The benefit granted by the Full Bench cannot be extended to similarly situated persons. The relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was granted by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and was confined to the petitioners therein.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allot 5% developed land in terms 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).

3. The petitioners claim to be owners of khata no. 45 khasra no. 328 area 0.158 hectares situate in Village Sorkha Zahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which were subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of notification dated 12.04.2005 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 have accepted the compensation amount.

4. The petitioners have specifically stated that they 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 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.

6. It may be noticed that 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 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 Authority/State which may be exercised keeping in view t