Judgment : (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondent nos.2 to 5 of not granting the employment though his land was acquired for “Navin Kunada Open Cast Project”. 3. The submission made on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5 that the appeal against the award is pending, in no way is of any assistance to the submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that they have granted employment to more than twenty such persons. A copy of the list is also placed on record in that regard. There is no denial to this fact by respondents. 4. The statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondents that the persons holding more than three acres of dry crop land have been granted employment just cannot be acceptable to us as the person is similarly situated, the moment his land is acquired. In our view, the person like the petitioner, who was holding smaller piece of land than three acres just cannot be discriminated. On the contrary, such employment should be provided to the persons like the petitioner, who also lost their land. They are the more sufferers than the persons holding more than three acres of land. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the petition as there is denial of right, being equally situated at least those to whom the respondents have already provided employment. This is clear case of discrimination as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The creation of class by granting employment only to those who have more than three acres in our view is arbitrary. We are not concerned with their policy but certainly need to be dealt with such aspect of undisputed discrimination. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i). No costs.