G.M. LODHA, J.—This is a writ application challenging the acquisition of the petitioners land Khasra Nos. 345, 346, 347, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355 and 356 measuring 5 Bighas and 19 Biswas and Khasra No. 389 measuring 3 Bighas and 7 Biswas situated in village Chak Sudarshanpura and Bhojpura respectively which was initially in the Khatedari of Dhanna son of Gangaram by caste Kumhar. Petitioners case is that nursery has been established by the petitioner in the aforesaid land and it is one of the best nurseries in the whole of Rajasthan and plants from this nursery are sent not only in parts of Rajasthan but also in other cities of India. Under the Lalkothi Scheme at the instance of Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, land acquisition proceedings were taken and notifications were issued under secs. 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953, in the Gazette on 11-5-61. Although several objections have been raised against the aforesaid acquisition but the principal point urged by Mr. Singh for the petitioner is based on discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged that an adjoining nursery to the petitioners nursery, which is known as Anand Nursery, was acquired in addition to the petitioners nursery by the said notification and for the same purposes of Lalkothi Scheme by the notification of U.I.T. Jaipur. Both the petitioners as well as Proprietor of Anand Nursery made representation against the acquisition on the ground that even in the master plan itself these lands have been earmarked for nurseries and orchards, dairies and after spending a huge amount and putting up trem-endus labour these nurseries have been built up. Both these representations were under consideration of the State Government. Both these representations were under consideration of the State Government. However the representation of Anand Nursery was accepted and an order for de-acquisition was passed in the following term : jktLFkku ljdkj uxj vk;kstu foHkkx] t;iqj la- ,Q- 6 % 62 LFkk- kk- vk- 61 fnukad 15-5-1971 vf/kllwpuk ^^,&vr% ;g vE;kosnfr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jhefr dykorh ,ju us ykydksBh ;kstuk t;iqj esa [kljk u- 285] 259] 262] 263 ,oa 265 dh Hkwfe ij tks vkuUn ulZjh ds uke ls tkuh tkrh gS ftlesa ,d fokky Qy lCth ,oa iq"iks o vaxwjksa dh [ksrh dh ulZjh LFkkfir dj fy;k gS tks dkQh ykxr ls fuekZ.k dh xbZ gS ;g vkoafVr ulZjh lkoZtfud mi;ksx ds fy;s j[kuk vko;d gS rFkk bls izLrkfor yky dksBh ;kstuk ¼vkoklu½ ds fy, vokIr ¼vftZr½ ugh fd;k tkuk pkfg,A^ ch&vr% mDr Hkwfe vokfIr dh dk;Zokgh ds vuqlkj dCts esa ugh yh xbZ gS vkSj Hkwfe dh Lokfeuh Jhefr dykorh ,sfju /keZ ifRu jkepUnz ,sfju us fcuk krZ opu fd;k gS fd os jktLFkku Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjkvksa 4 ,oe~ 6 ds vf/ku foKfIr;ksa ;k rnghu fdUgh dk;Zokgh;ksa dks vxzlj djus esa muids }kjk fd;s x;sa leLr [kpZ Hkh NksM+ nsaxsA rFkk vr% uxj fodkl U;kl t;iqj ls ijkekZ djus ij jkT; ljdkj dk lek/kku gks x;k gS fd izLrkfor ykydksBh vkoklu ;kstuk esa mDr lEifr dks ;kstuk ls i`Fkd j[kus ds dkj.k dksbZ ck/kk ugh igaqpsxhA vr% tc jktlhu Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1955 jktLFkku vf/kfu;e 24 lu~ 1953 dh /kkjk 48 dh ¼1½ }kjk iznr kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa jktLFkku jkT; ljdklj ,rn~ }kjk bl foHkkx dh le la[;d vf/k;wpuk 7 tuojh 1971 ds v/khu Hkwfe vokfIr ds iz;kstukFkZ vf/klwpuk xzke jkeiqjk :ik rflhy t;iqj esa vkuUn ulZjh ds uke ls fo[;kr Hkwfe ftlds [kljk ua- 258] 259] 262] 263 vkSj 265 gS] vkSj ftudk uke 5 ch?kk gS] vkSj tks ulZjh d dk;Z esa gh yh tk;xh o vkoklu gsrq ugh cnyh tk;sxh dks vokfIr ls izR;kgj.k djrh gS] mDr Hkwfe dh vokfIr lEcU/kh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lEcU/k esa Hkwfe ds Lokeh fdlh {kfr;k [kpZ ds gdnkj ugh gkssaxsA jkT;iky ds vknsk ls vkj- ih- fla?ky mi kklu lfpo izfrfyfi izf"kr gS%& ¼1½ vf/k{kd dsUnzh; eqnz.kky; t;iqj dqi;k mijksDr vf/klwpuk dks vkxkeh jkti= Hkkx 6&[k esa izdkfkr djsaA jkT;iky dh 10 izfr;ka bl foHkkx dks fHktokus dh d`ik djs% ¼2½ Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh uxj fodkl ifj;kstuk,] t;iqjA ¼3½ lfpo uxj fodkl U;kl] t;iqjA ¼4½ Jhefr dykorh ,sfju /keZ ifRu ds jkepUnz ,sfju vkuUn ulZjh xzke jkeiqjk :ik ykydksBh ;kstuk,sa] t;iqjA 3. The only reason for de-acquiring Anand Nursery given in the aforesaid notification is as under:- ^,&vr% ;g vH;kosfnr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jhefr dykorh ,sfju u ykydksBh ;kstuk t;iqj esa [kljk u- 258] 259] 262] 263 ,oe~ 265 dh Hkwfe ij tks vuUn ulZjh ds uke ls tkuh tkrh gS ftlesa ,d fokky Qy] kkd lCth ,oa iq"iks o vxawjksa dh [ksrh dh ulZjh LFkkfir dj fy;k gS tks dkQh ykxr ls fuekZ.k dh xbZ gS ;g vkoafVr ulZjh lkoZtfud mi;ksx ds fy, j[kuk vko;d gS rFkk bls izLrkfor yky dksBh ;kstuk ¼vkoklu½ ds fy, vokIr ¼vftZr½ ugh fd;k tkuk pkfg, -------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ----------------- --------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- In this notification reproduced above, it is mentioned that in this nursery, fruits, vegetables and flowers and grapes are cultivated and it has been established at huge amount. Therefore, this nursery should be kept intact and be de-acquisitioned under sec. 48(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioners Pratap Nursery has been adjudicated as one of the best nurseries which is very useful for all those purposes which have been mentioned in the de-acquisition order of Anand Nursery. 48(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioners Pratap Nursery has been adjudicated as one of the best nurseries which is very useful for all those purposes which have been mentioned in the de-acquisition order of Anand Nursery. He relies upon the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20-4-73 (Annexure B) produced in this Court, with the additional affidavit dated 20-2-79 and it is as under : dk;kZy; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh uxj fodkl ;kstuk;sa] t;iqj dzekad Hkw- v-@fu- fo-@ 827@73 kklu lfpo uxj vk;kstu foHkkx lfpoky;] t;iqjA fo"k;&[k- ua- 345 ls 347; 349 ls 356 xzke ,d lqnkZuiqjk rFkk 389 HkkStiqjkA izlax&vkidk i= la[;k Mh&8999 fnukad 25-11-72 rFkk Mh&9361@u- vk-@72 fnukad 2-12-72 egksn;] mijksDr nksuks i=ksa ds lkFk izrki ulZjh }kjk fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= Hkh vius bl dk;kZy; dks vko;d dk;Zokgh Hksts gSA ;s nksuksa izkFkZuk i= ulZjh ds ekfyd }kjk viuh ulZjh dks vokfIr ls eqDr djkus gsrq isk fd;s gSA ;g ekeyk bl le;k Hkh vkids dk;kZy; esas fopkjk/khu gS D;ksfd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj us vius vknsk fnukad 1-5-73 ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks ;g vknsk fn;k Fkk fd og rhu ekg esas jkT; ljdkj ls bl lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; djk dj ykosaA pwafd ;g ekeyk vkids fopkjk/khu gS vr% vkids mijksDr i=ksa dh ikyuk esas ;g mfpr gksxk fd bl ekeys dh oLrq fLFkfr ls jkT; ljdkj dks voxr djk;k tkosA izrki ulZjh yky dksBh ;kstuk esa xzke HkStiqjk c pd lqnZkuiqjk esa fLFkr gS ftldk dqy {ks=Qy 9 ch?kk 6 fclok gSA bl dk;kZy; esa viyC/k lqpuk ds vuqlkj ;g ulZjh lu~ 1955 esa LFkkfir gqbZ FkhA fiNys 17 o"kksZ esa bl ulZjh dk fodkl gqvk vkSj bl le; yk[kksa dh la[;k esa Qy o Qwyksa ds isM+ ikS/ks ;gka miyC/k gS tks u dsoy t;iqj o jktLFkku esa oju lkjs nsk esa lIykbZ fd;s tkrs gSA isM+ ikS/kks dks foLr`r fyLV esa tks bl dk;kZy; ds vehu }kjk losZ dh xbZ gS layXu dh tk jgh gSA dqN eq[; isM+ ikS/kksa dh la[;k fuEu izdkj gS& 1-xqykc 67000 2- vke 1875 3- ve:n 10060 4- vaxwj 1172 5- vukj 69015 6- vkaoyk 1590 7- phdw 1595 8- larjk 2006 9- uhacw 5000 10- ekSlEeh 3018 11- vkksd 3030 12- dzksVu 6100 bl ulZjh dk fujh{k.k djus ij Kkr gqvk fd bl dk lapkyu ,d cM+s iSekus ij oSKkfud rjhds ls fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk nsk ds fofHkUu Hkkxksa esa iSnk gksus okys Qyksa tSls cknke] vkyw cq[kkjk] vUukl] ukjh;y] nkyphuh] yhph ls vkfn ij Hkh lQyrk iwoZd ijh{k.k fd;k tk jgk gSA t;iqj kgj esa bruh lqfo[;kr vkSjj cM+h ulZjh kk;n gh nwljh gksA t;iqj kgj esa cuus okys Hkouksa ds fy, ckx cxhps o gfj;kyh dh ekWax dkQh gn rd bl ulZjh ls iwjh gksrh gSA izrki ulZjh ds fudV gh vkuUn ulZjh gS tks djhc vkB o"kZ iwoZ LFkkfit gqbZ Fkh vkSj dsoy xqykc ds ikS/ks gh mxkrh gSA vkuUn ulZjh dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk i= la[;k ,Q 6¼62½ ,l ,l th@61 fnukad 15-5-71 d tfj, vokfIr ls eqDr dj fn;k gSA vr% vkids fopkjk/khu bl ulZjh ds izR;kgj.k lEcfU/kr ekeys esa oLrqfLFkfr dh fjiksVZ lsok esa izLrqr dh tk jgh gSA g- Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh uxjfodkl ;kstuk,s- Mr. Singh also invited my attention to the order-sheet of this Court dated 1.5.73 when late Honble Mr. Justice J. P. Jain observed as under: "1-5-73. Honble Jain J. Mr. N. M. Kasliwal for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Tewari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. According to Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the only point that survives in this case for consideration of this Court is that the action of the State Government in acquiring the petitioners land is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The basis of this contention is that the land in neighbourhood of the petitioners land situated in the same village was also acquired by the State Government under the notification by which the petitioners land was acquired, but on the ground that there is a nursery on the land in the neighbourhood known as Anand Nursery, the land was released from acquisition by the State Government. The petitioner, according to Mr. Kasliwal, is similarly situated in as much as the petitioners land is also covered by a nursery known as Pratap Nursery and it exists to from 1955, much before the Anand Nursery came into existence. The petitioner wants to move the State Government to reconsider the case in the light of the order passed with respect to the land covered by Anand Nursery. He prays for some time to move the State Government. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has no objection in this regard. I accordingly allow three months time to the petitioner to move the State Government and to negotiate for obtaining the necessary relief in view of the facts urged by him in this Court. This case shall be listed for hearing on 22.8.73." 5. In pursuance of that the petitioner again made representation to the State Government. Mr. J. S. Rastogi learned Government Advocate placed before me the record of the State Government regarding the proceedings taken on that application and subsequent application. I find that on the earlier application of 1973 though reasons have not been given but it is mentioned in the file that the application of Pratap Nursery cannot be accepted. In para 82 it is mentioned that a writ petition has been filed and the Proprietor of Pratap Nursery has made representation for de-acquisition and the Court has given him opportunity to make representation. In para 82 it is mentioned that a writ petition has been filed and the Proprietor of Pratap Nursery has made representation for de-acquisition and the Court has given him opportunity to make representation. The representation, it is alleged, has been filed in the time allowed by the court and then ultimately it is written that views of the Government Advocate were required to be obtained but it appears that they have not been received. However, it is mentioned that on the report of the Secretary U.I.T. and the Secretary Town Planning, the application deserves to be rejected. Another application moved by the Proprietor of Pratap Nursery, the petitioner, again was dealt with as per the records placed before me by the Government Advocate, and it appears that Shri Gulab Singh Shaktawat the then Minister for State for Localself Government and Town Planning, was of the view that this Pratap Nursery should also be de-acquisitioned. In compliance of the directions issued by the then State Minister, a letter was addressed by Shri M. S. Jha, Asstt. Secretary to the Government on 16.4.77 and it was observed in that letter, that it will be of advantage to retain this Nursery, if possible though some portion of the land may be considered for being taken either by negotiation or acquisition to develop it as a park provided in the town plan of the area. Comments were required on it. The Secretary of U.I.T. in reply to it wrote that an amended master plan is being prepared by the Chief Town Planner and, there -fore, it would be possible to send comments only after that. 6. All the above shows that the State Government at its various levels was seized of the matter from time to time and even now there is some correspondence left which has not been concluded so far. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances the crucial question which requires consideration is whether Anand Nursery and Pratap Nursery located in the Lal Kothi Scheme of the U.I.T. in Jaipur City being adjoining to each other and being utilised for the same purpose of nursery are having such identical similarity which warrants consideration of question whether there has been discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution between the two. Mr. Mr. Singh submits that his case is on a far better footing than that of Anand Nursery because whereas Anand Nursery mostly is used for roses and other flowers, petitioners nursery is being maintained for various vegetables and fruits etc. which are used for human consumption. 8. Dr. Tewari on the other hand contested this factual position also. Be that as it may, so far as the respondents are concerned, they cannot be allowed to travel beyond the report of the Land Acquisition Officer which corroborates Mr. Singhs contention so far as his positive case of Pratap Nursery is concerned. It has not been shown to me that the Land Acquisition Officer who gave this report was biased in favour of Pratap Nursery or in any manner he inspite of being a Government Officer deliberately gave a false report to oblige the petitioner. That being so the court can safely rely upon the version given by the Government Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) and assume that Pratap Nursery is a well developed Nursery where vegetables and fruits and other plants useful for human being, are being produced, and maintained in abundance. 9. Dr. Tewari then submitted that Art. 14 has got no relevancy and relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Naraindass vs. The Improvement Trust, Amritsar(l). Relevant observations are as under : "Equal laws have to be applied to all persons in the same situation and there must be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. If a person has however failed to bring his case within sec. 56 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act then merely because some other party has erroneously succeeded in getting his land exempted ostensibly under that section that by itself would not clothe the former with a right to secure exemption for their lands. The rule of equality before the law or of the equal protection of the laws under Art. 14 cannot be invoked in such a case." It was again observed : "The Trust is not bound to give reasons for holding as to why the entire land of the owners of orchards is necessary for executing the Scheme. There is no provision of the Act which imposes such an obligation on the Trust when coming to a decision under sec. 56." (point conceded). There is no provision of the Act which imposes such an obligation on the Trust when coming to a decision under sec. 56." (point conceded). Sec. 56 of the Punjab Act which has been reproduced in para 6 of this judgment, makes provision for bringing it to the notice of State Government that on subsequent discovery the acquisition of that land is unnecessary for the execution of the scheme and on that the acquisition of that particular part can be abandoned. 10. As I have been able to understand the observations of the Hon. Court, they are that if one mistake has been committed by the State Government then Art. 14 cannot be applied to compel the State Government to repeat the same mistake in the other one. I have simplified the conclusion in order to emphasise that the case of a party taking advantage of State Governments mistake in other case is one where constitutional protection of Art. 14 cannot be applied. I 11. In the instant case, there is no pleading of the State Government that the State Government has committed a mistake in passing an order of de-acquisition in Anand Nursery. To me, it appears that it is a basic jurisdictional fact on which the application of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court can be applied in the instant case, Mr. J. S. Rastogi, Government Advocate appearing for the State has not taken this stand either that the State Government has committed a mistake in releasing the land of Anand Nursery. 12. Far from that a perusal of the record placed before me by the learned Government Advocate shows that not only Anand Nursery is release from acquisition was justified on the basis of a detailed discussion in which various Departmental function arise consisting of U.I.T., Town Planning and others participated, but in ultimate analysis in 1977 on second thought no less than the concerned Minister for Town Planning and Urban Improvement Mr. Gulab Shaktawat himself agreed to the prayer of the petitioner, that Pratap Nursery must be maintained as such. That being so the principles enunciated to which reference has been made and my attention has been drawn by Dr. Tewari with all vehemence at his command fails to help him so far as their application in the instant case is concerned. 13. That being so the principles enunciated to which reference has been made and my attention has been drawn by Dr. Tewari with all vehemence at his command fails to help him so far as their application in the instant case is concerned. 13. I am of the firm view that founding fathers of the Constitution while giving the Constitution to ourselves guaranteed equality before law under Art. 14 in very wide and unmistakable terms. This equality concept cannot be taken away nor can a citizen be deprived of it on the basis of an assumed mistake of the State Government, which has got no basis on the record. To me, it appears that the approach of the Court should be how, a common citizen would consider the application of the law amongst equally and similarly situated citizens. 14. Admittedly Anand Nursery; and Pratap Nursery are like two twin Sons of a father, located at one place adjoining to each other and form the part of the same schems called Lal Kothi Scheme of the U.I.T. of Jaipur. Again both these areas have been shown in the master plan as areas reserved for Nurseries, orchards, pollutary and dairies. Cultivation in both is also common or less except that in Anand Nursery emphasis is on roses but in Pratap Nursery the prominence is on vegetables, fruits etc. The State Government cannot be allowed to discriminate between the two citizens by rejecting the prayer for de-acquisition of Pratap Nursery after accepting the prayer of Anand Nursery because there is nothing to differerentiate between the two. 15. The State functionaries deciding the two twin nursery cases, exhibited liking and fancy for "roses" of Anand Nursery and dislike for various fruits like Mangoes, Guava, Pomegranate, Lemon, Orange, Cheeku. This provides a glaring case of discrimination. The roses may provide beautiful view, perfume but after all its a luxury of a few in the State of Rajasthan where common men is not a "Mughal Shahanshah". In contrast to it the fruits like Lemon, Orange, Guava, are at least partial necessities and partial comforts to use the economic terms but cannot be classified as luxuries. If Art. 14 is to be understood properly, the social needs of this State and Country warrants protection to fruit growing nursery or orchard rather than the "roses". 16. In contrast to it the fruits like Lemon, Orange, Guava, are at least partial necessities and partial comforts to use the economic terms but cannot be classified as luxuries. If Art. 14 is to be understood properly, the social needs of this State and Country warrants protection to fruit growing nursery or orchard rather than the "roses". 16. The law is well settled that the equality clause of Art. 14 under the Constitution is not meant only to be applied for the purpose of the testing the enactment of laws but also it extends to their application, implementation, operation, execution and working in relation to the citizens. It has also been repeatedly laid down by the Honble Supreme Court that the courts are required to act as watch-dogs of the Constitution to provide protection to the citizens when the matter relates to the allegation of invasion of fundamental rights. 17. Fundamental rights govern all equally may be a business man, a Government or Civil servant or a farmer, a shoemaker or a labourer. In fact the lowest in the ladder requires more protection because it is one out of thousands that can approach the courts for the redress of such grievances. Mr. Rastogi, the learned Government Advocate after showing the record to me could not point out any feature of distinction between the two Pratap Nursery and Anand Nursery. 18. Dr. Tewari appearing for the U.I.T. relied upon the last paragraph in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above which was given on a concession. Dr. Tewari also referred to me para 13 where Shri Gupta in that case wanted to make a reference to a map for showing the location of the properties but the Court refused to go into that, after the Court had discussed the entire factual and legal position in the earlier 12 paragraphs. Except pointing out this legal position neither Dr. Tewari nor Mr. Rastogi the Government Advocate tried to differentiate the two cases of Pratap Nursery and Anand Nursery. In fact they could not do so, because of the other overwhelming circumstances, inherent truth in the petitioners case and the last but not of least importance, the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, who prepared it after inspecting Pratap Nursery, which proved to be the last straw on the camels back. 19. In fact they could not do so, because of the other overwhelming circumstances, inherent truth in the petitioners case and the last but not of least importance, the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, who prepared it after inspecting Pratap Nursery, which proved to be the last straw on the camels back. 19. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a clear case for getting protection under Art. 14 and not only this court can but it is the duty of this Court, to provide him this protection. 20. The writ application is, therefore, accepted and the notification acquiring the land of the petitioner being Khasra Nos. 345 to 347 and 351 to 356 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act for the Lal Kothi Scheme Jaipur is quashed. Petitioners learned counsel has expressly made it clear during the arguments that this land would be kept in the present form for the use of Nursery and Nursery only and any attempt to use this land for other purposes or alienate the land to any other person would debar them from the benefit of this judgment and that undertaking, in the present form given during argument, is, therefore, placed on the record. It would be open for the respondents to take any proceedings in case the petitioner wants to allenats this property or if they start using it for any other purpose than the Nursery. Further it would always be open to the respondents treating the two Nurseries alike to take any proceeding afresh for land acquisition or otherwise in case in future on account of change of circumstances, the development of the city needs it and it is thought proper and expedient in the interest of it, on an objective consideration of the new developments which may take place in future. With these observations writ application is accepted. Cost are made easy.