JUDGMENT : AJAY RASTOGI, J. 1. Instant batch of special appeals, including the special appeals mentioned in Schedule-A annexed to the judgment, are being preferred against the self same judgment passed by the ld.Single Judge disposing of the batch of writ petitions vide judgment impugned dt.07.05.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case, which culled out from the record & noticed with consent of the parties from D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.1283/2014 & 1391/2014, are that a preliminary Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act of 1894”) dt.18.08.2007 for land measuring 648.9 hectares intended for implementation of multi-purpose scheme known as Scheme No.13 for Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur was published in the official gazette on 23.08.2007 followed with publication in the newspaper – Dainik Sandhya Darpan dt.06.11.2007 and in Rajasthan Patrika on 08.11.2007 & of public notice of the substance of notification dt.18.08.2007 was affixed in the locality i.e. notice board of Collectorate/Tehsil Office, Bharatpur and at conspicuous places i.e. Primary School Anah, Jhilra & Srinagar on 28.08.2008 but as per the appellants it was affixed on 20.06.2008. 3. After dealing with the objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 raised by the objectors/person interested, the Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report along with the objections on 14.08.2008 to the State Government. The State Government after due application of mind and examining the record received from office of the Land Acquisition Officer made a declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 for 346.86 hectares of land on 25.08.2009 and substance of declaration was affixed in the locality on 31.08.2009 and the declaration made u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 dt.25.08.2009 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 01.09.2009, at the same time, the declaration was also published in the prominent daily newspapers - Rajasthan Patrika & Dainik Bhaskar on 03.09.2009. In furtherance thereto, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notices u/Sec.9 of the Act, 1894 on 08.07.2011 to the extent where there was no dispute in regard to the subject land in question & award also to the extent came to be passed in respect of the land in acquisition on 30.08.2011, which was approved by the State Government, as per Sec.11 of the Act, 1894 on 01.09.2011 but that remained confined to such of the land holders who had not questioned the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the Notification dt.18.08.2007. It may be pertinent to notice that out of 346.86 hectares of land, 320 hectares have been entered in the revenue records in the name of UIT, Bharatpur after approval of the award dt.30.08.2011. 4. It may also be noticed that apart from the land which was left out while declaration was made by the State Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 dt.25.08.2009 & by two separate Notifications land measuring 3.20 hectare of village Jhilra & 1.82 hectare of village Rampur – total area 5.02 hectare was exempted/de-acquired u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 in public interest vide Notification dt.03.10.2008 on the premise that the land is to be used for development of hospital, higher education and dharamshala which is included in the developed scheme and by another Notification dt.1/10.10.2008 a land admeasuring 15.81 hectare of village Jhilra for development of township by a private entrepreneur, considering the integrated township policy introduced by the State Government. 5. The Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 dt.18.08.2007 and declaration made u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 dt.25.08.2009 came to be challenged on many-fold grounds before the ld.Single Judge but the batch of writ petitions came to be dismissed vide common judgment impugned dt.07.05.2014. Thereafter, another batch of writ petitions came to be preferred questioning the self same Notifications issued by the appropriate Government u/Sec.4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 with additional submission that there being no plan or scheme projected, prepared & existing on the date of preliminary Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act for the purposes of land utilization for its acquisition for public purpose, the very initiation of acquisition proceedings being bad and that also came to be repealed by another Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4814/2015 [Ajay Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] along with six other writ petitions vide judgment dt.28.08.2015 relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in Pratap & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 3 SCC 1 and as informed to us by the Registry that against judgment of the coordinate Single Bench of this court dt.28.08.2015, deciding the subsequent batch of writ petitions arising from the self same acquisition proceedings, no special appeal has been preferred. 6. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 3 SCC 1 and as informed to us by the Registry that against judgment of the coordinate Single Bench of this court dt.28.08.2015, deciding the subsequent batch of writ petitions arising from the self same acquisition proceedings, no special appeal has been preferred. 6. It is brought to our notice that out of the batch of 75 Special Appeals (Writ) only in 14 cases objections were filed by the appellants u/Sec.5A of the Act. 7. Counsel for appellants jointly submit that the Notification u/Sec.4(1) as well as declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 specifically states that the land is to be acquired for execution of multi-purpose Scheme No.13 of the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur but the fact is that the Notification issued by the State Government dt.21.09.2005 u/Sec.32(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 stood lapsed on account of non-renewal or extension of the Scheme No.13 of UIT, Bharatpur & the fact is that no scheme was existing on the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification u/Sec.4(1) dt.18.08.2007 and in the absence of there being any existence of the scheme, the very Notification issued u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 & declaration made u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 not only suffer from non-application of mind but the very acquisition proceedings initiated stands vitiated and being bad in law deserves to be quashed. 8. 8. Counsel for appellants further submitted that the Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 dt.18.08.2007 was published in the official gazette on 23.08.2007 followed with publication of Notification in two separate newspapers on 06.11.2007 & 08.11.2007 and at the same time, public notice of the substance of Notification, according to appellants, was affixed at the conspicuous places in the locality on 20.06.2008 and that being a relevant & crucial date to determine the period of one year for issuance of declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 and since the declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 was made by the State Government on 25.08.2009, which is beyond the period of one year, the acquisition proceedings stands vitiated and be declared nullity and to support their submission, counsel placed reliance on the report sent by the Land Acquisition Officer u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 wherein reference to the substance of public notice of Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 as indicated was affixed on 20.06.2008 and as per the aforesaid date, declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 was beyond the period of one year and counsel for appellants have further seriously disputed the date of affixing substance of Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894, as alleged by the respondents on the conspicuous places being 28.08.2008 is factually incorrect and tried to expose the conduct of respondents in overreaching the process of law of initiating the acquisition proceedings and the documents annexed thereto. 9. Counsel for appellants submit that publication of preliminary Notification dt.18.08.2007 was published in the gazette on 23.08.2007 and at the same time the third mode of publication i.e. public notice of substance of Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894, as alleged by the respondents was affixed in the locality on 28.08.2008, which is almost a year in adopting all the three modes of publication of Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 and the objections submitted by the objectors/persons interested u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 were decided by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14.08.2008 whereas in fact he was required to submit the report u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 after verifying as to whether the Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 has been duly published in all the three modes and after recording his satisfaction, the Land Acquisition Officer was supposed to proceed in deciding the objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894. 10. 10. Counsel further submits that there may not be any time limit prescribed while making publication of Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 but at the same time, the time factor is certainly a vital element and the Notification has to be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and so also the public notice of substance of Notification to be affixed at convenient/conspicuous places in the said locality, as in the instant case, was affixed on 28.08.2008, as alleged by the respondents. Though, the requirement under the Act may not be simultaneous or immediate or one after the other but there must at least have some contemporaneity in publication of different modes of publication of Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act and no justification has come forward from the respondents & that vitiates the acquisition proceedings. In support of the submission made, counsel placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Pahwa & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 308 . Counsel for appellants further submitted that there was wholesome discrimination made by the respondents since the lands of similarly situated persons were either stood exempted while making declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 and in some of the cases the lands stood de-acquired by issuing Notification u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 and the procedure followed in granting exemption by the appropriate Government to a large number of persons and denying to the others like appellants who are similarly situated is wholly discriminatory & violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 11. 11. Counsel for appellants further submitted that objections raised by the appellants have not been dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer while sending its report u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and the manner in which the proceedings have been initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer while dealing with their objections is an arbitrary exercise of power and the very object of Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 has been completely frustrated by the respondents & the procedure followed by the Land Acquisition Officer remained an empty formality as their objections have not been dealt with which is imperative for the Land Acquisition Officer to consider while sending report to the appropriate Government for examining the same and taking decision while making a declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894. 12. Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General and also Mr. L.L. Gupta, Counsel appearing for respondent-UIT, Bharatpur jointly opposed the submissions made and apart from merits have also raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions. It is submitted that challenge to the declaration made by the appropriate Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 has been made after a delay of 4-5 years without furnishing any reasonable explanation and such writ petitions were required to be dismissed at the threshold by the ld.Single Judge being hit by laches on the part of the appellants and their further objection is regarding conduct of one of the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2207/2010 who applied for obtaining certified copy of the report for affixing substance of public notice u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 in the locality and the report was made available to him indicating the substance of public notice of the Notification was affixed on 28.08.2008, much prior to filing of the writ petition before the ld.Single Judge yet the aforesaid fact was suppressed and that material suppression disentitles the appellant to exercise equitable jurisdiction of this Court. 13. It has also been stated that there are good number of writ petitioners who had purchased the land subsequent to issuance of Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 and such subsequent purchasers, after acquisition proceedings being initiated, their title to the property being a void title, do not have any right to question the acquisition proceedings and at best they have a right to claim compensation in respect of the acquired land claiming interest in the land which their predecessor-in-title had. 14. 14. On merits, counsel for respondents submitted that the substance of public notice of substance of Notification was published on 28.08.2008 and not on 20.06.2008, as referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer while deciding objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 was made on 25.08.2009. It was within the period of one year and that being so, the very submission made regarding acquisition proceedings being vitiated is without any factual foundation & requires no further consideration after this fact has been established from the record & noticed by the ld.Single Judge in the judgment impugned, that the substance of notice was affixed on 28.08.2008 and not on 20.06.2008. 15. Counsel for respondents further submitted that publication of three modes of preliminary Notification, as referred to u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894, need not to be simultaneous. The gazette Notification is to be followed with publication in two newspapers circulating in the locality and the public notice of substance of Notification has to be affixed at convenient/ conspicuous places in the locality and it is not the case of the appellants, either before the ld.Single Judge or before this Court as well, that they were precluded from submitting objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 or any prejudice has been caused to either of them in submitting objections before the Land Acquisition Officer and according to the respondents, there is no bar to affix public notice even after report was sent u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and the objectors can submit their objections within thirty days after publication of public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality as in the instant case within thirty days from 28.08.2008 but none of the appellants have submitted their objections and plea has been raised just to frustrate the acquisition proceedings. 16. 16. Counsel for respondents further submitted that as regard allegation of discrimination is concerned, no tangible evidence has been placed on record by either of the appellants to show that they are similarly situated qua those who have been granted exemption from acquisition and challenge on the ground of discrimination can be made only when one is similarly placed and not otherwise and in majority of cases, substantially where construction was made and the available land is of no use, that land in broad spectrum has been considered for granting exemption but in those cases where the land is either found vacant, having no construction, or the cases where constructions have been made on the land which either specifically falls for implementation of multi-purpose Scheme No.13 or it is required to get an access to the Scheme, which is to be implemented, have been taken care of which is evident from the fact finding report/site inspection report dt.07.02.2008. In the absence of any tangible evidence on record, no error was committed by the ld.Single Judge in declining the submissions made by the petitioners/appellants and broadly the land left from acquisition is either having construction on major part of it or is to be used for development of hospital, higher education school & dharamshala i.e. for the purpose of community & to be used by public at large, a decision was taken for granting exemption. 17. We have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. 18. The acquisition of the subject land in question is for the multi-purpose scheme No.13 of the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur and the preliminary Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 18.08.2007 and total land sought to be acquired was measuring 648.9 hectares (approximately 2,569 bighas) and the Notification dt.18.08.2007 was published in the official gazette on 23.08.2007 followed with publication in two daily newspapers on 06.11.2007 & 08.11.2007 and public notice of substance of Notification was affixed at convenient/conspicuous places in the locality on 28.08.2008 but the appellants claimed that it was affixed on 20.06.2008 and based on the report sent by the Land Acquisition Officer u/Sec.5A of the Act dt.14.08.2008 declaration was made by the appropriate Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 on 25.08.2009. 19. 19. The preliminary objections raised by counsel for respondents regarding delay in filing of the writ petition and concealment of facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2207/2010 are of no substance for the reason that the matter has been examined by the ld.Single Judge on merits and so also by this court and in these facts & circumstances, the preliminary objections raised by counsel for respondents are of no substance and at the same time have no merit and accordingly, both the preliminary objections stand overruled. 20. It will be appropriate to first take note of the objections raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the present special appeals filed by such of the alleged land holders/persons interested who have not raised their objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 or those who have purchased the land subsequent to publication of preliminary Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 dt.18.08.2007. The State of Rajasthan with intention to curb the practice & to impose certain restrictions on transfer of lands acquired or under acquisition for public purpose has enacted a legislation called the Rajasthan Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act of 1976”), which received the assent of the President on 15.04.1976 and Sec.3 of the Act, 1976 prohibits on transfer of lands acquired by the State Government and at the same time Sec.4 of the Act, 1976 put restriction on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated. For the sake of convenience, Sec.3 & 4 of the Act, 1976, being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced ad infra:- “3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by State Government.- No person shall purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the State of Rajasthan, which has been acquired by the Government under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, or under any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose. 4. 4. Restriction on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated.- No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the State of Rajasthan, which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made by the State Government under section 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 or under the corresponding provision of any law providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose, and the State Government has not withdrawn from the acquisition under section 48 of that Act or under any such law.” 21. The provisions, referred to supra, clearly envisages that no transfer will be permissible either by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise of any land or part thereof situated in the State of Rajasthan, which has been acquired by the Government and at the same time, there is a complete restriction on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated and if the transactions have been made overreaching prohibition/restriction imposed in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated or acquired by the State Government, such transactions under the Act of 1976 being void, no right could be conferred at least to the subsequent purchaser and transfer of title of the property to the subsequent purchaser being void, he has no right to question the acquisition proceedings & at the best such subsequent purchaser has a right to claim compensation in relation to the land acquired claiming interest in the land which his predecessor-in-title had and this what has been considered by the Apex Court in the judgment of V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. The Administrative Officer and Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 . Para Nos.15, 16, 17 & 18 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced ad infra:- “15. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Section 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court time and again. Para Nos.15, 16, 17 & 18 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced ad infra:- “15. The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by the person who purchases the land subsequent to a notification being issued under Section 4 of the Act has been considered by this Court time and again. In Lila Ram v. Union of India this Court held that, any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. In Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court held that a Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation. While deciding the said case, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhargava & Ors. 16. Similarly, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., this Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person-interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. (See also: Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.). 17. In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India, Mahavir v. Rural Institute, Gian Chand v. Gopala and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi this Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor’s title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. (See also: Tika Ram v. State of U.P.). 18. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. (See also: Tika Ram v. State of U.P.). 18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor’s title.” 22. It has further been followed in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Jaipur & Others reported in AIR 2013 SC 1226 . Para 7 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced ad infra:- “7. There can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 Notification in respect of the land, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, and can only claim compensation as the sale transaction in such a situation is void qua the Government. Any such encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer of the land in question, that is made after the issuance of such a notification, would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the Government. (Vide: Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 528 ; (1995 AIR SCW 1487); Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 520 ; (1995 AIR SCW 4420); Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society, Jaipur & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 229 ; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 35 ; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177 ; (AIR 2009 SC (Suppl.) 760; 2008 AIR SCW 5807); Har Narain (Dead) by LRs. v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 128 ; (AIR 2010 SC (Suppl.) 78; 2010 AIR SCW 6555); and V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. The Administrative Officer & Ors., JT 2012 (9) SC 260). 23. v. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 128 ; (AIR 2010 SC (Suppl.) 78; 2010 AIR SCW 6555); and V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. The Administrative Officer & Ors., JT 2012 (9) SC 260). 23. In the instant case, majority of the writ petitioners/ appellants are subsequent purchasers of the subject land in question, after the acquisition proceedings having been initiated, vide issuance of preliminary Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 dt.18.08.2007, they have no right to question the acquisition proceedings and their rights remain confined to claim compensation in respect of the land acquired, claiming interest over the land which their predecessor-in-title had. 24. As regards the petitioners/appellants who have not submitted their objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894, such of the land holders/persons interested have no locus standi to question the Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 and declaration made by the appropriate Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 & rightly so for the reason that after publication of preliminary Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 all the land holders/persons interested have an opportunity to raise objections to justify that the land of the objector is not necessary in the sense that no public purpose is going to be served or is a case worth considerable for omitting his land from acquisition failing which his right to question declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 stands waived, having no objection to the acquisition of the property and this what has been held by the Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others reported in AIR 1999 SC 3822 . Para Nos.7 & 8 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced ad infra:- “7. In connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections under S.5A, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection to S.4 notification operating in respect of their property. Para Nos.7 & 8 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced ad infra:- “7. In connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections under S.5A, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection to S.4 notification operating in respect of their property. On the other hand, in respect of those who filed objections they might have locus standi to contend that S.5A inquiry was not conducted properly, we, therefore, agree in principle with the view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram’s case (1997 AIR SCW 2513 : AIR 1997 SC 2564 ) that those who have not filed objections under S.5A, could not be allowed to contend that the S.5A inquiry was bad and that consequently S.6 declaration must be struck down and that then the S.4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no objections were filed by the respondents, logically the S.6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned. 8. But learner senior counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18-11-1988 in B.R. Gupta’s case (1989 (37) Delhi LT 150) had quashed the entire S.5A proceedings and that even in case the respondents had filed objections, the position would not have been different. We cannot accept this contention. We are of the view that in respect of those who did not object to the S.4(1) notification by filing objections under S.5A, the said notification must be treated as being in force. The writ petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that in some other cases, the notification was quashed and that such quashing would also enure to their benefit.” 25. The Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3737 has observed that if objections have not been filed by the land holders/persons interested, the Notification must be the conclusive proof that the said person has waived all objections which he could have raised tendering justification for omitting his land from acquisition. Para Nos.53, 54 & 55 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced ad infra:- “53. Para Nos.53, 54 & 55 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced ad infra:- “53. In Abhey Ram [1997 AIR SCW 2513 : AIR 1997 SC 2564 ] as well as in the judgment in the Civil Appeals, it has been clearly stated that those claimants who have not filed objections to the Section 4 notification cannot be permitted to contend before Court that the Section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned. Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground. We shall elaborate this aspect further. 54. Now objections under Section 5A, if filed, can relate to the contention that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose (ii) that even if the purpose is a public purpose, the land of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector may refer or (iii) that in any event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact-situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land and objection (iii) is personal to the objector. 55. Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a personal element which has to be pleaded in the Section 5A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had "waived" all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as objection (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose.” 26. Keeping the above legal proposition, in our considered view, such of the land holders/ persons interested who have not submitted their objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894, it is not open for them to question either the Notification u/Sec.4 or declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 impugned in the instant proceedings and their challenge remain confined that purpose was not a public purpose. 27. 27. It is settled principles of law that the process of acquisition has to start with initiation of a Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894, which indisputably is a mandatory provision and is also a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and rightly so since the notification which is aimed in depriving a man of his property, issued u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 has to be strictly construed and any lapse on the part of the acquiring authority, as being settled by the Apex Court, would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issue a notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the appropriate Government by publication in the official gazette & to be published in the local newspapers and a public notice of the substance by the Collector in the locality having wide publicity to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the appropriate Government for the public purpose mentioned therein which may enable objectors/persons interested to file objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and to justify and open to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged public purpose, as being indicated in the Notification, pursuant to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated and it authorizes the departmental officers or officers of the local authority to do all such acts, as are mentioned in Sec.4(2) of the Act, at the same time, facilitating the appropriate Government while making a declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894. 28. 28. The submission made by counsel for appellants that there was no multi-purpose scheme No.13 of Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur existing, as being referred to by the appropriate Government, in its preliminary Notification dt.18.08.2007 u/Sec.4(1) of the Act initiating acquisition proceedings and such action of the respondents suffers from non-application of mind, is of no substance for the reason that the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short “the Act of 1959”) has been enacted with an object for improvement of urban areas in Rajasthan keeping in view that it is expedient to make provision for the improvement and expansion of urban areas in the State of Rajasthan and master plans are to be prepared under Chapter- II of the Act, 1959 & for any urban area in the State for which scheme is framed, the Trust has to issue a notification specifying such area and declaring that the Trust has decided to frame a scheme for such area u/Sec.32(1) of the Act, 1959 and notification issued by the Trust shall remain in force for six months from its publication u/Sec.32(2) of the Act, 1959 and it can be extended under the proviso for a further period of six months but in such of the cases u/Sec.32(2A) of the Act, 1959 where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest, notwithstanding that the period of Notification or the extended period thereof has expired, is competent to extend the period as it thinks fit by publishing an order in the Official Gazette and after such scheme being notified u/Sec.38 of the Act, 1959, the Trust has to proceed to execute sanction of the scheme and publication of a Notification u/Sec.38(1) of the Act, 1959 in respect of any scheme shall be a conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. 29. 29. In the instant case, a Notification was earlier published by the State Government u/Sec.32(1) of the Act, 1959 for the UIT, Bharatpur dt.21.09.2005 framing multi-purpose scheme No.13 of the UIT, Bharatpur and a final notification has been published of sanction of the scheme u/Sec.38(1) of the Act, 1959 on 08.08.2016 being a conclusive evidence of the scheme being duly framed & sanctioned and by virtue of the Notification dt.08.08.2016, the public purpose indicated in the notification & declaration u/Sec.4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 stands re-surfaced by the operation of law and that apart the present preliminary Notification dt.18.08.2007 clearly indicates the public purpose which intended to the appropriate Government to initiate acquisition proceedings giving ample opportunity to the land holders/persons interested to submit their objections for the public purpose for which the land is to be acquired and it is not the case of either of the appellant that the multi-purpose scheme No.13 of UIT, Bharatpur indicated by the appropriate Government under its preliminary Notification u/Sec.4(1) or declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 dt.18.08.2007 does not indicate the public purpose & the satisfaction of the appropriate Government for which the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 came to be initiated. 30. Indisputably, in the instant case, the public purpose for which the land was intended for acquisition was specified in expressed terms in the Notification issued u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 enabling the land holders/persons interested to submit their objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Officer to justify about suitability/non-suitability of the land for which the acquisition proceedings have been initiated while submitting report to the Government for its further decision while making declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894. 31. 31. The submission further made by the appellants regarding the Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 and declaration made u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 with the allegation that the declaration has been made beyond the period of one year and the proceedings stands vitiated and the dispute is in reference to the public notice of substance of the Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894, which according to the appellants was affixed on 20.06.2008 whereas according to the respondents, it was affixed on 28.08.2008 and indisputably, if the public notice of the substance of notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894, if affixed on 20.06.2008, certainly the declaration made by the appropriate Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 on 25.08.2009 is indeed beyond the period of one year. 32. To meet out their objections and to find out the truth that the public notice of the substance of notification was affixed on 20.06.2008 or on 28.08.2008, it is not their case that the application at the conspicuous places in the locality has not take place, we have gone through the complete original record of the case. It is true that while sending the report u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894, reference of the substance of the Notification indicates 20.06.2008 but it appears to be a typographical error & from the original record it reveals that in all the correspondence which has taken place from time to time, it was always stated that the substance of notification was affixed on 28.08.2008 and the document was placed on record by the respondents along with their reply in Special Appeal (Writ) No.1283/2014, certified copy of which was obtained by the appellant from the office of Land Acquisition Officer and placed by the respondents on records along with reply at page 540 as Annex-R 2/7. 33. On perusal of the original record, it reveals that in all the later correspondences between the Land Acquisition Officer and the Government, it has always been indicated that the public notice of substance of the Notification was affixed on 28.08.2008 and the deadline before the Government was 24.08.2009 for declaration and that was the cut-off date kept in mind while the appropriate Government proceeded keeping in view the time limit of one year. The matter was processed even by the Government on 17.10.2008 – the note-sheet at para-38 of the Govt. The matter was processed even by the Government on 17.10.2008 – the note-sheet at para-38 of the Govt. File No.F6(9)Navi/3/2006 and para-48 & 59 and finally the matter was placed before the appropriate Government in taking decision for issuance of declaration dealt with at para 60–62. 34. The submission made by the appellants is contrary to the original record & the report to affix substance of notification submitted by their employee Brijesh duly supported by his affidavit and being the official record and no material is placed on record in rebuttal by the appellants in support of their submissions and that apart the presumption of the official records is always to be accepted as correct in view of Sec.114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act and from the original records, placed before us for perusal, we find that the public notice of the substance of Notification was affixed at convenient/conspicuous places in the locality like notice board of Collectorate/Tehsil Office, Bharatpur and at the same time also affixed in those villages in which land was acquired, on 28.08.2008 and taking that to be the last date, the declaration made by the appropriate Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 dt.25.08.2009 is within the period of one year and the submission made by the appellants’ counsel that indeed the third mode of publication of substance of Notification was 20.06.2008 is factually incorrect and the publication is within the period of one year. Thus, the allegation made by the appellants that the substance of Notification was affixed on 20.06.2008 cannot be accepted and we are of the view that declaration made by the appropriate Government u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 was within the stipulated period of one year and hence, it cannot be said to be a case of vitiating of the acquisition on the ground aforesaid. 35. The submission made by counsel for the appellants that report was to be submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer after all the three modes of publication of Notification are being satisfied, is of no substance for the reason that objections are to be submitted by the objectors/persons interested within 30 days from the date of publication of Notification and if the objections are submitted by the objectors immediately on publication of the Notification in the official gazette the Land Acquisition Officer was under an obligation to proceed. At the same time, if the objections would have been submitted after public notice of substance of Notification being affixed at convenient/ conspicuous places in the locality, as in the instant case, on 28.08.2008, the Land Acquisition Officer was under an obligation to decide such objections as well which can easily be inferred from sub-sec.(2) to Sec.5 of the Act, 1894 which authorizes the Land Acquisition Officer to make different reports in reference to the different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government. However, it is not the case of the appellants that the objections were submitted by either of the appellants or objectors within 30 days from 28.08.2008 and that has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and in these facts & circumstances of the matter the submission made is of no substance. 36. The further submission made that Notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 23.08.2007 and in both the newspapers on 06/08.11.2007 and public notice of substance of Notification was affixed in the locality on 28.08.2008 and the three modes of publication of Notification have no contemporaneity in publication u/Sec.4 of the Act is of no substance for the reason that indeed there is no time limit prescribed under the Act while making publication of Notification as prescribed u/Sec.4 of the Act but at the same time, it is equally true that the time factor is certainly a vital element and publication of the Notification in the gazette & in two newspapers and that of public notice of substance of Notification, though may not be simultaneously or immediately or one after the other but there must have some contemporaneity in the modes of publication, as prayed but that gap of time in itself may not vitiate the acquisition proceedings and it has to be established by the appellants/land holders/objectors that delay, if any, has caused prejudice to anyone and this was never the case of either of the appellants neither before the ld.Single Judge nor before this court and the judgment relied upon in Deepak Pahwa & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 308 by the appellants is of pre-amendment, 1984 where there was only two modes of publication – first in the official gazette & second of public notice of the substance in the locality and it was held that delay in itself is not sufficient to vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 37. In UIT, Udaipur Vs. Bheru Lal & Ors. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 712 , it was a case where the Notification was prepared on 21.02.1990 was published in the official gazette on 04.06.1992 and public notice of the substance of Notification was affixed at the conspicuous places on 13.11.1992 and subsequently the Notification was published in two local newspapers on 17/19.05.1993. Indisputably, there was a time gap in the three modes of publication made of Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894 but in the absence of time gap in publication of the Notification/public notice, it is certainly to discover that what is the cause for the delay but at the same time, it has to be established that delay, if any, has caused prejudice to anyone and as already observed, it is not the case of either of the appellants that time gap in publication made in the official gazette and public notice of substance of Notification in the locality, in any manner has caused prejudice to any of the objectors/persons interested in raising objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and their main thrust of submission always remain that the public notice of substance of Notification, according to them, was affixed on 20.06.2008 and not on 28.08.2008, as prayed for by the respondents to vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 38. As regard the submission made in respect of objections made u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 have not been properly dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer and the mandate of Sec.5A(2) of the Act, 1894 has not been complied with by the respondents while making declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894, in our considered view is of no substance for the reason that the objection u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 can be submitted within 30 days of the publication of the Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1894. We consider it appropriate to quote Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 ad infra:- “5A Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.” 39. In terms of Sec.5A of the Act, 1894, any person interested in any land notified u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 may within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification, can submit objection in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land in the locality to the authority and thereafter, the authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by any person authorized by him or by his pleader and after hearing the objections & making such further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the authority has to make a report in respect of the land notified u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 containing his recommendations on the objections and forward the same to the appropriate Government along with the record of the proceedings held by him. At the same time, it is open for the Land Acquisition Officer to make different reports in respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired. 40. The scope of Sec.5A of the Act, 1984 has been considered by the Apex Court in Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. State of W.B. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 25 and para Nos.13 – 16, being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced ad infra:- “13. Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a right to any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to raise objections to the acquisition of the said land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf. After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry. Thereafter, he has to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. 14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, "public purpose" is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. 15. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector's recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector's recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. It is pertinent to note that declaration Under Section 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector Under Section 5-A(2). As said by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the appropriate Government while issuing declaration Under Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making such further inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the LA Act makes a declaration Under Section 6 conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing contemplated Under Section 5-A and the report made by the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that before making declaration Under Section 6 of the LA Act, the State Government must have the benefit of a report containing recommendations of the Collector submitted Under Section 5-A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations must indicate objective application of mind.” 41. After taking into consideration various judgments of the Apex Court highlighting the principles of natural justice & emphasizing the importance of Sec.5A of the Act, 1984, the Apex Court in Women’s Education Trust and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 99 framed following principles, which read ad infra:- “5. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are as under: 5.1. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 99 framed following principles, which read ad infra:- “5. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are as under: 5.1. The rule of audi alteram partem engrained in the scheme of Section 5-A of the Act ensures that before depriving any person of his land by compulsory acquisition, an effective opportunity must be given to him to contest the decision taken by the State Government/competent authority to acquire the particular parcel of land. 5.2. Any person interested in the land, which has been notified Under Section 4(1) of the Act, can file objections Under Section 5A(1) and show that the purpose specified in the notification is really not a public purpose or that in the guise of acquiring the land for a public purpose the appropriate Government wants to confer benefit upon private persons or that the decision of the appropriate Government is arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. 5.3. In response to the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Collector Under Section 5A(2) of the Act, the objector can make all possible endeavours to convince the Land Acquisition Collector that the acquisition is not for a public purpose specified in the notification issued Under Section 4(1); that his land is not suitable for the particular purpose; that other more suitable parcels of land are available, which can be utilized for execution of the particular project or scheme. 5.4. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons. 5.5. The Land Acquisition Collector is required to submit his report and the recommendations to the State Government along with the record of proceedings to enable the latter to take final call on the desirability, propriety and justification for the acquisition of the particular parcels of land. 5.5. The Land Acquisition Collector is required to submit his report and the recommendations to the State Government along with the record of proceedings to enable the latter to take final call on the desirability, propriety and justification for the acquisition of the particular parcels of land. 5.6 The declaration Under Section 6(1) of the Act can be issued only if the appropriate Government, on an objective application of mind to the objections filed by the interested persons including the landowners and the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, is satisfied that the land is needed for the particular purpose specified in the notification issued Under Section 4(1) of the Act.” 42. Whenever it appears to the State Government that the land is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose that has to be indicated/disclosed in the preliminary notification u/Sec.4(1) of the Act, 1894 and from the settled legal proposition, the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since are based on the principles of eminent domain & Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 is the only opportunity available to the person whose land is sought to be acquired and it is the minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition which enables him to point out to the authorities that the important ingredient namely “public purpose” is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is malafide. At the same time, hearing contemplated u/Sec.5A(2) of the Act, 1894 is necessary to enable the Land Acquisition Officer to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report and such report of the Land Acquisition Officer, referred to in the provision, is not an empty formality as it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the recommendations & record of the case and that enables the appropriate Government to take final decision on the objections and declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 is to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Officer u/Sec.5A(2) of the Act, 1894. 43. 43. On the anvil of principles which have been laid down by the Apex Court and referred to supra, if we examine the facts of the instant case, it reveals that negligible number of persons submitted their objections out of which 15 objectors are in special appeal before us and the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the objections of all the individual objectors and after dealing with the nature of land & their objections gave his own finding which he has independently recorded, details of which are on record along with the report u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 (Annex.15 to the Civil Writ Petition No.2207/2010) and the horizontal sheet, signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, running from page No.298 to 336, clearly indicates that in each village like Rampura, Chuck No.1-Kasba Bharatpur, Jhilra, Anah, Madholi, Nagla Terhiya, Srinagar & Sever Kalan the names of objecters, their khasra numbers, their objections, site inspection report and comments of the Land Acquisition Officer meeting out objections have been separately indicated in the remark column of the individual objector and the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dt.14.08.2008 (Annex.15) is self contained with enclosures giving the gist of jurisdiction which has been referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in its report sent to the appropriate Government with the record of acquisition and after going through the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dt.14.08.2008 along with the complete record dealing with the objections, we are satisfied that the requirement of Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 in affording opportunity of hearing to the objectors have been fully complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer in taking its decision and in our considered view the declaration u/Sec.6(1) of the Act, 1984 dt.25.08.2009 has been made/issued by the appropriate Government after objective application of mind to the objections filed by the interested persons including the land owners and in our considered view, the decision making process adopted by the respondents in making declaration u/Sec.6(1) of the Act, 1894 satisfies the principles as culled out by the Apex Court in the case of Women’s Education Trust (supra). 44. 44. The further submission made by the appellants in respect of discrimination made by the respondents while making declaration u/Sec.6(1) of the Act, 1894 and also the Notification issued by the State Government regarding de-acquisition u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 dt.01/10.10.2008 & 03.10.2008 and that certain khasras have been left out from acquisition are of the persons who are similarly placed and in few cases it is adjacent land which has been left out/de-acquired under the Notification and reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhy Shyam (Dead) Though LRs. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 553 where it was held that discrimination in action of acquisition vitiates the process and there was more stress on para Nos.14, 16 & 86 of the judgment. 45. The Apex Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Jaipur & Others reported in AIR 2013 SC 1226 at para-15 examined the phrase “discrimination”, particularly in land acquisition matters placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in AIR 2011 SC 1989 and observed ad infra:- “15. This Court explained the phrase “discrimination” in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1989 : (2011 AIR SCW 3337) observing:- “66. Unequals cannot claim equality. In Madhu Kishwar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1864 : (1996 AIR SCW 2178), it has been held by this Court that every instance of discrimination does not necessarily fall within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. 67. Discrimination means an unjust, an unfair action in favour of one and against another. It involves an element of intentional and purposeful differentiation and further an element of unfavourable bias; an unfair classification. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution must be conscious and not accidental discrimination that arises from oversight which the State is ready to rectify. (Vide: Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 ; and M/s. Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., ( AIR 1990 SC 820 ). 68. However, in Vishundas Hundumal and Ors. (Vide: Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 ; and M/s. Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., ( AIR 1990 SC 820 ). 68. However, in Vishundas Hundumal and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1636 ; and Eskayef Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1990) 4 SCC 680 , this Court held that when discrimination is glaring, the State cannot take recourse to inadvertence in its action resulting in discrimination. In a case where denial of equal protection is complained of and the denial flows from such action and has a direct impact on the fundamental rights of the complainant, a constructive approach to remove the discrimination by putting the complainant in the same position as others enjoying favourable treatment by inadvertence of the State authorities, is required.” 46. It is settled principles of law that party seeking relief on the ground of discrimination is under an obligation to take appropriate proceedings, lay down the factual foundation and must provide details of the comparable cases enabling the court in reaching to a conclusion that whether the authorities have actually discriminated against that party and whether there is in fact any justification for discrimination, assessing the facts of both sets of cases together. 47. 47. Counsel for appellants have tried to persuade this Court that some part of the land has been exempted/de-acquired where there was constructions made and the land belongs to them, there are constructions raised still exemption has not been granted and this according to them is a cause discrimination made by the Government, but we have looked into the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, of which a detailed reference has been made (supra), that each and every objection has been dealt with separately by the Land Acquisition Officer and in the cases where the objector has raised objections & referred to certain constructions but the mauka report of the site does not show any construction and at the same time, where on the major part of the land acquired, constructions are found, different view has been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and at the same time, some houses have been constructed which are part of the scheme, which if not taken care of would frustrate the scheme, has been separately dealt with and in some of the cases where the land in question is required for the public purpose for which acquisition proceedings were initiated, the decision was that such of the lands could not be exempted and at the same time there were notifications of de-acquisition issued by the State Government in exercise of powers u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 for the lands left over for development of educational charitable trust, hospital & dharamshala and also the land on which pucca construction is found in survey which was conducted on 07.02.2008, copy of which has been placed on record along with the report as Annex.R/2/7. At the same time, by two separate Notifications u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 dt.01/10.10.2008 & 03.10.2008 there was a de-acquisition to one of the integrated township, in public interest, declared by the State Government as it is not affecting the plan development of the scheme. In either of the Notifications dt.01/10.10.2008 & 03.10.2008, Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 is not subject matter of challenge and after we have gone through the records of the case, in our considered view, the plea of discrimination which has been raised by the appellants is without laying down the factual foundation and is without substance and deserves rejection. 48. In either of the Notifications dt.01/10.10.2008 & 03.10.2008, Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 is not subject matter of challenge and after we have gone through the records of the case, in our considered view, the plea of discrimination which has been raised by the appellants is without laying down the factual foundation and is without substance and deserves rejection. 48. At the same time, it has been noticed by the ld.Single Judge also that out of 100 writ petitioners, who approached this court questioning the acquisition proceedings 85 writ petitioners did not submit their objections and majority of them are those who are either subsequent purchasers or who have not submitted their objections u/Sec.5A of the Act, 1894 and even after going through the bare objections raised, their averment regarding existence of construction and development in the land, as alleged by the writ petitioners in most of the cases, is not supported by material on record and is indeed contrary to mauka report dt.07.02.2008. 49. After going through the submissions and taking note of the records placed for our perusal and the justification tendered by the respondents, the case of discrimination, as pleaded by the appellants, is not made out. At the same time, exemption which has been granted for de-acquisition u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894 is in respect of the land left over for development of educational charitable trust, hospital & dharamshala and also for fulfillment of one of the integrated township declared by the State Government which, as per the pleadings on record, is not affecting the plan development of scheme and such parity cannot be claimed by those persons with the act of exemption granted by the appropriate Government while making declaration u/Sec.6 of the Act, 1894 and so also under its separate Notification for de-acquisition u/Sec.48 of the Act, 1894. 50. In the overall discussion, in our considered view, the instant batch of appeals are without substance and deserves rejection. 51. Consequently, the instant batch of appeals fails and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.