JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—These are three connected writ petitions based on identical facts raising common question of law and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Lok Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam for respondent No. 8, Sri Promod Kumar Pandey for respondent No. 7 and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. 3. Writ petition No. 67597 of 2012 has been filed by three petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to lease back an area of 2000 sq. meter of plot No. 189 situate in village Chipiyana Khurd, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar for residential purposes in pursuance of the Government Order dated 24.4.2010. By way of amendment, another relief has been added to quash the order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the respondent No. 4 rejecting the representation of the petitioners claiming allotment of 2000 sq. meter land under the lease back policy. 4. Writ petition No. 12343 of 2016 has been filed by the same petitioners as that of writ petition No. 67597 of 2012 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.5.2015 passed by the respondent No. 4 granting approval of leasing back 4000 sq. meter land in favour of the respondent No. 5, Babu Ram. 5. Writ petition No. 28531 of 2014 has been filed by Babu Ram seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to lease back an area of 4000 sq. meter land from Khasra No. 189-M situated at village Chhipiyana Khurd alias Tigri, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar and also to make payment of compensation of the acquired land. 6. Facts giving rise to the dispute on account of which the aforesaid three writ petitions have been preferred are as under : Dispute is in respect of Gata No. 189 area 1.7504 hectare (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plot in dispute’) situate in village Chhipiyana Khurd alias Tigri, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. Three petitioners of writ petition No. 67597 of 2012 and Babu Ram, petitioner of writ petition 28531 of 2014 were co-tenure holders of the said plot. Three petitioners of writ petition No. 67597 of 2012 and Babu Ram, petitioner of writ petition 28531 of 2014 were co-tenure holders of the said plot. Plot in dispute was subject-matter of acquisition by the State Government for Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Greater NOIDA’) for planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ‘Act’) was published on 24.7.2008. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was published on 29.1.2009. 7. After the acquisition was completed there was lot of resentment among the villagers which resulted into law and order problem, on account of which the State Government formulated a lease back policy dated 24.4.2010 to lease back certain area of land from the acquired plots over which there existed abadi constructed by the tenure-holders. 8. In the said policy, the State Government had given freedom to the authority that for the reason indicated in the policy or for any other reason in case the authority finds that the land acquired is not suitable for the use by the authority or there exists an ‘abadi’ over certain area then it would be free to lease back such area of land to the land owners from whom it was acquired. The policy further provided that a committee shall be constituted consisting of the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and a member nominated by the Chief Executive Officer of the authority and Deputy Chief Executive Officer who would examine and make recommendation on the basis of which the proceedings for lease back in favour of the tenure-holders would be undertaken. 9. The policy promulgated by the Government was adopted by the authority in its 84th Board meeting dated 2.6.2010. 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision taken in the Board meeting, notices were issued to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons inviting objection. The petitioners filed their objection that there abadi exists over the plot No. 189, as such, it may be made free from acquisition. The Committee after considering the objection filed by the petitioners made a recommendation to lease back an area of 4000 sq. meter from plot No. 189 keeping in view the abadi and other construction existing thereon. The petitioners filed their objection that there abadi exists over the plot No. 189, as such, it may be made free from acquisition. The Committee after considering the objection filed by the petitioners made a recommendation to lease back an area of 4000 sq. meter from plot No. 189 keeping in view the abadi and other construction existing thereon. The aforesaid recommendation made by the committee was placed before the Board in its meeting dated 25.11.2010 and the proposal to lease back an area of 4000 sq. meter of plot No. 189 jointly in favour of the petitioners of both the writ petitions was approved. As a consequence of the aforesaid approval, the three petitioners of writ petition No. 67597 of 2012 made an application for lease back and also deposited a sum of Rs. 17 lac by means of a bank draft dated 20.5.2011 with the respondent authority. Subsequently, a letter dated 2.12.2011 was issued by the authority in favour of the petitioners of both the writ petitions setting down the terms and conditions for lease back of 4000 sq. meter land from plot No. 189 in accordance with the decision taken by the Board. One of the conditions prescribed was that out of the total compensation received, the proportionate compensation for an area 4000 sq. meter shall be deposited in the account of the respondent authority. The relevant condition is reproduced hereunder: ^^2- izkf/kdj.k }kjk vkidks fu/kkZfjr 'krksZ ij vkcknh gsrq yht ij nh tkuh okyh Hkwfe vkidh [kljk la[;k 189 {ks=Qy 0-4000 gsDVs;j fLFkr xzke&fpfikuk [kqnZ] mQZ frxjh] rglhy&nknjh] ftyk&xkSrecq)uxj] ds fy, vki }kjk bl {ks=Qy ds izfrdj dh /kujkf'k ds cjkcj /kujkf'k xzsVj uks,Mk vkS|kSfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds lacaf/kr [kkrs esa tek dh tk,xhA^^ 11. By means of another letter dated 14.9.2012, again the petitioners of both the writ petitions were informed that they were required to deposit requisite documents for execution of the lease in the office of the authority by 18 September, 2012. 12. By means of another letter dated 14.9.2012, again the petitioners of both the writ petitions were informed that they were required to deposit requisite documents for execution of the lease in the office of the authority by 18 September, 2012. 12. Surprisingly, another letter dated 18.9.2012 was issued in favour of the petitioners providing that since three persons namely, Rajat Kumar, Parveen Kumar and Smt. Roshani Devi have received their share of compensation of plot No. 189, as such, they are not entitled to lease back of any land and their name was included in the letter dated 14.9.2012 by mistake and the same stands modified and an area of 4000 sq. meter is liable to be leased back only to Babu Ram son of Patram (respondent No. 7 of writ petition No. 67597 of 2012 and petitioner of writ petition No. 28531 of 2014). 13. Aggrieved, the three petitioners made a representation before the Chief Executive Officer pointing out that there are co-tenure holders of plot No. 189 with Babu Ram and their abadi exist over an area of 2000 sq. meter of the said plot and they had already returned back the proportionate amount of compensation for the said area to the tune of Rs. 17 lacs by means of a bank draft dated 20.5.2011. However, when no decision was taken, three petitioners, namely, Rajat Kumar, Pravin Kumar and Roshni Devi approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012. 14. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Babu Ram filed Writ Petition No. 28531 of 2014 seeking a mandamus that he may be leased back the entire area of 4000 sq. mtrs. exclusively. During the pendency of Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012, the representation made by the petitioners came to be rejected by the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 18.9.2012, which was challenged in the writ petition by seeking an amendment, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2017. 15. In the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted in paragraph 11 that petitioners, Rajat Kumar, Pravin Kumar and Roshni Devi, each has 1/3rd share in the total area of disputed plot No. 189. Further stand taken by the respondent-authority is that the three petitioners, namely, Rajat Kumar and others are not entitled to be leased back any land since they have received the compensation amount. Further stand taken by the respondent-authority is that the three petitioners, namely, Rajat Kumar and others are not entitled to be leased back any land since they have received the compensation amount. Categorical stand taken by the respondent-authorities in the counter-affidavit is that, in case, the person has received the amount of compensation, he should not be entitled to be considered for lease back. 16. Shri Loknath Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012 categorically submitted that this was neither a condition prescribed in the policy framed by the State Government for lease back nor it was a condition imposed by the respondent-authorities while adopting the said policy in its Board meeting. 17. In reply, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh and Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey appearing for Babu Ram have vehemently contended that this has been the consistent policy that a tenure holder, who has received the compensation for the land acquired, would not be entitled for benefit of lease back. 18. We have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. Policy dated 24.4.2010 framed by the State Government for lease back has been filed as Annexure CA 2 to the counter-affidavit of the respondent-authority. A perusal thereof goes to show that there is no such condition enumerated therein that if any tenure holder, who has received compensation, shall not be entitled to be leased back the area of land over which his abadi exists. Even the respondent-authority while considering the recommendation made by the committee in respect of three petitioners and Babu Ram has approved lease back of an area of 4000 sq. yards of land in their favour on account of the constructions over the said area. 20. At this stage, Shri Loknath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Rajat Kumar and 2 others, placed before us an affidavit of Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow filed in Writ Petition No. 31838 of 2014, wherein it has been categorically asserted by the Chief Secretary that Government Order dated 24.4.2010, which provides for lease back makes no distinction between a person, who has received compensation and the person, who is yet to receive compensation. Paragraph 5 of the said counter-affidavit of the Chief Secretary is being reproduced hereunder. “5. Paragraph 5 of the said counter-affidavit of the Chief Secretary is being reproduced hereunder. “5. That it is respectfully submitted that the G.O. dated 24.4.2010 which provides for lease back, makes no distinction between a person who has received compensation and a person who has yet to receive compensation. The G.O. dated 24.4.2010 provides for lease back after completion of the acquisition. Thus, before execution of lease deed, the landowner ought to accept the compensation. To the same effect provision is made in the GNIDA Rural Abadi Sites (Management and Regularization) Regulations, 2011 and amendments thereto of the year 2015. Therefore merely because the landowners had accepted compensation ought not to be made a ground for taking action against the officers.” 21. The policy framed by the State Government for lease back was subsequently incorporated in the Regulation framed by the respondent-authorities in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (1) read with clause (d) of sub-Section (2) of Section 19 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 with the previous approval of the State Government known as Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Rural Abadi Sites (Management and Regulation) Regulations, 2011. Regulation No. 12 of the said Regulations prescribes the liability to refund the compensation, if any, received the said Regulations, reads as under. “12. Liability to refund the compensation—(i) The beneficiary shall be bound to return the compensation paid by the authority proportionately and in the case of exchange of site/plot. He shall be bound to pay the excess cost thereof at such rate as is fixed by the authority. If the person has not got the compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer, he shall receive the payment and return it back to the authority. (ii) The solatium and the interest paid with amount of compensation shall also be included while fixing the amount of compensation under this Regulation.” 22. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly goes to show that the compensation, if received, is to be returned back and, in case, it has not been received, then the tenure holder is under a liability to receive the same from the Land Acquisition Officer and then return it back to the authority. 23. Sub-regulation (ii) quoted above was subsequently amended by Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Rural Abadi Sites (Management and Regularization) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2015 and substituted by the following. 23. Sub-regulation (ii) quoted above was subsequently amended by Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Rural Abadi Sites (Management and Regularization) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2015 and substituted by the following. “(ii) In case, award has been declared under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1897, the compensation amount including solatium, interest and other payments shall be refunded.” 24. In effect, even the subsequent amendment made in the Regulation in 2015 has not brought any change in the situation that the tenure holder, who has received the compensation shall be under a liability to refund the same to the authority. 25. In view of above facts and discussions, we find no justification in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities that only those persons, who are entitled for lease back, are, who have not received the compensation. On the contrary, the situation, which emerges out from the Regulations framed subsequent to the policy as also the counter-affidavit of the Chief Secretary filed in Writ Petition No. 31838 of 2014, is totally contrary to the stand taken by the Greater NOIDA. The Regulations as well as the affidavit of Chief Secretary clearly mentions that no distinction can be drawn between the tenure holders, who have received the compensation or have not received the compensation, while considering the issue of lease back. Furthermore, the Regulations go a step further by providing that, in case, the tenure holder has not received the compensation, he shall receive it from the Land Acquisition Officer and deposit it back with the authority. 26. At this juncture, Shri Sashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shakti Swaroop Nigam appearing for the impleaded respondent No. 8 in Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012, who has been allotted the acquired land for some building/commercial activities, submitted that though petitioners may be entitled for being leased back the area in accordance with the policy/regulation, but they cannot insist upon lease back of the said area only from their plot, which was subject-matter of acquisition, inasmuch as if the same is permitted, the it will result in total violation of the scheme for which the land has been allotted. 27. The State Government had enumerated the lease back policy and the Regulations on account of certain relevant facts and exigencies, which itself is self contained. 27. The State Government had enumerated the lease back policy and the Regulations on account of certain relevant facts and exigencies, which itself is self contained. It is also an admitted fact that there exists a master plan prepared by the authority and, thus, it would not be possible for the respondent-authority to ensure that each and every tenure holder, whose land has been acquired and is entitled for lease back, may be accommodated on their own holding. This cannot be and is not the aim and object of the scheme. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 seems to be right in contending that entire master plan would be frustrated and failed if each and every tenure holder, whose land has been acquired, is given liberty to claim that he may be accommodated on his own land under the lease back policy and the same would create complete chaos on the spot and no development activities could be carried out. The authority is best suited to scrutinize each and every aspect regarding development of the area concerned and this Court cannot direct the authority to ensure that in every case, the tenure holders are to be accommodated under the lease back policy on their own land. 29. This view taken by us finds support from another Division Bench judgment dated 28.1.2016 rendered in Writ Petition No. 1997 of 2016, Dhanpal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others Admittedly, the three petitioners of Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012 and Babu Ram, petitioner of Writ Petition No. 28531 of 2014 are co-tenure holders of the plot in question. Plot No. 189 originally belonged to Babu Ram, petitioner of Writ Petition No. 28531 of 2014 and Bhagwant, the predecessor-in-interest of three petitioners of Writ Petition No. 67697 of 2012 and, thus, petitioners of both the petitions are entitled to be leased back the area in proportion to their shares. 30. The authority initially proposed to lease back the area of 4000 sq. mtrs. Petitioners of both the petitions, i.e., Babu Ram and three petitioners are, thus, held entitled for allotment of the said area in proportion to their shares in the original holding. However, they are not entitled to be leased back the area from plot No. 189, which was subject-matter of acquisition. mtrs. Petitioners of both the petitions, i.e., Babu Ram and three petitioners are, thus, held entitled for allotment of the said area in proportion to their shares in the original holding. However, they are not entitled to be leased back the area from plot No. 189, which was subject-matter of acquisition. Rather, the respondent-authority shall consider lease back of the said area in their favour at any other appropriate place. 31. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, order dated 18.9.2012 passed by respondent No. 4 rejecting the claim of three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012 stands quashed. Resolution dated 12.5.2015 according approval of lease back of entire area of 4000 sq. mtrs. in favour of Babu Ram also stands quashed. The respondent-authority shall take a fresh decision for lease back of an area of 4000 sq. mtrs. of land at appropriate place in favour of three petitioners of Writ Petition No. 67597 of 2012 as well Babu Ram, petitioner of Writ Petition No. 28531 of 2014, in proportion to their shares in plot No. 189, subject to their fulfilling the condition of refund of the amount of compensation alongwith solatium, interest etc. if any received by them. 32. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the three writ petitions stand finally disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.