Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133045-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26036 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surent Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amaresh Sinha,Anubhav Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Amaresh Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri F.A. Ansari, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. The instant writ petitioner is preferred for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure allotment of 4% developed plot/Abadi land to the petitioner in respect of the acquisition made by the authority for the land of the petitioner bearing Arzzi/Gata/Property No.328-1.3590 hectare situated at Village Rasulpur Rai Pargana and Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Buddh Nagar as per guidelines drawn by this Court in Writ-C No.37443 of 2011 (Gaj Raj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and further sought a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 26.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Laxami Chand had also instituted Writ-C No.45750 of 2011 along with the bunch of Writ-C No.37443 of 2011, which was disposed of by the full bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2011. He further apprised the Court to the communication dated 05.10.2023 whereby the authority itself has acknowledged for settling 6% abadi land in favour of the petitioner but on account of non-availability of the land the actual allotment could not be ensured. 4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither it is in dispute that the father of the petitioner was one of the petitioner in the bunch of Gaj Raj (supra) nor it is in dispute that the petitioner is entitled for abadi land, and confined his prayer that his representation dated 26.05.2025 may be decided in accordance with law. 5. Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 fairly states that in case, the claim of the petitioner is sustainable in law, and any such representation is pending, definitely the authority would process the same in accordance with law. 6. Considering the factual situation, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed off asking the second respondent to process the representation of the petitioner dated 26.05.2025 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 S.P. (Prashant Kumar, J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad