Judgment : Two brothers have together moved this Court questioning the provisional notification under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the declaration under Sec.6 thereof, relating to the acquisition of an extent of 26acres out of a total extent of 3 hectares 42 acres, 40 meentiare (ca) in R.S.No.70/6. The petitioners responded and filed their objections in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. According to them, the land sought to be acquired is agricultural land and they are small farmers having a large family of eight members. The entire family depends only on the land for their livelihood as such the acquisition has been in the teeth of a Government Circular bearing No.LA/SE/79/B/Rev., Revenue Department, Pondicherry, dated 7. 1979, wherein the State Government have stressed that fertile agricultural lands should not be enquired and if such acquisition is necessary lands should be acquired from big landlords and not from weaker section. They (petitioners) belong to the weaker section. There are lands belonging to rich and large land holdings belonging to others are available in the locality. There are also poramboke lands belonging to the Government available in the Village. Yet, this acquisition has been effected. Their objections, however, were not accepted in the enquiry and the declaration has followed. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that one Muthulakshmi’s land in R.S.No.69/6 - T.S.No.L.2/30/10 was originally included in the acquisition and the respondents have released her land, but proceeded upon the petitioner’s land. 3. A counter to the above has been filed in which besides public purpose which is not in dispute, it is stated that in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, the first petitioner submitted his objection dated 10. 1982 stating that the land about an extent of 1 hectare and 69 acres comprised in R.S.No.70/6 corresponding to T.S.No.29/4 in Ward ‘L’ Block No.2 belonging to him after partition effected between him and his brother, the second petitioner, has been subjected to acquisition. The second petitioner in his objection dated 10. 1982 to the acquisition has stated that the land in question is an agricultural land, that there was no partition between himself and his brother in respect of the land in question and that his family is depending on the income derived therefrom. 4. The second petitioner in his objection dated 10. 1982 to the acquisition has stated that the land in question is an agricultural land, that there was no partition between himself and his brother in respect of the land in question and that his family is depending on the income derived therefrom. 4. There is no dispute before me as to the public purpose leading to the acquisition. There is also no contention that the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act has been vitiated for any reason. The petitioners have not pleaded that any condition precedent of the acquisition has not been complied with. The case of the petitioners is mainly based on the aforementioned Government circular that they are poor agriculturists and the land in question is the source of their livelihood and that there are other big landholders and poramboke lands in the village which would have been utilised by the Government for the public purpose concerned. They have also suggested that in the case of another landholder, the Government had shown concession on similar grounds, and in the case of the petitioners, however, the Government have discriminated. 5. It will be difficult to entertain any plea based on a circular of the State Government which has got no statutory force and which circular obviously is not one that has given any right to any person affected by the land acquisition. The executive instructions which are issued in lieu of statutes are considered as binding and also extending certain rights and privileges in certain circumstances. But, all circulars issued by the Government do not fall in the category of such executive instructions. The circular aforementioned, it is conceded, is not sanctioned by any statute and it is also not an executive instruction issued in lieu of a statutory provision. It is only a circular for the guidance to the officers and agents of the Government and in proceeding to acquire lands, they are expected to observe the guidelines therein. There is no information in any form on the record of this proceeding that the other land holder whose lands have been exempted from the acquisition also possessed lands, if not equally to the extent of the land in possession of the petitioners, atleast nearer to the petitioners’ possession and acquisition in her case had affected her interests only to the extent of that of the petitioners. It is difficult on these facts to notice any discrimination merely because the land of some other person affected by the acquisition has been exempted from the declaration. The extent of the land in possession of the petitioners is 3 hectares, 42 acres, 40 ca., out of which only 27 acres has been acquired. The substantial trunk of the land still remains in the hands of the petitioners. The extent acquired is negligible. The public purpose out of which this acquisition is served is to provide lands to landless. No further examination or consideration of the case, in my opinion, is necessary, when it is noticed that the petitioners themselves are not one in presenting their case in the sense that in his objection in course of enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, the first petitioner pleaded a partition with the second petitioner, but the second petitioner pleaded joint-ness and a large family of dependants of the petitioners. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.