ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. On 2-6-1999, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") seeking to acquire land for providing amenities and facilities to the devotees of Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act mentioned that the proposal was to acquire 57 acres, 4 kanals and 8 marlas of land situated in Village Bhainsa Tibba, Panchkula district. It does not appear that any of the. present appellants had filed objections to the said notification. Be that as it may, on 29-5-2000, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published. However, the land in respect of which notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued was only 56 acres, 5 kanals and 13 marlas. 3. The appellants in all these appeals are persons who claim to either own the land which has so been acquired or claim to be tenants in respect of portions of the land. Their case is that such a large area of land was not required by the Board itself and that, therefore, the excess land should be released to them. They have relied upon diverse documents in support of their submissions. In our opinion, all these documents show that the decision was taken by the Board itself qua the requirement of the entire land, as originally notified. The question of release of the excess land, therefore, does not really arise. 4. The award has since been passed during the pendency of the writ petition and the Board has deposited the amount of Rs 7,29,55, 840.00. Out of the amount so deposited a sum of Rs 5,61,30,164.30 has been disbursed to the landowners. Admittedly, the present appellants had not taken any part of the compensation. The deposit of the money, clearly shows the continued intent of the Board in respect of the entire land wherefor final declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been made. 5. It appears that in a previous writ petition challenging the acquisition, the High Court did not interfere with the order of acquisition. However, a direction was issued to the State Government to provide the small landowners alternative plots of similar size within the same vicinity of the acquired land. 5. It appears that in a previous writ petition challenging the acquisition, the High Court did not interfere with the order of acquisition. However, a direction was issued to the State Government to provide the small landowners alternative plots of similar size within the same vicinity of the acquired land. The directive was accepted by the State Government and the statement of the Advocate General representing the State was recorded to that effect. Therefore, although we see no merit in these appeals we are of the view that the State Government should similarly provide plots through draw of lots of similar small sizes to such of the persons who apply for the same, subject to establishing their rights to the land acquired. It is being made clear that the allotment shall be made on the same terms as has been done in terms of the earlier order of the High Court. Needless to say, those who accept the alternative plots will not be entitled to any compensation. 6. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.