1. The report as filed on behalf of the respondent no.

2/authority is taken on record.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the land of the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest was requisitioned and substantially acquired neither the writ petitioner nor her predecessor-in-interest was awarded any compensation .

3. Mr. Mastafa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 17 to 20 and 23 to 25 of the instant writ petition, being copies of two orders as passed by two separate co- ordinate Benches on earlier occasions in two separate earlier rounds of litigations. It is submitted by Mr. Mastafa that despite communication of the said two orders to the respondents/authorities, the respondents/authorities made no venture to disburse adequate compensation either to the writ petitioner or to her predecessor-in-interest.

4. Such contention is vehemently o