Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50084-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10095 of 2025 Petitioner :- Baljeet And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of report dated 12.4.2022 by the revenue authorities to the extent it relates to the petitioners. They have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot developed land in their favour in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj vs. State of U.P. and Others : 2011 (11) ADJ 1. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they had challenged the acquisition notifications by filing Writ - C No. 4311 of 2012 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 24.1.2012 in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj (supra). According to the pleadings made in the writ petition, the respondent authority in terms of the order passed in the previous writ petition and thereafter by the Supreme Court, allotted 740 sq. meters of developed land in favour of petitioner no. 1, subject to certain conditions. In respect of the other petitioners, it seems that no developed land has been allotted so far. In the impugned report submitted by revenue authorities, the petitioners have been shown as ineligible for allotment of developed land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report is factually incorrect. He further submits that after previous writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment in Gajraj (supra), the authority should have allotted developed land to the petitioners. 4. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent- Development Authority submits that the petitioners have not disclosed the plot numbers and the land belonging to them and which were subjected to acquisition. She states that since there does not appear any material on record to reveal that any decision has been taken by the authority in respect of the directions issued in the previous writ petition of the petitioners, the authority be granted liberty to take decision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already made representations dated 18.5.2022 and 29.11.2024 before the authority and the same may be directed to be decided. 6. Having regard to the fact that the representations are still pending, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the respondent authority will pass a speaking order on the said representations within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with photocopy of the aforesaid representations. It shall be open to the petitioners to submit individual representations as well along with copy of the order for consideration by the authority in terms of the instant order. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad