JUDGMENT K.J. Shetty, C.J. - The petitioners claim to be the owners of plot no. 46 of village Khataina in district Agra. This plot of land along with several others was acquired for the purpose of a scheme called "Sikandara Grih Sthan Evam Sarak Yajna, Agra". It was a Housing scheme prepared by U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad which is a housing and Development Board. A notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam ("Adhiniyam") came to be issued as far back on 4-4-1970. Final notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam was issued on June 28, 1980. The Petitioners were not the owners of the said plot in 1970. They purchased the plot on May 17, 1979. 2. Challenging the validity of the scheme and also acquisition of lands, there were several writ petitions filed in this Court. A Full Bench of this court dismissed all those petitions in Doctors' Sahkari G.N.S. Ltd. v. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, (AIR 1984 Allahabad page 234). The validity of the acquisition of lands pertaining to those petitioners was thus upheld and also the legality of the scheme which is the subject matter of the present writ petition has also been upheld. 3. In view of the said decision, counsel for the petitioners did not urge several contentions although raised in the writ petitions. He has, however, urged that plot no. 46 was not specifically mentioned in the notification issued under Section 28 or 38 of the Adhiniyam and therefore, the respondents have no right to take possession of the same. This contention, in our opinion overlooks the terms of Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. Section 28 does not require mentioning the complete particulars of the plot sought to be acquired. It only requires the indication of the boundaries of area comprised in the scheme. It also requires to specify the date or place at which the map of the area, particulars of the scheme, details of the land proposed to be acquired may be seen. In view of this statutory provision the contention urged for the petitioners that the specific plot of the petitioners ought to have been notified under Section 28 has no substance. 4. It was next urged that the entire land comprised in plot no. 463 has not been acquired for the purposes of the scheme. In view of this statutory provision the contention urged for the petitioners that the specific plot of the petitioners ought to have been notified under Section 28 has no substance. 4. It was next urged that the entire land comprised in plot no. 463 has not been acquired for the purposes of the scheme. The entire plot according to the counsel measures 1.8.0 whereas the award which has since been passed on July 15, 1983 states only 0.1.10.0. Relying upon this portion of the award, learned counsel urged that the respondents have no right to take possession of the entire area in plot no. 46. 5. We express no opinion on this contention. It is open to the petitioners to raise this objection before the appropriate authority, i.e. Assistant Housing Commissioner, Agra. If any such objection is raised by the petitioners, it must be determined by the Assistant Housing Commissioner and if it is found in the enquiry that the whole of the area belonging to the petitioners has not been acquired for the scheme, the remaining extent shall be left with or given back to the petitioners. 6. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. The interim order earlier granted stands vacated.