HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35800 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K.M. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Suresh Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for Noida Industrial Development Authority (in short "Authority"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to return back the land in dispute belonging to the petitioner situated in Village Gadhi Chaukhandi bearing Khasra No.118M, Area 1.5680 Hectare by invoking the provisions under Section 101 of the Act No.30 of 2013 read with the statutory provisions applicable in respect of the acquired land in question. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent NOIDA Authority to take forceful possession of Khasra No.118 M, SEction 121 of village Gadhi Chaukandi over which the petitioner is residing for two generations and is having his residential house built over the same." 3. At the outset, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Authority have raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the instant writ petition on three fold submissions. They firstly submit that in the instant matter urgency clauses under Section 17(1) & 17(4) of the Act, 1894 were invoked and consequently the possession was taken on 2.12.2006. The land was vested absolutely free from all encumbrances and, later on, the award was also made on 30.12.2013 under Section 11(1) of the Old Act, 1894. The petitioner had earlier assailed the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Mohan Misra, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh Ramesh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) notification dated 11.09.2006 issued under Section 4(1)/17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1894') as also the declaration made on 27.10.2006 under Section 6(1)17(1) of the Act, 1894 in Writ-C No.1 of 2018 (Ramesh v. State of U.P. & Ors.). In the aforesaid writ petition relief was also pressed under 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'). Eventually, the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 02.01.2018 had negated the relief so claimed and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The said judgment has attained finality and as such the instant writ petition for the aforequoted reliefs is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, they have also taken objection to the relief, as has been prayed for, in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 23806 of 2021; Shyoraj Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the relief, as has been prayed, under Section 101 of the Act, 2013 was also rejected by the Division Bench and the same has also attained finality. They thirdly submit that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal; 2020 (8) SCC 129, the relief, as has been prayed for, is misconceived and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplari cost. 4. Confronted with the aforesaid objections, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not inclined to press the writ petition. 5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Authority have no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. October 28, 2025 Pkb/ WRIC No. 35800 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad