Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45674-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7557 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Hou. And Urban Pla. Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Gaurav Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record. Another Writ Petition (Writ C No. 4775 of 2025) challenging the same notification and the award has already been disposed of by us on 23.05.2025 in the following terms:- "1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Avnish Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition notification issued on 25.07.2012 and Gazette notification dated 02.09.2013 under the Land Acqusition Act, 1894 as also the award dated 08.09.2015 on the basis of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"). 4. On a reading of the award dated 08.09.2015 itself, it is found that the agency for which land was acquired had deposited the requisite amount of compensation and subsequently, it is informed that a supplementary award for structures and buildings existing on land bearing Gata No.67 and other lands has also been pronounced. Further, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the compensation being inadequate, they should have challenged the award or sought other remedies prescribed in law. At this Stage, Shri Avnish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the L.D.A. says that the compensation has been determined for payment to the petitioners based on the new rates under the new act i.e. Act, 2013. In this view of the matter, no ground is made out for interference in the matter keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 316. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of" A fact which has been accepted by the petitioners' counsel, who prays that this petition be also disposed of on the same terms, whereas learned Standing Counsel says that according to his instructions, whosoever was recorded in respect of the land in question, compensation has been paid to them. We do not express any opinion in the matter as we have declined to interfere in a similar writ petition vide our judgment dated 23.05.2025, quoted hereinabove. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy,J] Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench