the writ petitions which had been decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others nor had their land been acquired under the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions decided by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others and connected matters, could claim entitlement to allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land.

8. In the case of Gajraj Singh and others, the writ petitions challenging the notifications in respect of land acquisition proceedings with respect to tracts of land situate in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida 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 loose sight of the fact that the above farmers and agricultures/owners whose land has b