JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vipin Sinha, J.—Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The dispute as raised in the present writ petition is with regard to three plots. The same being (a) Khasra No. 572 having an area 1.4500 hectares, (b) Khasra No. 580 having an area 0.04945 hectares and (c) Khasra No. 1197/572 having an area of 0.0590 hectares. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the aforesaid plots were not notified as they have not been acquired in accordance with law. That they were not included in any notification whatsoever and they have been free from all acquisition proceedings. However, the petitioners’ have been dispossessed and the respondents have taken over possession of the said plots and have constructed a road over the said plot. 4. It has further been contended that the petitioners’ were unduly pressurised for acquisition by executing a sale-deed with regard to certain area of plot No. 1197/572 and plot No. 580. However, it is being contended that only part of the total area of the said two plots were sold through a sale-deed and that too under pressure. However, the respondents have taken over the entire area and the same have been taken possession of including the area of plot No. 572 with regard to which there is no sale-deed whatsoever on record. That with regard to the area, which has been sold in pursuance of the sale-deed is herein as under : 5. That in plot No. 580 only an area of 473.75 sq. mts. was sold as per the sale-deed, whereas in plot No. 1197/572 an area of 73.75 sq. mts. was sold. Thus, the total sale is only with regard to 547 sq. mts. land in plot No. 580 and plot No. 1197/572. 6. Sri M.A. Qadeer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that as forcible possession has been taken over of the entire land of plot No. 1197/527, plot No. 580 and plot No. 572 without following any due process of law and without resorting the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Sri M.A. Qadeer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that as forcible possession has been taken over of the entire land of plot No. 1197/527, plot No. 580 and plot No. 572 without following any due process of law and without resorting the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the present writ petition with the following reliefs has been filed : “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to return back the land of Khasra No. 572 area 1.4500 Hectare, Khasra No. 580 area 0.9320 Hectare, Khasra No. 1197/572 area 0.0590 Hectare situated at village Etmadpur Madra, Tehsil & District Agra, or to petitioners and restore its position and maintain status quo as on the date 19.3.2016. (b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant reasonable damages for dispossession. (c) In alternative issue a mandamus to respondents to pay compensation and other amount payable to petitioners under the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (d) ........................................ (e) ........................................” 7. On being pointedly asked by this Court from Sri M.A. Qadeer, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to what relief does he seeks at the moment as on date, a categorical reply was received from the Senior Counsel for the petitioner that he is seeking compensation for the land, which has been forcefully possessed by the respondents. On being further asked as to who is in possession over the plots in question, the answer was again to the effect that the possession over the plot in question is that of the respondents. 8. Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the State of U.P. has undertaken a project for facilitating the industrialisation and growth of the State and for the purposes of transportation a Agra-Lucknow Excess Control Expressway (Green Field) is being constructed and that the total cost of the project is about Rs. 14434.64 crores. 8. Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the State of U.P. has undertaken a project for facilitating the industrialisation and growth of the State and for the purposes of transportation a Agra-Lucknow Excess Control Expressway (Green Field) is being constructed and that the total cost of the project is about Rs. 14434.64 crores. It has been contended that the said expressway has to join the roads of Agra and the Yamuna Expressway, Agra for which a ‘Trumpet’ is required to be constructed at the Etmadpur Madra Agra and that the total land required for the purpose of construction of ‘Trumpet’ at Agra is 15.1130 hectares land and that the said land belongs to 74 farmers. It has further been contended that after finalising the alignment of the ‘Trumpet’, the district administration of Agra had called for a meeting of all the farmers whose land is likely to be affected on 2nd March, 2015 and that in the said meeting the farmers were duly informed about the construction of the ‘Trumpet’ and the benefit that will accrue to the farmers with the construction of the said ‘Trumpet’ and they were also informed that they would be paid four times of circle rate as cost of the land. 9. Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, the learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that in the said meeting, which was attended by almost all the farmers including Harish Chandra and Bhoori, who are family members of the petitioners’, no objection of any sought whatsoever was taken and subsequent to the said meeting a second meeting was held on 7th July, 2015 again between the farmers and the revenue authorities of the district administration of Agra and a decision was taken that as the construction of the ‘Trumpet’ has already been started, the farmers whose land fall in that particular area where the ‘Trumpet’ was being constructed will not undertake any agricultural activity whatsoever. It has also been submitted that out of 74 farmers 70 farmers have duly executed the sale-deeds by accepting price of the land at the rate of four times circle rate of the agricultural land and that the construction of ‘Trumpet’ is going on in full swing and a major part of the project is almost completed. 10. It has also been submitted that out of 74 farmers 70 farmers have duly executed the sale-deeds by accepting price of the land at the rate of four times circle rate of the agricultural land and that the construction of ‘Trumpet’ is going on in full swing and a major part of the project is almost completed. 10. At this stage, Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya has pointed out that as far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to plot No. 572 being abadi land is concerned, it is submitted that initially an order was passed under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by means of which the plot No. 572 was declared as non agricultural land on 2nd April, 2008. However, subsequent to the declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act it has been contended that the petitioner continued to use the land as agricultural land and that subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a fresh order on 18th August, 2015 cancelling the declaration of plot No. 572 as abadi and thus, as on date it is an agricultural land. 11. It is an admitted position on record that against the order dated 18th August, 2015, no appeal or revision has been filed and thus, as on date the order has become final and plot No. 572 continues to be an agricultural land. 12. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner No. 1 has executed a sale-deed for plot No. 580 and plot No. 1197/572 on 19th August, 2015. A copy of the sale-deed has been annexed with the counter-affidavit. 13. It is further contended that all the persons including the petitioner No. 1 have been paid compensation four times the circle rate of the land for execution of the sale-deed, which was being affected on account of construction of ‘Trumpet’. 14. It has been accepted in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that only 0.05475 hectares land has been purchased in pursuance of the sale-deed executed by petitioner No. 1. It has further been accepted in para 5 that the land of plot No. 572 has also been utilized by the respondents for construction of a ‘Trumpet’. 15. Reference in this regard, may be made to paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 3rd September, 2016. 16. It has further been accepted in para 5 that the land of plot No. 572 has also been utilized by the respondents for construction of a ‘Trumpet’. 15. Reference in this regard, may be made to paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 3rd September, 2016. 16. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the factual matrix as it unfolds is to the effect that land of plot No. 572, 580 and 1197/572 has been taken possession by the respondents and the same has been utilized for the construction of a ‘Trumpet’/expressway without following the acquisition proceedings and without the plots being notified and it also becomes crystal clear that even though a sale-deed was executed with regard to part of plot No. 580 and part of plot No. 1197/572, the land much in excess thereof has been taken possession and utilized by the respondents. 17. The fact remains that the petitioner No. 1 has executed a sale-deed and it is also to be appreciated that in a meeting, minutes of which has been annexed with counter-affidavit, family members of the petitioners’ had participated and none had raised any dispute. It is also to be appreciated that these 74 farmers whose land has been affected by the construction of the expressway/’Trumpet’, 70 farmers have already accepted the compensation. It is also an admitted position on record that a huge amount has been invested in the project and the construction work is also almost complete as it has been admitted in the rejoinder-affidavit that the road has been constructed over the plot in question. Thus, at this belated stage the petitioners’ cannot be permitted to hold the entire State machinery to ransom. 18. The Apex Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Syed Maqbool and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2011 (4) SCR 238 , has observed herein as under : “High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community - as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community - as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the land were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed.” 19. Keeping in view the fact that substantial development has already taken place and that the majority of the farmers, in fact 70 out of 74, of the farmers have already sold their land and have executed sale-deeds and have received compensation, this Court at this stage finds no substantial ground to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has time and again held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised so as to obstruct development of infrastructure, which will serve larger public interest. Instead, the relief could be moulded so as to compensate the writ petitioners. In the present case, it may be observed that the land is part and parcel of a larger area and thus, in view of the substantial development having taken place the plea of the writ petitioners could not be considered in isolation, moreover this Court will have to proceed keeping in mind the statement made at the bar of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 20. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the admitted factual position that possession over the plots in question have been taken by the respondents and in fact excess land has been taken possession of than what was sold by petitioner No. 1 by executing a sale-deed with regard to plot No. 580, 1197/572 this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition with certain directions herein as under : (a) The petitioners’ are entitled for grant of compensation at the same rate as has been granted and paid by the respondents to the other 70 farmers. (b) This exercise of determination of quantum of compensation with regard to the land over which possession has been taken by the respondents shall be completed by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority in accordance with law and following due process of law. (c) The quantum of compensation so determined shall be released in favour of the petitioners’ within the next three months. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.