JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation awarded by order dated 27.2.2023 passed by respondent No.2, u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”).

3. Factual matrix arising out of the present case is that the petitioners were the co-sharer of 1/4 share of plot No. 239 area 6 bigha 15 biswa and 5 dhoor, situated at Village Chharra Rafatpur, Aligarh. The aforesaid plot was acquired by notification dated 27.4.1984 issued u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894, followed by notification u/s 6 of the Act, 1894 for the construction of a new market yard of respondent No.3. Collector determined the rate @ Rs.16.66 per sq. yard. Though the petitioners received the compensation under protest, they did not file reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 because of their poor financial condition, but their co-sharers in plot No. 239 had filed reference against the award of Collector u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 which was allowed on 21.8.1998, in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No. 35 of 1990 (Smt. Urmila Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and others), by which the compensation was enhanced by fixing rate @ Rs. 100 per sq. yard. Aggrieved of the aforesaid, the petitioners moved an application on 28.9.1998 u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894 before respondent No.2 for redetermination of compensation on the basis of judgement passed in L.A.R. No. 35 of 1990. During the pendency of the aforesaid application of the petitioners, respondent No.3 filed an appeal against the order of reference court award dated 21.8.1998 before this Court bearing Appeal No. 610 of 1998 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and others), and claimants have also filed cross objection against the aforesaid award of reference court. The High Court, after hearing the aforesaid appeal, dismissed the appeal of respondent No.3 but partly allowed the cross-appeal of the claimants on 8.9.2015, as corrected by order dated 8.10.2015, by granting additional compensation of Rs.80,000/-to the claimants. The co-sharer of the petitioners, not satisfied with the judgement of the High Court dated 8.9.2015 and 8.10.2015, had preferred Civil Appeal No. 10225-10226 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Apex Court was pleased to allow the same by order dated 5.10.2018 fixing the compensation of the land @ Rs.120 per sq. yard. The petitioners for getting the benefit of the enhanced rate of compensation, determined by the Supreme Court, also moved an additional application before respondent No.2 on 19.12.2018 as part of their earlier pending application u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894. Respondent No.2, by order dated 2.5.2022, rejected the application of the petitioners filed u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2022, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20627 of 2022 (Rakesh Kumar Goswami and another vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court, and the same was allowed by order dated 2.11.2022 and respondent No.2 was directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioners u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894, after hearing all the parties. In pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 2.11.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 20627 of 2022 filed by the petitioners, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 27.2.2023 by which he allowed the application of the petitioners u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894 and redetermined the compensation @ Rs. 103.34 per sq. years along with other statutory benefits.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite the order dated 27.2.2023 of respondent No.2 for redetermination of compensation, the same was not paid to them.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that as r