JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - This order will dispose of above mentioned writ petitions, as common questions of law founded on somewhat similar facts arise for consideration before this Court. However, for the purpose of reference, facts are being culled our from Civil Writ Petition No. 10967 of 1982 titled Satish Kumar v. The State of Haryana. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued to quash the notifications issued by the State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 (Annexures P/5 and P/6 respectively) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has further been prayed that respondent be directed not to acquire the constructed portion of house of the petitioner, which is situated in extended abadi of village Bana Madanpur, Tehsil Panchkula, District Ambala. 3. Record reveals that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner through his attorney, Ram Lal son of Shri Gurah Ditta Mal. It was case of the petitioner that in the year 1988, he purchased land measuring 8 marlas, which forms part of khasra No. 39/60, 32/10. After purchase of the plot, referred to above, the petitioner had raised boundary walls and had also constructed two rooms, latrine, bath room and one shop in front of the house which abuts the main road. Construction was completed in the month of December, 1988. Apart from the house, referred to above, the petitioner did not own any other house within the vicinity of the village, referred to above. 4. It was further stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 issued notification dated 26th June, 1989 under Section 4 of the Act, showing its intention to acquire the land for residential, commercial and institutional purposes (Annexure P/5). Vide that notification, apart from land situated in village Ramgarh, land measuring 436 acres, 6 kanal, 16 marlas of Village Bana Madanpur, was intended to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25th June, 1990 (Annexure P/6). It was further case of the petitioner that after issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, he had made representation to the concerned authorities, stating that he had only one residential house which falls within the acquired land and made a prayer that it be exempted from acquisition. It was further case of the petitioner that after issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, he had made representation to the concerned authorities, stating that he had only one residential house which falls within the acquired land and made a prayer that it be exempted from acquisition. Without deciding his representation, notification under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 2.6.1992. 5. It is apparent from the record that in this writ petition, the petitioner had laid challenge to the acquisition proceedings primarily on the ground that the acquisition proceedings run contrary to the Policy of the State Government, wherein it was provided that constructed portion/buildings be exempted from acquisition. Acquisition was also challenged on the ground of non-publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Prayer has been made that the writ petition be allowed, acquisition proceedings be quashed and the only residential house of the petitioner be exempted from acquisition. 6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State. It has specifically been stated that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were duly published, as per law. No objection, as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act, was ever filed, despite due opportunity having been granted to the petitioner. It was specifically stated that prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, no construction was in existence over the plot in dispute. Allegations regarding discrimination in exempting the land of some other similarly situated landowners, were denied. 7. Heard Shri M.L. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner(s) and Shri H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. 8. Shri Sharma has vehemently contended that since there existed constructed house of the petitioner over the land acquired, as per the policy of the State Government, it was incumbent upon the authorities to exempt the same from acquisition. He also argued with vehemence that constructed houses/baddas of other similarly situated landowners were exempted from acquisition and, as such, acquisition proceedings qua the petitioner(s) being discriminatory, deserve to be quashed. He further stated that before deciding objections filed by the petitioner(s) under section 5-A of the Act, no opportunity of hearing was given. He prayed that writ petition be allowed, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be quashed. 9. He further stated that before deciding objections filed by the petitioner(s) under section 5-A of the Act, no opportunity of hearing was given. He prayed that writ petition be allowed, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be quashed. 9. Shri H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has controverted the arguments raised by Shri Sharma, counsel for the petitioner(s). 10. By referring to the contents of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, Shri Hooda argued that when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, there was no construction in existence over the land in dispute. He further stated that the notifications were duly published in the news papers, as per provisions of law, governing the subject-matter. He also refuted the arguments of Shri Sharma that constructed portion of other similarly situated landowner was exempted from acquisition. He has specifically stated that in some cases there is no construction at all and in others it might have been raised after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. Shri Hooda further stated that no objection was filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act, and in other cases wherever objections were filed, those were considered and disposed of, after giving adequate opportunities to the petitioners. 12. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that similarly situated landowners on similar grounds had challenged the notifications, subject-matter of the present writ petition(s), by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 4958 of 1992 titled Surinder Kumar v. The State of Haryana etc., which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 4th December, 1992. 13. By referring the above mentioned facts, Shri Hooda, prays that writ petition(s) be dismissed. 14. After hearing counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the writ petition(s) deserve to be dismissed, having no substance. 15. It has contention of the petitioner that he had constructed a residential house over the land, in dispute, in the year 1988, before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Apart from bald statement made by the petitioner, there is no other evidence on record to prove the same. 15. It has contention of the petitioner that he had constructed a residential house over the land, in dispute, in the year 1988, before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Apart from bald statement made by the petitioner, there is no other evidence on record to prove the same. Even during arguments, counsel has failed to show to this Court that construction existed prior to issuance of the notification for acquisition of the land. As such, it seems that petitioner might had raised constructions after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In view of this he is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed by him. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner has not filed any objection, as stipulated under Section 5-A of the Act as such, there was no question or providing him any opportunity of personal hearing, as argued, his counsel. Non-filing of objections further proved the contention of the State counsel that no construction was in existence at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Had there been any construction in existence, it was natural for the petitioner to file objection by stating that fact, within the stipulated period, as provided in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 16. Shri Sharma has also failed to show to this Court that constructed portion of any other landowners similarly situated was exempted from acquisition. During arguments, it transpired that only area falling within abadi deh of the village was kept out of acquisition proceedings, in view of this, challenge to the notification being discriminatory, is also not sustainable. 17. Furthermore, in view of the order passed by a Division Bench in Surinder Kumars case (supra), wherein these very notifications were under challenge on similar grounds, this Court is of the opinion that no scope is left for interference, at the instance of the petitioner(s). Relevant portion of the order referred to above reads as under :- "..... The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is on the basis of discrimination that there existed a policy to release from acquisition the land where construction existed at the time of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. Relevant portion of the order referred to above reads as under :- "..... The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is on the basis of discrimination that there existed a policy to release from acquisition the land where construction existed at the time of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. Recently the matter was taken up for consideration and it was clarified on behalf of the State of Haryana that there was no such policy decision. Thus the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right exemption from acquisition of the land on the ground that there existed any construction. If the State considered appropriate to release some land from acquisition where in fact construction existed this could be decided in individual cases and there would be no question of discrimination to give a cause to others to claim exemption from acquisition......." 18. In view of ratio of judgment extracted above and the facts, as discussed in preceding paragraphs of this judgment, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, writ petition(s) stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to place photocopy of this order on the files of other connected writ petitions. Petitions dismissed.