We have heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey , learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vidhu Prakash Pandey holding brief for Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 12.12.2011 filed by the petitioner for payment of enhanced compensation and to provide 10% developed land of the total acquired land of the petitioner. 3. By the order dated 19.9.2012, time was granted to Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh , learned counsel for the respondent no.3 to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. Sri Vidhu Prakash Pandey holding brief for Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that instructions have been received by Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, and as per the instructions , the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1989 for the purposes of U.P.S.I.D.C., and the petitioner was paid compensation for the said acquisition .Subsequently, on 25.2.1992, the said land was transferred by the U.P.S.I.D.C. to the Greater Noida. 5. As regards the prayer made by the petitioner for enhanced compensation , we are of the view that such enhanced compensation should have been claimed by the petitioner in the proceedings under? the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to raise such grievance? in the present Writ Petition, particularly, when almost 23 years have passed since the acquisition of the land of the petitioner for the purposes of U.P.S.I.D.C. 6. As regards the other prayer made by the petitioner for providing 10% developed land of the total acquired land of the petitioner, is concerned ,the said prayer cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. 7.The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.