Tarun Agarwala & Rajan Roy,JJ.:- Plot No.87 in village Chhaprauli Bangar, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar has an area of 0.8470 Hectare.? In the year 2003, Noida acquired 0.4873 hectares of plot no.87 under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of planned industrial development.? Compensation as per law was given to the tenureholder.? It transpires that in the year 2010, the entire area, namely, 0.8473 hectares of the plot was transferred by Noida to a private respondent, namely, M/s Three C Projects Pvt. Ltd., respondent no.5 for the purpose of Group Housing Scheme. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said transfer, filed Writ Petition No.73850 of 2010, Smt. Kaushalwati and another vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the learned counsel for Noida made a statement that possession of? the area of Plot No.87 would be given only to the extent which had been acquired by Noida under the Land Acquisition Act and that the unacquired portion will not be given to private respondent no.5.? On the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for Noida, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.? 2. It transpires that the statement made by the learned counsel for Noida was incorrect and that prior to the disposal of the writ petition, Noida had executed a lease deed on 3.9.2010 in favour of respondent no.5.? It is alleged by the petitioner that the possession of the entire plot no.87 has been handed over by Noida to respondent no.5.? The petitioner, being aggrieved filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the allottment of the land made in favour of respondent no.5 and for quashing the leased deed executed by Noida in favour of respondent no.5 and has also prayed that the unacquired portion of plot no.87, namely, 0.3597 hectares of the land be given back to the petitioner. 3. The Counter Affidavit of Noida reveals that they have handed over the entire plot no.87 in favour of respondent no.5 with the instruction that no construction would be made on the unacquired portion of plot no.87.? For facility,? paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit of Noida is extracted hereunder: "27. That the contents of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition are not admitted by the answering respondent.? For facility,? paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit of Noida is extracted hereunder: "27. That the contents of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition are not admitted by the answering respondent.? It is further submitted that since the allotment to the private respondent no.5 was made in the name of Group Housing Plot No.GH-01, this contains various numbers of khasras including the khasra no.87 of which half of the portion has already been acquired.? Since the allotment was to be made in symmetric manner that is the reason why whole khasra was allotted but since some part of the khasra no.87 of Village Chhaprauli Bangar has been left out of the acquisition, the authorities observing it an un-acquired land and also instructed the private respondent no.5 to not to construct anything over the land in question." 4. Respondent no.5 contends that they have been given possession of plot no.87 that was acquired by Noida from the tenureholder and that they are not in possession of the unacquired portion of plot no.87, nor are they making constructions on it. 5. We have heard Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for Noida and Shri D.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for M/s Three C Projects Pvt. Ltd. respondent no.5. 6. The petitioner has produced various orders issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and various reports filed pursuant to the contempt proceedings drawn by the petitioner which the Court has passed. In order to resolve the issue, the Court finds that admittedly, Noida has handed over possession of the unacquired portion of plot no.87 to respondent no.5 though, respondent no.5 denies this fact.? Admittedly, Noida has given possession of the entire portion of the land of the plot, which was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act indicate that the area measuring 0.4873 hectares of plot no.87 was acquired and the remaining area of the plot was not acquired.? As such the unacquired portion of land of the plot cannot under any circumstances be given or handed over by Noida to respondent no.5. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that they have purchased 1/3 of the unacquired land from the co-tenure holder, namely, Ran Singh.? Be that as it may.? As such the unacquired portion of land of the plot cannot under any circumstances be given or handed over by Noida to respondent no.5. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that they have purchased 1/3 of the unacquired land from the co-tenure holder, namely, Ran Singh.? Be that as it may.? The Court finds that there has been no partition by metes and bounds of the remaining portion of Plot No.87 between the co-tenure holders.? The petitioner is only one of the co-tenure holders, who has appeared before this Court. 8. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.4 Noida to demarcate the unacquired portion of plot no.87 measuirng 0.3597 hectares within four weeks from today in the presence of the co-tenure holders including the petitioner and respondent no.5.? For this purpose, Noida will take the assistance from the District Magistrate, Noida and the revenue authorities. Pursuant to the demarcation the owners or those become the owner by private arrangement would take possession in accordance with law. _______________