Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90023-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17266 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Manju Agarwal Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay Additional Compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 per square-yard along with 15% Rehabilitation Bonus on the compensation already awarded, in respect of land situated at Khata No.22, Khasra No.89 Village Rohillapur, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddha Nagar admeasuring area (1-11-17-10) Pukhta (1-bigha, 11-biswa, 17-biswanshi, 10-Kachwanshi) as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8819 of 2022 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allot 10% developed Abadi plot to the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition of the land in dispute situated at Khata No.22, Khasra No.89 Village Rohillapur, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddha Nagar admeasuring area (1-11-17-10) Pukhta (1-bigha, 11-biswa, 17-biswanshi, 10-Kachwanshi)." 2. Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA points out that the petitioner was paid entire compensation in the year 2004 as admitted in para 10 of the writ petition. He tried to contend that the reliefs claimed in the petition are not admissible to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 162. 4. Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh submits that since the petitioner has already withdrawn entire compensation and therefore, she is not entitled to benefit of the said judgment. He further submits that the Authority, if so directed, will still consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order. 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to NOIDA alongwith true attested copy of the instant order. The representation will be decided by the Authority within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith copy of the instant order. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad