Name of village Dates of Notifications under Sections 4 &6 Dates on which possession claimed to be taken Period during which compensation received Percentage of tenure holders receiving compensation Percentage of total compensation disbursed Status of award Patwari 12.3.2008 & 30.6.2008° 5.9.2008 (572.592 hect.) 12.1.2009 (1.453 hect) August 2008 to Feb. 2011 87% 82% Award not declared. Sakipur 31.12.2004 5.9.2005 30.12.2005, 7.3.2008, 28.1.2011. December 2006 to 2007 and one in April, 2009.0151, 0176, 0150, 0145, 0178, 0148. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Authority have vehemently submitted that most of the writ petitions having been filed with great delay and laches deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that the petitioners who have been not vigilant of their rights cannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court after a long delay. It is further contended that after taking possession the land was validly allotted to the third parties/allottees/builders who have made huge investments in pursuance of the allotment and have changed their position which is an additional factor for not entertaining the writ petition. It is contended that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised in favour of only those persons who have been vigilant of their rights and for not those who were indolent. Furthermore, the mere fact that in cases of some vigilant persons, judgments were given by this Court or the Apex Court cannot be a ground for permitting the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that most of the petitioners have filed the writ petition only after the judgment given by the Apex Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development, Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors, 2011 (6) ADJ 480, decided on 06/7/2011.$$$% 0147896325 Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State suggested that a cut off date be fixed taking the date of judgment of the above case i.e. 06/7/2011 and all the petitions filed after 06/7/2011 who have got impetus of filing the writ petition should be dismissed as barred by time.$#@ 213456789 Learned counsel appearing for the intervenors have also vehemently argued that the petitioners who have been sleeping over their rights and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with delay and laches should not be entertained and their petitions be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.*****+ 369852147 Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has submitted that in the facts of the present case the petitioners claim be not rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the petitioners have acted bonafide in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on a valid ground. Petitioners were aggrieved from acquisition since very beginning because their agricultural land which was source of their livelihood and part of their land on which they have constructed "Abadi" and were residing have been taken away by acquisition by making payment of a meagre amount, but the petitioners were under bonafide belief that their land has been. Rohit typing center. 55555556666897