Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38658-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1539 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shamshad Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Gupta,Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Agarawal,C.S.C.,Suresh Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The prayer made in the instant petition is for quashing the notification dated 21.12.2023 issued under Section 11(1) and notification dated 17.12.2024 under section 19(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. The sole ground of attack is that the subject land of the petitioners i.e. Khasra No. 5 (Plot No. 5) revenue village Dankaur, Tehsil & District Gautam Budh Nagar, acquired in pursuance of the impugned notifications, was allotted on lease hold basis in favour of respondent No. 4 even before the issuance of the impugned notifications. It is urged that the respondent, Development Authority, had no right, title or interest in the subject land at the time of execution of the lease deed. It is further submitted that after executing lease deed, the State has no power to acquire the subject land. 3. On 07.02.2025, while noting the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, we also noted the submission of Shri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondent, Development Authority, that earlier a large parcel of land was acquired in village Dankaur and the respondent, Development Authority, on basis of the said acquisition, executed lease-deed of the subject land in favour of respondent No. 4. Subsequently, it transpired that the subject land was inadvertently left out from being included in the acquisition notifications and this compelled the Authority to issue the impugned notifications for acquisition of the subject land. 4. Shri Krishna Agarawal was granted time on the last date to place on record the acquisition notifications issued earlier in respect of land of village Dankaur. 5. In compliance of the said direction, the acquisition notifications issued on 30 November 2009 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notification dated 01.04.2010 issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act have been placed on record. Thereby, the respondents had acquired 287.7476 hectare of land of village Dankaur. It included Plot No. 5 area 1.6887 hectares. However, it appears that remaining area measuring 0.4213 hectare of plot No. 5 in respect of which the instant petition has been filed was left out from being included in the notifications. Consequently, the respondents after discovering the mistake, issued the impugned notifications. 6. The acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be illegal solely on the ground that the respondent-Authority had executed lease deed in favour of respondent No. 4 even before issuance of the impugned notifications. The impugned acquisition notifications were issued to cure the previous defect and we are of the opinion that there is no legal bar in this behalf. 7. We find no merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Authority be directed to declare award for the subject land. 9. Needless to mention that an award has to follow the acquisition notifications, other consequence as stipulated under law, would ensue. Therefore, in our opinion, no direction is required to be issued in this regard. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad