JUDGMENT : HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions No.22649 and 22729 of 2011. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the notifications dated 06.04.2011 and 28.11.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), whereby, the land of the petitioners is sought to be acquired. 2. The arguments against the acquisition in both the petitions are broadly similar. But there are some additional arguments that have been raised in these two petitions based on the nature of the land/building sought to be acquired. As arguments were firstly addressed in CWP No.22729 of 2011 we propose to take that petition first. CWP No. 22729 of 2011 3. The petitioner is an old lady of about 73 years of age. She is the wife of Late Major General R.K. Suri, who was awarded a Vir Chakra for display of gallantry and leadership of a high order while commanding the battalion of the Jat Regiment during the Indo-Pakistan war 1971. The Punjab government had initially promised 5 acres of land free to Gallantry Awardees, such as the petitioner's late husband, but the promise remains unfulfilled till date. 4. She is owner and in exclusive possession of land measuring 2k- 10 M comprised in Khasra Nos.12//24/2 in village Ferozepur Bangar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar which is 50/774 share out of land measuring 38 K-14M comprised in Khasra Nos.12//23/2 (2-1), 24/2 (2-13), 25/2 (1-7), 14//3/3 (2-10), 4 (8-0),5 (8-0), 7/1 (4-9), 24/2 (1-14), 25/1 (3-16) and 8/1 (0-8). The residential house of the petitioner exists on that land. She had purchased the land along with construction thereon, from one Inderjeet Singh s/o Shri Rajbir Singh vide registered sale deed dated 28.06.2001. At that time, there was pucca A-class construction standing on the land in the name of Inderjeet Singh which is in existence till date. She has also got a regular telephone connection installed there. The Petitioner, who is Principal of a school, is living in the said house along with her son who is also an Educationalist, her daughter-in-law, who is an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and her two grand-daughters. It is asserted that this house is the only residential house of the petitioner. 5. The Petitioner, who is Principal of a school, is living in the said house along with her son who is also an Educationalist, her daughter-in-law, who is an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and her two grand-daughters. It is asserted that this house is the only residential house of the petitioner. 5. The petition was filed with the averments that on 06.04.2011, the State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Act seeking to acquire the land measuring 1213 Kanal-14 Marla (151.7125 Acre) in village Ferozepur Bangar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS for the public purpose of "setting up of Medicity (Health Facility) in village Mullanpur." The land falling in the abadi of Village Ferozepur Bangar, which is less than 100 meters from the land/house of the petitioner was not included in the said notification. The respondents did not get the substance of the notification published in the locality in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law, as a result of which, many landowners were not able to file objections under Section 5-A of he Act. The petitioner submitted detailed objections under Section 5-A of the Act to the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, Punjab (respondent No.2) against the acquisition of the land in dispute. In the objections, it was stated that the land of the petitioner was situated on the main road, which leads to Kurali. The land was at short distance from the Abadi. It was also urged that the boundary of the Air Force Satellite Base was at a distance of 300 meters from the land of the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner was a senior citizen and the acquisition was of her only house. Respondent No.2 fixed the hearing of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. However, instead of hearing each objector individually, respondent No.2 held a joint hearing of all the objectors, which was really an eyewash. They were assured that the land having construction, residential houses except for the portion, which was needed for green belt or road widening, would be released from acquisition. On 28.11.2011, the State Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act. The land in dispute was included in the said acquisition. A comparison of the area notified for acquisition under the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications revealed that large area measuring 54.2875 acres had been released from acquisition. On 28.11.2011, the State Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act. The land in dispute was included in the said acquisition. A comparison of the area notified for acquisition under the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications revealed that large area measuring 54.2875 acres had been released from acquisition. The land released from acquisition included land which are similarly situated as the petitioner's land. A large chunk of land measuring 20 kanal, 6 marla belonging to Radha Soami Satsang Beas (for short "RSSB") had been released though Section 5-A objections filed by them were clearly time barred. 6. In the reply filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it has been asserted that after issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act, interested persons, who had filed objections under Section 5-A were personally heard by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30.05.2011. After considering their objections, the Land Acquisition Collector sent his recommendations to the Government on 29.07.2011. The objections made under Section 5-A of the Act as well as the recommendations of the land Acquisition Collector on such objections, were duly considered by the Government and a conscious decision was taken to notify most of the area after releasing only 54.2875 acres of area details of which are as under:- Radha Soami Satsang Ghar 2.4875 acres Area falling within no construction zone of Air Force Station 27.6375 acres Tatima Area (i.e. area not falling in boundary of scheme.) 24.1625 acres Total 54.2875 acres 7. Area measuring 2.4875 acres of RSSB has been released as this land belongs to a religious body and religious congregations are being held on this place. The land measuring 27.6375 acres falling within the area declared as 'No Construction Zone' of Air Force Station, Mullanpur, had been released because it cannot be put to use for the purpose envisaged. Area of 24.1625 acres, falling outside the boundary of the scheme, was not required. As such, after proper consideration, the Government took a conscious decision to reject the rest of the objections and issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 28.11.2011 for the acquisition of 97.425 acres of land. 8. After this, the Land Acquisition Collector, by following the due procedure as required under law, announced the Award No.528 on 22.12.2011. Adequate compensation has been given to the land owners. 8. After this, the Land Acquisition Collector, by following the due procedure as required under law, announced the Award No.528 on 22.12.2011. Adequate compensation has been given to the land owners. Under the Award, land pooling was also offered to the land owners, whose land has been acquired, so as to associate them with the development process of the area in question. 9. In the reply filed by respondent No.4, it has been stated that the RSSB, is a registered Religious and Charitable Society. The RSSB also known as 'Dera Baba Jaimal Singh (Beas)' is engaged in activities which are predominantly spiritual and religious in nature and has been declared as a Place of Worship by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jathedar Sadhu Singh and ors v. Charan Singh and others AIR 1972 P&H 347 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh and another v. Darshan Singh AIR 1975 SC 371 . In CWP No. 12882 of 1978 RSSB v. Delhi Administration decided on 15.10.2004, the Delhi High Court also held that RSSB is a religious institution. Therefore, the land owned and possessed by it, is exempted from acquisition. Clause 12.1 (iv) of the amended Standing Orders No.28 of the Financial Commissioner and Secretary Revenue Department, Govt. of Punjab provides that the land of any religious place of worship, shrine, tomb, graveyard or any immovable property attached to any such institution would be exempt from acquisition. That the RSSB is covered by the above order being a religious place of worship has been confirmed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue & Rehabilitation Govt. of Punjab through D.O. Letter No. 1/7/1/97-LR I/8761 dated 12.11.1997 (Annexure R-4/1). 10. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it has been denied that the petitioner and the other objectors were personally heard. It has been asserted that there was only a joint hearing of all the objectors. Initially, the Land Acquisition Collector sent all the objections to the State Government without making any recommendations (Annexure P-11). This report pertained to only 23 objections. As no recommendations had been made in that report, the State Government sent the objections back to the LAC for sending the report after making his recommendations. Thereafter, without calling any objector for personal hearing the LAC prepared his report (Annexure P-6) and sent it to the State Government vide letter dated 10.08.2011. This report pertained to only 23 objections. As no recommendations had been made in that report, the State Government sent the objections back to the LAC for sending the report after making his recommendations. Thereafter, without calling any objector for personal hearing the LAC prepared his report (Annexure P-6) and sent it to the State Government vide letter dated 10.08.2011. Though, 35 objections were received the report deals only with 25 objections. The objections of M/s Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. and RSSB were included in this subsequent report (Annexure P-6) though they were not there in the initial report (Annexure P-11). In the subsequent report (Annexure P-6) also the LAC did not make any recommendation regarding the objection of RSSB though it recorded that the objection had been received on 21.7.2011 after the last date of hearing objections i.e., 30.05.2011. The decision regarding release was left to the State Government. The State Government vide its letter dated 26.09.2011 decided to reject all the objections, which included the objections filed by the RSSB, but subsequently on 14.10.2011 it was decided not to acquire the land belonging to RSSB. This decision was taken on the basis of some verbal orders of some officer as is clear from the note Annexure P-12. No spot verification of the land owned by the RSSB was done to check the construction thereon or to confirm its usage. Though in the letter dated 19.07.2011 of the RSSB purporting to be a reminder it has been mentioned that objections were earlier sent on 9.05.2011, on the verification of the dak register it has been confirmed that no such objections had been received till 14.05.2011. Thus, the decision to release the land of RSSB has been taken without any valid objections under Section 5-A having been filed by it within time. Though, the respondents claim to have released the land of RSSB because it belongs to a religious body, however in the check list for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' submitted to the State Level Land Acquisition Board (Annexure P-14) the remarks column against Sr. No.14 "Whether there is any genuine religious place of worship, shrine, tomb grave yard etc .." was left blank by the LAC. 11. No.14 "Whether there is any genuine religious place of worship, shrine, tomb grave yard etc .." was left blank by the LAC. 11. A number of miscellaneous applications were filed by the petitioner by way of which information received by her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been placed on record and based thereon additional grounds have been urged. 12. In the additional affidavit dated 21.11.2012, it has been stated that though the date of notification u/s 4 was 6.4.2011 and the date of publication thereof in the Gazette was the same yet as per information received under RTI the authority letter was issued to one Lakhvir Chand, Patwari attached to office of LAC, GMADA to check the rough proof of the notification only on 11.4.2011 (Annexure P-19). It was urged that notification under Section 4 could not have been published on 6.4.2011 when the authority to the patwari to check the rough proof was issued on 11.4.2011. Similarly the information received under RTI revealed that though the date of notification under Section 6 was 23.11.2011, authority letter was issued to Lakhvir Chand Patwari to check the proof of the notification only on 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-20). RTI information also revealed that copy of the notification and not the copy of the Gazette was sent for publishing in the Punjabi and English newspaper. (Annexure P-21). From this it was inferred that the actual printing of the notifications in the official Gazette was much later than the date of the notification. 13. In the additional affidavit dated 12.09.2013 it was stated that as per RTI information received vide letter dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-31) the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 6.4.2011 bearing notification u/s 4 of the Act, No. 6/17/2011-6 Hg/955 was actually printed on 18.4.2011 and was ready for delivery on 25.04.2011. As per information received under RTI vide letter dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-37) the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 23.11.2011 bearing notification u/s 6 No. 6/17/2011-Hg1/4381 dated 23.11.2011 was actually printed on 2.1.2012 and was ready for delivery on 18.1.2012 14. Based thereon, the argument raised is that the Section 6 declaration has been published in the Gazette after the passing of Award on 22.12.2011 and the same renders the acquisition proceedings illegal. Notings received under RTI Act relating to exemption of land of RSSB were also placed on record. 15. Based thereon, the argument raised is that the Section 6 declaration has been published in the Gazette after the passing of Award on 22.12.2011 and the same renders the acquisition proceedings illegal. Notings received under RTI Act relating to exemption of land of RSSB were also placed on record. 15. In, still, another additional affidavit dated 17.01.2014 the rapat No.458 dated April 13, 2011 of the Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati as obtained under the RTI has been annexed as Annexure P-86. It is stated that there is no mention therein regarding publication of the substance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act at convenient places in the locality. From this is sought to be concluded that no public notice was given in the locality of the substance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement u/s 4 of the Act. Court Orders 16. Various orders were passed by the Court from time to time with a view to explore allotment of an alternative site acceptable to the petitioners. 17. Vide order dated 6.8.2013, the respondents were asked to reconsider their decision regarding release of the petitioner's properties, at least in part or put up any alternative proposal that may be acceptable to the petitioner. The operative part of the order is as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are prima facie, satisfied that the acquisition of the petitioner's property is totally discriminatory and arbitrary. It would, therefore, be expedient for the respondents to reconsider their decision regarding release of the petitioner's properties, if not the entire one, at least in part. Any alternative proposal which may be acceptable to the petitioners, may also be put up. List on 26.08.2013" On 13.09.2013, the report of the Committee constituted to survey the site and give recommendations for adjustment of the two residential structures of the petitioners in these two petitions was placed on record and the petitioners were given time to respond to the offer. The order was as under: "Mr. Khosla, learned Counsel for GMADA has placed on record the report of Committee constituted to survey the site and give recommendations for adjustment of two residential structures situated in Medicity, Mullanpur in the light of observations made in the order dated 6.8.2013. The order was as under: "Mr. Khosla, learned Counsel for GMADA has placed on record the report of Committee constituted to survey the site and give recommendations for adjustment of two residential structures situated in Medicity, Mullanpur in the light of observations made in the order dated 6.8.2013. The alternative sites, now offered to the petitioners are duly depicted in the conceptual Layout Plan for Medicity, Mullanpur appended with the report. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners shall have instructions regarding alternative sites proposed to be offered to them. List on 9.10.2013." The report of the Committee placed on record as Annexure P-70/T reads thus: "REPORT OF COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SITUATED IN MEDICITY, MULLANPUR In compliance with the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.22649 of 2011 (Inderjit Singh) and 22729 of 2011 (Prem Suri), the Chief Administrator, GMADA vide his office order dated 9.8.2013, had constituted a committee comprising the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, SAS Nagar, District Town Planner, SAS Nagar and Divisional Engineer (C-2) GMADA, SAS Nagar to survey the site and give recommendations with regard to adjustment of two residential structures of Mrs. Prem Suri and Sh. Inderjit Singh situated in the land acquired for Medicity, Mullanpur. Accordingly, the committee members personally visited the site and a detailed survey of these structures was also got conducted by Engineering Wing of GMADA, which was then got super imposed on the layout plan, as per Conceptual Plan attached herewith as Annexure-A, when it is observed that these structures fall in the middle portion of the site kept reserved for Hospital and Medical Research Institute of the Medi City. After having thoughtful consideration, the committee is of the view that these structures are badly affecting the overall planning of the Medicity. The committee further observed that if these structures are adjusted at the present location then it will not be possible to utilize the land situated around the these structures in a proper manner, which will defeat the purpose of proper planning of Medicity and disturb the entire pocket kept reserved for Hospital and Medical research Institutes. The committee further observed that if these structures are adjusted at the present location then it will not be possible to utilize the land situated around the these structures in a proper manner, which will defeat the purpose of proper planning of Medicity and disturb the entire pocket kept reserved for Hospital and Medical research Institutes. Therefore, committee recommends that these two residential structures should not be adjusted at the present site rather it will be appropriate to relocate these two residential structures by considering the actual covered area under the residential use as 65% ground coverage and giving additional 35% area for ventilation purpose as per building norms of PUDA, to the nearest place in Medicity, which is about 70 meter away from the present location and has been shown on the plan, so that overall planning of the Medicity is not disturbed. Accordingly, the committee also looked into the issue of structural area under residential use by these two petitioners, which is covered area of Building-1,which is under residential use is 158.69 sq. mtr. (190 sq. yds.). After adding 35% more area as set back for ventilation purposes, the area proposed to be adjusted against this building is 245 sq. mtr. (293 sq. yd.). Similarly, covered area of Building-2, which is under residential use is 230.02 sq. mtr. (275 Sq. Yds.). After adding 35% additional area as setback for ventilation purposes, the area proposed to be adjusted against this building is 355 sq. mtrs (425 sq. yd). The proposed site for relocation are also shown on the plan (Annexure A) in yellow colour. Report is submitted for consideration and approval please." 18. The petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 4.10.2013 in response to the report of the Committee. It was submitted that the recommendation made by the Committee to relocate the two residential structures by considering the actual covered area under the residential use as 65% ground coverage and giving additional 35% area for ventilation purposes to the nearest place as depicted in the Plan was misconceived. It was urged that the said conceptual plan neither depicted any khasra number nor did it disclose on what scale the said plan/drawing/map had been drawn. It was urged that the said conceptual plan neither depicted any khasra number nor did it disclose on what scale the said plan/drawing/map had been drawn. Based on a Satellite photograph/image as downloaded from Google Earth Map (Annexure P-72) it was stated that the property of the petitioner could not be said to be in the middle portion of the site to be kept reserved for Hospital and Medical Research Institute as mentioned in the report of the Committee. Based on the Google Earth Map it was asserted that in order to arbitrarily release the land of RSSB some portion of land has been released in the garb of categorizing the same as `No Construction Zone', though the same falls beyond 100 metres from the boundary of Air Force Satellite base, which has been prescribed as No Construction Zone as per the notification issued under the Works of Defence Act, 1903. The land which does not fall in the No Construction Zone but has been shown to be released as `No Construction Zone' measures approx. 0.87 Acres. This land is adjacent to and on the right side of the land of RSSB. This land is the ownership of Harjinder Singh son of Kuldip Singh. On 09.09.2015 the following order was passed: "Mr. Khosla seeks some time to examine as to whether the petitioners can be allotted plots to facilitate construction of their independent houses. List on 16.09.2015. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case." In response to this, Additional Affidavit dated 16.09.2015, of Rajdeep Kaur, Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali was filed. Therein it was stated that in order to provide rehabilitation to the land owners, whose houses are acquired for the setting up of Urban Estates by the Urban Development Authorities, the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing & Urban Development Authority has framed a relocation policy, vide notification dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure A-1). As per this policy the affected owners can be allotted alternative plots for residential use strictly as per the norms mentioned in this policy. 19. The total land holding of the petitioner was 2K-10 M, out of which1K-17.5968M of land has been acquired and balance land i.e. 0 K- 12.3876 M, falling in Khasra numbers 14//24/2, 14//25/1 & 14//25/2, which is situated outside the boundary of Medicity Phase-1, has not been acquired. 19. The total land holding of the petitioner was 2K-10 M, out of which1K-17.5968M of land has been acquired and balance land i.e. 0 K- 12.3876 M, falling in Khasra numbers 14//24/2, 14//25/1 & 14//25/2, which is situated outside the boundary of Medicity Phase-1, has not been acquired. The compensation of the acquired land (1K-17.5968 M), determined at the rate of Rs. 1,36,36,364/- per acre (inclusive of 30% solatium +12 A.P.) is Rs. 32,04,281/-. 20. It was intimated that total covered area of her house under residential use, which is part of land being acquired is 158.69 square meters or 190 square yards or 0K-6.2810 M against which she is eligible to be allotted a residential plot of 245 square meters i.e. 293 square yards as per the Relocation Policy, without payment of any cost price. However, the petitioner can be allotted a plot of nearest size of 300 sq. yards, which is available in Eco-city Phase-1, New Chandigarh for which she shall be required to pay the price of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the differential area 300-293 = 7 square yards) at the scheme rate, which is Rs. 25000/- per square yard for the residential plots of Eco City, Phase-1, New Chandigarh. Further, as per clause 7 of the conditions of this policy, the petitioner can also opt for the allotment of one step bigger plot i.e. 400 square yards, but in that eventuality, she shall be required to pay the price of Rs. 26,75,000/- for the differential area (400-293=107 square yards) at the scheme rate, which is Rs. 25000/- per square yard. It is further submitted that no residential plot has been carved out in Medi City, Phase-1, New Chandigarh and as such proposal is being given to accommodate the petitioner in Eco City Phase-1, New Chandigarh, which is a residential developing sector. 21. However, the said offer was also not acceptable to the petitioners as clearly indicated in the additional affidavit dated 09.11.2015. 22. Based on the aforesaid factual narrative, the following arguments have been raised by Sh. Aashish Chopra Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. (I) Procedural flaws in the acquisition. (i) The substance of the notification not got published in the locality as per the mandate of Section 4 (1) of the Act. (ii) The section 4 and Section 6 notifications were not published in the official Gazette on the dates that these notifications bear. Aashish Chopra Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. (I) Procedural flaws in the acquisition. (i) The substance of the notification not got published in the locality as per the mandate of Section 4 (1) of the Act. (ii) The section 4 and Section 6 notifications were not published in the official Gazette on the dates that these notifications bear. But were printed in Gazette much later. Section 4 notification was actually printed on 18.04.2011 and Section 6 notification was actually printed on 2.01.2012 . (iii) The award was announced by the LAC on 22.12.2011 before the section 6 notification was printed/published in the official Gazette on 2.1.2012 (II) Discrimination qua RSSB (i) The petitioner has been discriminated against in as much as her land wherein her only residential house is built has been acquired but the land of RSSB which is similarly situated has been released. (ii) The land of RSSB has been released even though no objections were filed by it under Section 5-A within the time prescribed. (iii) The land of RSSB has been released even without there being any recommendation for release by the LAC (iv) A chunk of land measuring 0.87 Acres falling outside the `No Construction Zone' was released just to provide contiguity to RSSB (III) The acquisition is not absolutely necessary as the house does not disturb the scheme. 23. Mr. Khosla countered the arguments of Mr. Chopra. 24. He denied that there was any procedural flaw in the acquisition. He pointed to the report of the Patwari that Mushtari Munadi had been got done and report lodged. He further pointed out to the fact that the notification u/s 4 had been got published in "The Hindustan Times" English newspaper and "Jagbani" a Punjabi newspaper on 14.4.2011. Similarly, the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the Gazette Extraordinary on 23.11.2011 was published in the "Indian Express" dated 24.11.2011 and "Daily Ajit" dated 24.11.2011. 25. He referred to the fact that the Gazette notifications u/s 4 and 6 dated 6.4.2011 and 23.11.2011, respectively are annexed with the petitions. Order of status quo with regard to possession was passed in CWP No.22649 of 2011 on 7.12.2011 and in CWP No.22729 of 2011 on 8.12.2011. The award was announced on 22.12.2011 after the filing of the petitions. He referred to the fact that the Gazette notifications u/s 4 and 6 dated 6.4.2011 and 23.11.2011, respectively are annexed with the petitions. Order of status quo with regard to possession was passed in CWP No.22649 of 2011 on 7.12.2011 and in CWP No.22729 of 2011 on 8.12.2011. The award was announced on 22.12.2011 after the filing of the petitions. Hence, the petitioners were aware of the notifications which were in existence before the award was announced. He argued that there was no pleading in the writ petition that the section 6 notification was published after the award was announced. Further, it has not been pointed out that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on any count. The petitioner filed detailed objections u/s 5-A within time which were duly considered. 26. He further denied that there was any discrimination on the part of the respondents in the acquisition. The land of RSSB was released as it was a religious organisation. Referring to the office notings, (Annexure P- 60 and P-65) placed record by the petitioner herself he says that intitially the LAC in his report (Annexure P-6) had not made any recommendations regarding the objections filed by RSSB, but had only recorded the fact that the objections were received on 19.07.2011 after the date of last date of hearing i.e., 30.05.2011 and that the decision for exempting the land may be taken at the level of the Government. Thereafter, the case was sent back to the LAC requiring him to visit the spot and send his clear report that in the land to be acquired for the Medicity, whether the land measuring 20K 6 Marlas of RSSB is to be exempted or acquired. In response the LAC recommended to exempt 20 Kanal 6 Marla land of RSSB because it was a religious organization. This recommendation was considered and a conscious decision was taken at the level of the Chief Minister to release the land as it was a land belonging to a religious institution. 27. On the main plank in both the petitions that the objections had been filed by RSSB after the last date of hearing of objections, he argued that the period of limitation in Section 5-A for filing objections is only on the objector. 27. On the main plank in both the petitions that the objections had been filed by RSSB after the last date of hearing of objections, he argued that the period of limitation in Section 5-A for filing objections is only on the objector. He argued that the satisfaction of the government that any particular land is needed for a public purpose for issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act, is not to be formed only on the basis of the report under Section 5-A. It may be arrived at independently of such report. The only requirement of Section 6 is that the report under Section 5-A, if available, has to be considered. He argued that the land falling in the ‘No Construction Zone’ had also been released without any objections being filed. Hence, it is argued that the fact that in check list submitted to the SLAB the remarks column at Sr. No.14 regarding religious institution etc. has been left blank is of no significance. It is beyond doubt that RSSB is an organization of religious nature which fact has also been judicially recognized. The policy of the State Government as reflected in Sub Para IV of Para 12.1 of the Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No.28 requires that before acquisition it is to be ensured that no genuine religious place of worship, shrine, tomb, graveyard, Wakf or any immovable property attached to any such institution, was acquired. 28. Refuting the contention that the land adjacent to RSSB which did not fall in the 'No Construction Zone' had been released only to provide contiguity to the land of RSSB he stated that the reason for release of that land was that it was Forest and open area as per the Master Plan. Hence, its acquisition would not serve the objective of the acquisition. He asserted that other than the RSSB land and this piece of land-no other area not falling in the `No Construction Zone' had been released. 29. Referring to the interim orders passed from time to time particularly orders dated 6.8.2013 regarding giving "any alternative proposal which may be acceptable to the petitioner" and order 9.9.15 'to examine if the petitioners could be allotted plots to facilitate construction of their independent houses', he states that the matter was examined sympathetically and proposals made, which, however, were not acceptable to the petitioners. 30. 30. He lastly argued that the project is in public interest, it is an integrated and indivisible one. The acquisition is of about 97 acres i.e., about 800 kanals. The challenge is only in respect of 8 Kanals i.e., only about 1 % of the total acquired land. CWP No. 22649 of 2011 31. The petitioner is owner of 10 Kanals land which he purchased vide two separate registered sale deeds dated 15th August 1998 and 26th October 1999, being 1/4th share of land 42 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khata No.19/30, Rectangle No.12, Khasra Nos.23/2, 24/2, 24/2, 25/2, Rectangle No.14, Khasra Nos. 3/3, 4, 5, 7/1, 24/2, 25/1, 25/2, 8/1 situated within the revenue estate of village Ferozepur Bangar, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. It is stated that the land owned and possessed by the petitioner is situated at a distance of 200 meters from main abadi of village Ferozepur. Bangar. Soon after purchasing the aforesaid land in the year 1998, the petitioner spent considerable amount in leveling the land and rasing A-class construction. Buildings constructed by the petitioner cover an area of 3054.54 sq. feet each of duplex nature. The nature of construction of both the buildings is "A" class and made according to the advanced technical designs. The petitioner is residing with his family in the residential house. The petitioner constructed two causeway using `A' grade Hume Pipes and cement brick lining covering at a distance of 20' each. Besides, he constructed a set of Geo Thermal Pits, having a size of 12x 14 (Two nos.) and 24' depth. The walls of the said pits have been plastered. The petitioner constructed another main Geo Pit near the Shed having length of 65' and 32' width. The petitioner got domestic electricity connection in the year 1998 and he got upgraded the connected load of electricity by 5 KWs for his commercial connection in the year 2000. He also constructed one store of 112'x 13'. A hand pump was also installed. New tube-well was also installed having bore depth of 400 ft. Besides he constructed one shed of 47'x 22' having 13' height in order to accommodate the School of Computers and Book Binding and paper bag making unit of CRIT R & D (Inc.). The shed was constructed of cement, bricks, sand and having roof of iron sheets and has 'A' class interior having an area of 1,034 sq. Besides he constructed one shed of 47'x 22' having 13' height in order to accommodate the School of Computers and Book Binding and paper bag making unit of CRIT R & D (Inc.). The shed was constructed of cement, bricks, sand and having roof of iron sheets and has 'A' class interior having an area of 1,034 sq. ft. He also constructed a Solar Electronic fully Computerised and Solar Electronic fully computerized Net-workable Weigh Bridge, which became functional in September, 1998 in 3 Kanals of land approximately after taking necessary measurements and keeping the PWD (B&R) guidelines in view. The said project is known by the name of Guru Kirpa Electronic Weigh Bridge with a capacity to weigh 30 MTs. load at the time of commissioning which had subsequently been upgraded enhanced to 50 MTs. The petitioner has gross income of over Rs. 60,000/- per month from the said weigh bridge and this is the only source of income of the petitioner. It is asserted that the State of Punjab had issued a public notice dated 01.12.2005 for regularization of existing constructions in the periphery of Chandigarh. In response thereto the petitioner had applied in the prescribed proforma and deposited the requisite amount on 14.12.2005 which was duly acknowledged. The petitioner had installed a weigh bridge much before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Vide letter dated 27.08.1999 the General Manager (Regulatory) PUDA Mohali had confirmed that the construction of the house of the petitioner was prior to 9.12.1998 and the PUDA authorities have no objection to the grant of electricity connection in this regard. (Annexure P-18). 32. Most of the arguments advanced by Mr. Amit Jain, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner are the same as that of Mr. Aashish Chopra. 33. He has forcefully argued that his construction stands regularized and that in all the plans of the department the area owned by the petitioner has been shown as constructed. He argued that the respondents have been evasive on the question of release of land and it has not been stated in the written statement that apart from the No Construction Zone and RSSB no other area has been released. 34. He argued that the respondents have been evasive on the question of release of land and it has not been stated in the written statement that apart from the No Construction Zone and RSSB no other area has been released. 34. He argued that apart from bald assertions it has not been demonstrated as to how the existing structure will affect the planning of the Medicity and whether any hospital has been planned over the land of the petitioner. 35. He further argued that the petitioner has been discriminated against in the matter of allotment of alternative site. Through a Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2877 of 2016 he has placed on record copy of noting dated 16.11.2012 where one Brig. Ranbir Singh Mann was allotted alternative site for setting up a petrol pump in Eco City but similar benefit is being denied to the petitioner. 36. Mr. Khosla, on the other hand, denied that the structure of the petitioner had been regularised. He argued that though the petitioner had applied for regularization on 14.12.2005 (Annexure P-11), yet no order of regularization had been passed. He sought to dispel the argument of the petitioner that he maintains a residence there by referring to the objections filed by the petitioner where he has mentioned his address in this communication as House No. 218, Sector-33, Chandigarh. 37. He further referred to the additional affidavit dated 16.09.2015 of Rajdeep Kaur, Estate Officer, GMADA, wherein, the details of the acquisition regarding the petitioner had been given and the rehabilitation permissible as per the Relocation has been indicated. In that affidavit it has been indicated that the total land holding of the petitioner is 9K-0.4973 M, out of which 6K-15.6173 M land has been acquired and the balance land i.e., 2K-4.88 M falling in Khasra No. 14//24/2, 14//25/1 & 14//25/2 which is situated outside the boundary of the Medicity Phase-I has not been acquired. The compensation of the acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,36,36,362/- per acre (inclusive of 30% solatium + 12% A.P.) is Rs. 1,15,58,300/-. The compensation of the acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,36,36,362/- per acre (inclusive of 30% solatium + 12% A.P.) is Rs. 1,15,58,300/-. It was stated that the total covered area of the house under residential use, which is a part of land being acquired is 230.02 square meters or 275 square yards or 0 K - 9.0909 Marlas, against which he is eligible to be allotted a residential plot of 355 square meters i.e. 425 square yards as per Relocation Policy of the State. However, the petitioner can be allotted a plot of nearest size of 400 Sq. Yards, which is available in Eco City Phase-1, New Chandigarh, for which he will be paid price of Rs. 6,25,000/- for the additional area (425-400 = 25 square yards) at the scheme rate, which is Rs. 25000/- per square yards for the residential plots of Eco City, Phase-1, New Chandigarh. Further, as per clause 7 of the conditions of this policy, the petitioner can also opt for the allotment of one step bigger plot i.e. 500 square yards, but in that eventuality, he shall be required to pay the price of Rs. 1875000/- for the differential area (500-425 = 75 square yards) at the scheme rate, which is Rs. 25000/- per square yard. It is further submitted that no residential plot has been carved out in Medi City, Phase-1, New Chandigarh and as such proposal is being given to accommodate the petitioner in Eco City Phase-1, New Chandigarh, which is a residential developing sector. 38. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 39. We do not agree with the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that there are procedural flaws in the acquisition process which would warrant nullifying the acquisition. Regarding the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 4 of the Act, Sh. Khosla Ld. Counsel for the respondent had referred to the Report of the Patwari that Mushtari Munadi had been got done and report lodged. Regarding the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 4 of the Act, Sh. Khosla Ld. Counsel for the respondent had referred to the Report of the Patwari that Mushtari Munadi had been got done and report lodged. The mere fact that this is not mentioned in the rapat No. 458 dated April 13, 2011 of the Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari cannot lead to the inference that munadi was not got conducted, when that fact has been recorded in the report of the Patwari referred to by Mr. Khosla. Thus we do not agree with the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that a mandatory requirement of Section 4 of the Act has been violated. 40. Though, the petitioner in CWP No. 22729 of 2011 has laboured hard and received information under the RTI Act, from which it appears that there was a time lag between the issue of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 and their actual printing in the Gazette (Extraordinary) (though the Gazette as published bears the same date as of the notification), yet we fail to see how that impacts the acquisition so as to invalidate it. 41. But it does point to a fact which cannot be ignored that there may at times be a gap of days, weeks or even months between the date of issue of the notification and its being sent for publication in the official Gazette (the date on which the Gazette was supposedly published) and the date on which it was actually published and its copies made available for sale to the general public or even sent to the concerned government department. At times this may lead to a situation where some mandatory provision of law may be breached. This is a problem which the authorities concerned must address lest such lapse may lead to nullifying some important measure of the Government. 42. We are also not persuaded by the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that in releasing the land of RSSB the respondents are guilty of discrimination and that the petitioners being similarly placed as RSSB is entitled to release of their land/structure. 43. It cannot be denied that RSSB is a religious organization and this fact has been judicially recognized. 44. Counsel for the petitioners that in releasing the land of RSSB the respondents are guilty of discrimination and that the petitioners being similarly placed as RSSB is entitled to release of their land/structure. 43. It cannot be denied that RSSB is a religious organization and this fact has been judicially recognized. 44. In Jathedar Sadhu Singh's case (supra), this Court held that RSSB is a place of worship and the institution was therefore excepted from the definition of Shamlat Deh as according to exception (ix) to the definition of Shamlat Deh in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961, land which is used as a place of worship or for purposes subservient thereto would not be included within the definition of Shamlat Deh. 45. In WPC No. 1282/1978, 'The Radha Soami Satsang Beas and another v. The Delhi Administration and anr' decided on 15.10.2004, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court considered the question as to whether the Radha Soami Satsang Beas was a religious institution which could claim exemption from acquisition of its land in terms a notification whereby lands under graveyard, tombs, shrines and land attached to religious institutions and wakf property were exempted from acquisition. The Court though relied on decision of this Court in Jathedar Sadhu Singh's case (supra) but also considered the question independently and concluded that RSSB fulfilled all the elements to constitute a "religious institution". The relevant observations are as under: "27. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the following elements, if present, may be held to constitute a "religious institution": (1) a collection of religious faith, a system of belief which is conducive to the spiritual well-being, i.e., a common faith; (2) common organisation; (3) a designation by a distinctive name 28. The Memorandum of Association of the first petitioner society discloses the following objects: "1. Dissemination of knowledge useful for spiritual and moral advancement according to the traditions and tenants of Radha Soami Path as propounded by Sant Satgurus of Radha Soami Colony Beas (Dera Baba Jaimal Singh). 2. To provide and make arrangements for holding satsangs (spiritual discourses) and bhandaras at the colony and other places?" The documents further reveal that the society is managed by an executive committee. The first patron of the society was the second petitioner. 2. To provide and make arrangements for holding satsangs (spiritual discourses) and bhandaras at the colony and other places?" The documents further reveal that the society is managed by an executive committee. The first patron of the society was the second petitioner. Nomination to that office has been provided; it also lays down the mechanism for succession to the position of Patron. Property of the society vests in the Executive Committee; it is chosen by election, on periodical basis, by members. The document also obligates the holding of Annual General Meetings. Of some interest, for the purposes of the present proceeding, is Clause 10 (iv), which reads as follows: "(iv) The Society, through the Secretary or any other person authorized by the Executive Committee, shall have the right to accept all property as may be dedicated to it by the Patron and contributions made to it by any person by way of gifts, donations, etc." 29. The monograph "Teachings and Brief History" produced by the petitioners, with leave of the court, describes the teachings, beliefs and history of the faith. According to the document, the Radha Soami Satsang is the name of the faith; "Radha Soami" is the name of the Supreme Being. It has no rituals, no dogmas, no ceremonies. The faith is a name given to the age old philosophy of Saints, which is timeless and eternal; not cribbed by narrow bonds of caste, creed or nationality. All these are stated to be irrelevant for spiritual realization. The simile taken about the human soul is that it is akin to a drop in the Ocean; the soul, through constant endeavour seeks to reach that Ocean. In that quest, the guidance of a Master is essential. The next important belief is that God is to be found within each human being. Rituals, external worship, austerities, penances, even study of Scriptures do not lead to God. The seat of the soul, is the beginning of the journey toward realization of God. The faith stresses upon concentration of attention to the melody within each human being. Satsang is the recommended mode or devotion which helps in realization of this objective. 30. On an analysis of the above material, it is apparent that the first petitioner disseminates a "a system of belief which is conducive to the spiritual well-being" of a body of individuals. Satsang is the recommended mode or devotion which helps in realization of this objective. 30. On an analysis of the above material, it is apparent that the first petitioner disseminates a "a system of belief which is conducive to the spiritual well-being" of a body of individuals. It has an organization, which is engaged in the orderly management of its affairs, in the form of an incorporated society, with a defined administrative structure, a corporate personality, entitled to acquire and hold all manner of properties, etc. It also has a distinctive name. The petitioners have thus been able o establish, in these proceedings, that they are a "religious institution". 46. The land of RSSB has been released as it is a religious institution. The land is being used for religious purposes and satsangs are regularly being held there twice a week on Wednesdays and Sundays. It is the policy of the Government, so far as possible, not to acquire any genuine religious place of worship or property attached to such institution. Sub-para (iv) of para 12.1 of the Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No.28 reads as under:- "(iv) No genuine religious place of worship, shrine, tomb, graveyard, Wakf or, any immovable property attached to any such institution, the boundaries of which are contiguous to the site of the same is being acquired. If so, the acquiring department has consulted at least four legislators of the community concerned before taking action. Where, however, the number of such legislators is less than four, he/they should be consulted." Thus, we find no infirmity in the decision of the Government to release the land of RSSB. 47. We agree with the argument of Mr. Khosla that the government may, for valid and genuine reasons and in a non-discriminatory manner, release any land from acquisition before possession thereof is taken, even though no objections under Section 5-A may have been filed. The limitation period in Section 5-A only applies to the filing of objections by a land owner. This being so, even if the objections from RSSB were not received within time, or there was no proper recommendation by the LAC for release, it would not determine the validity of the release. However, as argued by Mr. The limitation period in Section 5-A only applies to the filing of objections by a land owner. This being so, even if the objections from RSSB were not received within time, or there was no proper recommendation by the LAC for release, it would not determine the validity of the release. However, as argued by Mr. Khosla and as is clear from a perusal of the file notings Annexures P-60 and P-65, though the LAC did not initially make a recommendation for release but left the decision to the Government, but later, when the matter was sent back to the LAC to submit a self-explanatory report regarding objection of RSSB whose objections were listed at Sr. No. 25 of the report, the LAC recommended release of the land of RSSB it being a religious institution. The said recommendation was approved by the Government. Moreover, absence of a proper recommendation by the LAC on its objections may be a ground available to an objector to question his acquisition but not to a third party to question the release of land of such objector if such release is otherwise justified. 48. Mr. Khosla has also satisfactorily explained the reason for release of 0.87 acres of land adjacent to RSSB that it is shown in the Master Plan as forest and open area which would consequently not satisfy the purpose of the acquisition. 49. We are also unable to agree with the last contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the house and structure of the petitioners would not interfere with the planning of the Hospital and Medical Research Institute. The Committee which was constituted pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 6.8.2013 requiring the respondents to reconsider their decision regarding release of the petitioners’ properties, if not the entire one, at least in part or give any alternative proposal which may be acceptable to the petitioners, had considered this issue. The Committee which was constituted pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 6.8.2013 requiring the respondents to reconsider their decision regarding release of the petitioners’ properties, if not the entire one, at least in part or give any alternative proposal which may be acceptable to the petitioners, had considered this issue. The members of the committee comprising the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, SAS Nagar, District Town Planner, SAS Nagar and Divisional Engineer (C-2) GMADA, SAS Nagar personally visited the site and a detailed survey of these structures was also got conducted by Engineering Wing of GMADA, which was then got super imposed on the layout plan as per Conceptual Plan which was attached with the report as Annexure-A, It was observed that these structures fall in the middle portion of the site kept reserved for Hospital and Medical Research Institute of the Medicity. The committee opined that these structures are badly affecting the overall planning of the Medicity. The committee further observed that if these structures are adjusted at the present location then it will not be possible to utilize the land situated around the these structures in a proper manner, which will defeat the purpose of proper planning of Medicity and disturb the entire pocket kept reserved for Hospital and Medical Research Institutes. The committee recommended that the two residential structures could not be adjusted at the present site. It recommended that they be relocated to the nearest place in Medicity, which is about 70 meter away from the present location and which was depicted in the plan, so that overall planning of the Medicity is not disturbed. 50. The petitioner in CWP No. 22729 disputing the findings of the Committee has placed on record the Satellite photograph/image as down loaded from Google Earth Map (Annexure P-72) in an effort to demonstrate that the land of the petitioners is not in the middle portion of the site kept reserved for the hospital. She has also annexed a photograph/image as downloaded from Google Earth Map, with superimposition of the Drawing/Map submitted on behalf of the respondents (Annexure P-77) to show that the land of the petitioners does not fall in the middle of the planned Hospital and Medical Research Institute but is at the boundary of the scheme itself. 51. We have carefully considered these Plans/Maps. 51. We have carefully considered these Plans/Maps. From these, it can safely be concluded that even if the land and structures of the petitioners are not actually in the middle of the hospital site, the finding of the committee, that if these structures are adjusted at the present location, then it will not be possible to utilize the land situated around the these structures in a proper manner which would defeat the purpose of proper planning of Medicity and disturb the entire pocket kept reserved for Hospital and Medical research Institutes cannot be disregarded. 52. Hence, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the land and structures of the petitioners would not disturb the planning of the Hospital and Medical Research Institute. 53. The argument of discrimination raised by Mr. Jain based on the allotment of an alternative site to one Brig. Ranbir Singh Mann to set up a petrol pump in Eco-City also need not detain us. Firstly, this fact has not been pleaded in the writ petition to which the respondents would have had no opportunity to respond. Secondly, the purpose of the acquisition in that case was different. The situation and circumstances of both may not be comparable. In any event, that fact is not germane to determining the validity of the acquisition. 54. Considering that the petitioner in CWP No.22729 of 2011 is the aged widow of a highly decorated Army Officer, and this is her only house we have pondered long and hard whether any way could be found to save her house. In fact that was the spirit in which the earlier orders dated 6.8.2013 and 9.9.2015 were passed. But, regretfully, there could not be satisfactory resolution which would safeguard the structure without compromising the planning and optimum use of the proposed Hospital and Research Institute. Ultimately, the public interest has to have precedence. The Medicity project is one of immense importance to the region. 55. Accordingly, we have no option but to dismiss the petitions. 56. However, we make it clear that the Government would remain bound by the offer of relocation contained in the report of the Committee (Annexure P-70/T) as also the offer in the additional affidavit dated 16.09.2015 of Rajdeep Kaur, Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, Mohali filed separately in both these petitions. 56. However, we make it clear that the Government would remain bound by the offer of relocation contained in the report of the Committee (Annexure P-70/T) as also the offer in the additional affidavit dated 16.09.2015 of Rajdeep Kaur, Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, Mohali filed separately in both these petitions. The petitioners would have the option to opt for either of these offers. 57. It is also directed that the petitioners will not be dispossessed from their residence at least for a period of six months after they have been provided the alternative site.