JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 4th July, 1996 (vide Annx.2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') as also the notification dated 20th August, 1997 (vide Annx.3) which is a notification for acquisition issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. In both these notifications the land belonging to the petitioner measuring 3 bighas 10 biswas situated in Khasra No. 265 alongwith 21 bighas and 5 biswas of land is due for further proceeding for acquisition. 2. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rathore initially sought to challenge the acquisition by urging that the acquisition proceedings could not have been initiated by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894. He, however, had to give up this point since two notifications, which are under challenge clearly discloses that the acquisition proceedings have not been initiated by taking recourse to the urgency clause of Section 17. He thereafter, proceeded to challenge the acquisition initially on the ground that the petitioner had no information regarding the notice for acquisition published under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and he also did not have any information regarding publication of Section 6 notification and he was, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. He further submitted that the petitioner's land was sought to be acquired even by virtue of a notification issued earlier in the year 1992 vide notification dated 13.5.92 but the whole proceeding was dropped after a report was submitted under Section 5-A regarding existence of the dwelling house of the petitioner on the notified land. Hence, it has been submitted that a second notification for the same purpose could not have been issued by the respondent-State. It was further submitted that the action of the respondent-State also suffers from the vice of discrimination as the land belonging to a similarly situated person has been left out of acquisition whereas the petitioner's land has been included among the chunk of land which is to be acquired. The petitioner, therefore, raises a grievance that differential treatment is meted out to the petitioner while issuing notification for acquisition. 3. The petitioner, therefore, raises a grievance that differential treatment is meted out to the petitioner while issuing notification for acquisition. 3. A show cause notice was issued on the aforesaid averment of the petitioner, in response to which a counter affidavit has been filed by the State and on the basis of the same, Mr. A.K. Sharma has submitted that there can be no estoppel against the action of the State which has been taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. He has further countered the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner by urging that the notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was legally and duly published and if the petitioner had any grievance, he ought to have filed objections before the competent authority under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 4. The petitioner could not satisfy this Court regarding any lacuna in publication of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and if that was legally and duly published, there is no reason why the knowledge of such notification cannot be attributed to the petitioner. This ultimately leads to the obvious conclusion that the petitioner has failed to avail the remedy of filing objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and after publication of Section 6 notification, he expects this Court to entertain his objections which infect could have been considered only by the Collector of the District, who was the competent authority to consider such objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The petitioner having missed this opportunity, I do not think any discretion is left to this Court to decide the matter on merit contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.The writ petition, under the circumstances, cannot be entertained. Hence, it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.Petition Dismissed. *******