ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opp. Parties particularly the opp. party no.3 by commanding him to pay the compensation to the petitioner of the acquired land i.e. plot no.118 min 0.024 hect situated in village Mirapur Doaba Pargana Haveli Avadh Tehsil and Distt. Faizabad as per present Market Value as well as taking into considering the provisions as enshrined under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within the stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opp. party no.3 for releasing the rest of the land of khasra no.118 pertaining the petitioner (other than the acquired land) which has been occupied by the opp. parties without any acquisition." 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the land of the petitioner having been utilised by the State for construction of Bandh, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner till date. Admittedly, acquisition of the land had taken place more than 28 years ago. 3. The petitioner had filed one writ petition bearing Land Acquisition No.24092 of 2017, Dashrath Mallah Vs. State of U.P. and others, before this Court and this Court was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 9.10.2017 directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Faizabad to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on the pending representation of the petitioner. 4. The aforesaid representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Faizabad vide order dated 9.11.2017, which is contained as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, whereby the authority concerned disposed of the representation of the petitioner observing that no acquisition of the land in question has been made by his office, rather as alleged possession has been taken by the Executive Engineer, Baarh Karya Khand, Faizabad, therefore, no compensation can be paid to the petitioner by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Faizabad. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that just after receiving the aforesaid order dated 9.11.2017, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 15.12.2017 to the Executive Engineer, Baarh Karya Khand, Faizabad apprising all facts of the case including the order of this Court dated 9.10.2017 as well as the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Faizabad dated 9.11.2017 (supra). In the aforesaid representation, the petitioner requested that he be paid compensation at the existing market rate strictly in accordance with law. 6. It is to be noted that just after receiving the representation dated 15.12.2017, the Executive Engineer concerned issued a letter dated 9.1.2018 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) to the petitioner asking him to furnish details of the land in question, which has been referred by the petitioner in his representation, more particularly in respect of Gata No.118. The petitioner has also been asked to provide copy of the sale deed wherein details of the land in question are indicated. The Executive Engineer again preferred letter dated 13.2.2018 (Annexure No.11 to the writ petition) to the petitioner asking details of the land in question as per his earlier letter dated 9.1.2018. In reply to the aforesaid letters dated 9.1.2018 and 13.2.2018, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 26.2.2018 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) to the Executive Engineer concerned furnishing the details so asked by the authority concerned enclosing therewith the necessary documents as has been required making request that considering the documents in question, which have been enclosed with the representation dated 26.2.2018, appropriate decision be taken in the representation of the petitioner. When no decision has been taken by the Executive Engineer concerned, the petitioner preferred a reminder representation dated 22.5.2018 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition) reiterating his request so made in his earlier representation dated 26.2.2018. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it has been filed after a substantial delay inasmuch as the land in question was acquired more than 28 years ago. It has further been submitted that the representation of the petitioner, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 9.10.2017, has already been disposed of by the competent authority, therefore, his representation dated 15.12.2017 may not be directed to be decided. 8. It has further been submitted that the representation of the petitioner, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 9.10.2017, has already been disposed of by the competent authority, therefore, his representation dated 15.12.2017 may not be directed to be decided. 8. In rejoinder argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an innocuous prayer that the direction for disposal of the representation dated 15.12.2017 may be issued as he has preferred the aforesaid representation only after knowing the fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Faizabad passed the order dated 9.11.2017 saying that the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Faizabad has not acquired the land of the petitioner, therefore, no compensation can be paid from his office. In the said order, he has apprised that the land in question has been acquired by Executive Engineer, Baarh Karya Khand, Faizabad, therefore, he has submitted that his representation dated 15.12.2017 may not be said to have been moved after delay. Further, when the Executive Engineer concerned has required the details and sale deed in respect of the property in question so as to settle the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner has provided all documents to the Executive Engineer concerned in compliance of his letters dated 9.1.2018 and 13.2.2018, the Executive Engineer concerned should have taken an appropriate decision disposing of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2017. 9. We find substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Executive Engineer concerned has taken cognizance of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2017 and accordingly asked the details and sale deed of the property in question so as to dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2017, any suitable order should have been passed by the Executive Engineer concerned at the earliest. 10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the issue, the authority concerned i.e. Executive Engineer, Baarh Karya Khand, Faizabad is hereby directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2017, strictly in accordance with law, by speaking and reasoned order, with expedition, say within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court. It is clarified that we have not touched merits of the issue. The petition is accordingly disposed of.