The prayer of the petitioner is to command the Respondent to decide the question of payment of com pensation in respect of his land measuring 1. 10. Acres of data Nos. 116 and 113, situated in village Himmatpur Bakuchia, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi alias Sant Ravidas Nagar on the grounds, inter alia that even though the said land was acquired by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after duly complying with the provisions as con tained in Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, but no compensation has been paid to him kill date, despite moving of several applications and hence this writ petition. 2. Sri N. B. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner con tended that the facts asserted to by the petitioner be accepted as true and the desired relief be granted as despite grant of repeated opportunities to the Respon dents to the file counter-affidavit they have failed to do so. 3. Sri Vishjnu Pratap, the learned counsel, appealing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, con tended that from the documents appended to the writ petition it transpires that the lands in question were requisitioned under the provisions of U. P. Gramin Act, 1948 on the proposal of the Executive Engineer, Gyanpur Nahar Prakh and and no documentary evidence has been brought by the petitioner to show that his lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and thus the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for. 4. From the documents appended to the writ petition it appears clear that the petitioner had also alleged discrimination stating that other persons have been given compensation in regard to their lands whereas he has been deprived and the pos session of his lands were taken for the purpose of construction of Canal. 5. On 29-10-1998 the following order was passed by the Division Bench:- "petitioner, Ram Raj is alleged to have made same application on 27-2-1985 and several other subsequent applications before the authority concerned. The questions of fact are involved in this case. Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned standing coun sel, prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter- affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by Sri N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, within two weeks thereafter. The petition shall be listed for admission/final disposal in the week commencing 7-2-1998. " 6. Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned standing coun sel, prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter- affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by Sri N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, within two weeks thereafter. The petition shall be listed for admission/final disposal in the week commencing 7-2-1998. " 6. No counter-affidavit, however, was filed. 7. On 7-12-1998 the Division Bench passed the following orders:- "sri Vishnu Pratap, learned standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks and no more for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter and no more list for admission/final disposal in the week commencing 11-1-99. " 8. Despite this opportunity, again no counter-affidavit was filed. 9. On 11-2-1999 the Division Bench passed the following orders:- "despite time having been granted no counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. K. S. Kushwaha, learned standing counsel for the respon dents prays for further time. Considering the prayer, as last indulgence ten days further time is granted. List this peti tion again for admission/disposal on 23rd February, 1999. It is made clear that if no counter-affidavit is filed by 22nd February, 1999, the writ petition will be disposed of even counter-affidavit. " 10. Despite giving this last oppor tunity also no counter-affidavit has been filed. 11. True it is the right to property is no longer a fundamental right but Article 3 (K) A of the Constitution reads thus:- "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. " "thus a citizen cannot be deprived of compensation if he has been deprived of his land. " 12. The petitioner has rightly come with a prayer to command the Respon dents to determine a fair compensation of his land. We, therefore, command the respondents to determine a fair compen sation of the lands of the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in mind the principles contained under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from any quarter and pay the said amount within same time. We hope and trust that they will avoid any dallying to give the petitioner handle to move this Court for initiating proceedings in con tempt and to grant heavy damages. 13. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly but without any. order as to costs. 14. We hope and trust that they will avoid any dallying to give the petitioner handle to move this Court for initiating proceedings in con tempt and to grant heavy damages. 13. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly but without any. order as to costs. 14. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to the learned Standing Counsel Sri Vishnu Pratap for its communication to and fol low up action by the Respondents. Petition disposed of. .