JUDGMENT Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, J. The present judgment shall dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 9213, 10432 and 17562 of 2011. CWP No. 9213 has been filed by three petitioners in which initially only the official respondents were impleaded. At a subsequent point of time, as per the amended Memo of Parties dated 31.05.2016, respondent Nos.3 to 23 have also been brought on record. In the writ petition filed, the prayer is for quashing of the notification dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') wherein, the land was acquired for building/extension of Police Lines at Patti Kaith Seth, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal and the area of land is 26.23 acres. Similarly, challenge was raised to the notification dated 05.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 of the Act. The prayer made in the writ petitioner is to release the land situated in various killa numbers given in the head note of the writ petitioner. The same was based on the fact that on 15.09.2010 (Annexure P- 3), a release order had been passed wherein 14.53 acres of land out of the above land had been ordered to be released on account of the fact that houses and structures existed on this land prior to Section 4 notification. The same was apparently on the basis of an application given by Shingara Singh, now arrayed as respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have submitted an application dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P-6) claiming release of land on the ground of parity. The petitioners admitted that they had not filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act as the entire chunk of the property was being acquired and the petitioners are similarly placed and the owners whose property had been released had also not taken recourse to the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. 2. In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it was mentioned that 93 kanals 13 marlas of land had been acquired, award of which was announced on 02.06.2011 and the compensation stood deposited with the Treasury Office at Kaithal. It was accordingly averred that 116 kanals and 4 marlas of land which was released was on account of the representation submitted on 25.02.2009. It was accordingly averred that 116 kanals and 4 marlas of land which was released was on account of the representation submitted on 25.02.2009. On the basis of the same, a report dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure R-1) had been obtained from the Tehsildar, Kaithal which was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kaithal. Annexure R-2 would go on to show that the same had further been submitted to the Financial Commissioner by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kaithal and similarly report from the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure R-3) had also been given that there was a scattered habitation in the land under acquisition and lot of plots stood purchased for the purpose of residence and recommendation for release had been given. It is, thus, the case of the State that in view of recommendations, the aforesaid portion of land of 116 kanals and 4 marlas was released and the remaining vacant land was acquired. A distinction was sought to be made that there was a difference between the released land and the acquired land and there was scattered habitations in structures and foundations. It was accordingly justified that the land sought to be acquired was near the land already acquired and vacant land had been acquired and it was for the public purpose of extension of Police Lines at Kaithal and the suitability of the place had been decided by the State Government. 3. The reply filed by respondent No.2, the Land Acquisition Collector was also in similar terms and it has been stated that photographs have also been attached to show that the acquired land was vacant and there is scattered habitation, structures, foundations and some built up houses in the released land. 4. In the replication filed by the petitioners, reliance was placed upon the application dated 03.09.2009 given by the various land owners for release of the land to the Chief Minister to point out that those persons were dealing in the business of real estate. Reliance is also placed upon the fact that Angoori Devi, one of the applicant, was the wife of Dhoop Singh, who was working as Halqa Kanungo in the Revenue Department. The signatures as such of the persons who had made the application were forged and even the lady was illiterate. Reliance is also placed upon the fact that Angoori Devi, one of the applicant, was the wife of Dhoop Singh, who was working as Halqa Kanungo in the Revenue Department. The signatures as such of the persons who had made the application were forged and even the lady was illiterate. Reliance was also placed upon FIR No. 188 dated 27.07.2011 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Kaithal against Dhoop Singh under the provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is attached as Annexure P-11. It was further averred that Dhoop Singh had prepared the report of release of land on the application given by his wife by forging the signatures and the Tehsildar had also prepared the report. On the basis of the said report, the Tehsildar had prepared his report and submitted it to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 01.01.2020 and accordingly, the report had been forwarded to the State on 15.01.2010 (Annexure P-14). It was also mentioned that plots had been sold by persons who had given applications for release on 03.09.2009 and reference was made to the mutations showing Baljinder Singh-respondent No.5 as a seller in the sale deeds and mutations had been made after notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued. The same had been attested and sanctioned by Dhoop Singh and showed the nexus of the said person and the Tehsildar who had prepared the report for release of the land. Reliance was also placed upon an agreement to sell dated 16.10.2010 for Rs.3,26,00,000/- @ Rs.68,63,157/- per acre, the sale deed of which was executed on 25.05.2011 by Baljinder Singh, now impleaded as respondent No.5 in favour of one Ashok Kumar after the release of the land. Facts of CWP No. 10432 of 2011 5. The present writ petition which has been filed by 11 petitioners and only the official respondents were arrayed as party and subsequently respondent Nos.3 to 7 were impleaded, who were the original applicants who had filed the application before the Chief Minister including Angoori Devi, wife of Dhoop Singh, and Baljinder Singh. An additional respondent No.7 Naib Tehsildar Dhoop Singh has now been impleaded. The prayer made in the said writ petition is also similar and the release has been sought primarily on the ground of parity. Facts of CWP No. 17562 of 2011 6. An additional respondent No.7 Naib Tehsildar Dhoop Singh has now been impleaded. The prayer made in the said writ petition is also similar and the release has been sought primarily on the ground of parity. Facts of CWP No. 17562 of 2011 6. The present writ petition has been filed by 5 petitioners in which no private respondents have been arrayed as party and the challenge is also on the same grounds. The manner in which the matter proceeded over the decade: 7. Initially when the matter came up on 23.05.2011, report was sought as to what type of construction existed in the land shown in orange colour in the site plan (Ex.P-5), next to the land of the petitioners and the detailed report regarding construction and photographs were directed to be put on record after proper verification. Further, directions were issued that verification be done whether objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed by the land owners whose land had been released from acquisition. Resultantly, it was noticed on 01.06.2011 that some of the land holders had been benefitted by doing a favour after releasing the land under Section 6 without filing any objections under Section 5A of the Act. Status quo was thus ordered regarding possession and construction which was to be maintained as far as the land of the petitioners is concerned. Further directions were issued that the State shall ensure that none of the land owners whose land had been exempted from acquisition shall raise any construction on that land henceforth. 8. On 17.04.2012, respondent Nos.3 to 7 including Dhoop Singh were present in Court, who were also impleaded as party and accepted notice for himself and on behalf of his wife Angoori Devi. Directions were issued that the Deputy Commissioner shall conduct an inquiry into the facts leading to the non-acquisition of the land and submit the report within three weeks. Inquiry report dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure R-1) conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was filed in Court along with the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner dated 08.05.2012. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that the released land could be categorized in three kinds which are as under:- "i) In the land in Khasra No. 154//6, 15, 16/1, 17/1, 24/3, 25/2 & 153/2Min, 3Min, 10/2/1, 13 pucca houses are there and foundations of 12 plots are also there. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that the released land could be categorized in three kinds which are as under:- "i) In the land in Khasra No. 154//6, 15, 16/1, 17/1, 24/3, 25/2 & 153/2Min, 3Min, 10/2/1, 13 pucca houses are there and foundations of 12 plots are also there. ii) In the land in Khasra No. 153//1/2/1, 1/2/2, 10/1/1, 9, 8Min, 2Min, 13Min, 11/1, 11/2, 12, 19, 20/2 there is some vacant land and in some area, foundations of 28 plots are there. iii) Land in Khasra No. 153//3Min, 8Min, 13Min, 4, 7 is an agriculture land." 9. Resultantly, it was justified that the land was released from acquisition on the ground of scattered habitation. It was also noticed that even the constructed houses and foundations are on the higher side since the land in question had been released on 15.09.2010 and thereafter land owners had further raised constructions. Justification was also given that the report given by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was based on actual situation at the relevant point of time. 10. Thereafter, separate replies came to be filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6 in CWP No. 9213 of 2011 that the answering respondents are only few of the joint owners of the land in question and the land in totality was owned by 82 persons as per their shares detailed in Annexure R-3/1. Accordingly, justification was made that the land was inspected by the team of Tehsildar, Kaithal; Sh. Dhoop Singh, Halqa Kanungo, Kaithal and Halqa Patwari and detailed report had been given regarding the existing factual position. Justification was made that respondent No.7 never made any recommendation for releasing the land but only forwarded the report prepared by Halqa Patwari (Annexure R-3/3). It was accordingly averred that on the basis of the said recommendations, the release order had been passed. It has further been mentioned that the various persons had laid foundations of buildings and most of them had purchased the land for residential purposes to build houses. The answering respondents owned only some share in the total land and a perusal of the list would go on to show that Angoori Devi was owner of 10 kanals whereas Baljinder Singh was owner of 28 kanals and 17 marlas of land and Shingara Singh and his son owned 6 kanals and 9 marlas and 31 kanals and 2 marlas, respectively. 11. 11. Respondent No.7, in his reply, took a similar plea that there were no bias or reasonable apprehension on his part and the reports had only been forwarded by him as per the report prepared by the Halqa Patwari. The Government had exercised its powers to release the land from acquisition on the basis of a recommendation made by the competent authorities including the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal. The answering respondents owned and possessed only 10 kanals of land and there were more than 60 persons who were also joint owners in joint possession besides the wife of the said respondent. 12. Accordingly, directions were issued on 11.10.2012 that the report of the Deputy Commissioner was prima facie mechanical and the Financial Commissioner (Home) was directed to file an affidavit regarding the steps taken by the State Government in respect of the survey of the land in the year 2002 or thereafter before publication of the notification under Section 4 and the justification for not including the released land in the award. Resultantly, affidavit dated 07.11.2012 of Sh. Samir Mathur, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, Home Department came to be filed on 08.11.2012. It was accordingly noted that the Government was considering the entire acquisition process and a month's time was sought to enable the Government to take a final decision. On 29.01.2014, directions were issued to constitute a Committee of 2-3 senior officers to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Financial Commissioner to visit the area of the acquired land and submit a report on the basis of which the State Government was to take a final decision. It was also made clear that the report had been given by the Kanungo whose wife was owner of the acquired land and, therefore, the same should be kept in mind. Affidavit dated 07.10.2014 of Shri Ramesh Krishan, Secretary of the Government of Haryana, Home Department had been placed on record wherein, as per the inspection report, it was noticed that Pockets B and C had no contiguity to the land already acquired whereas Pocket A has contiguity to the land already acquired for the construction of the police lines. Affidavit dated 07.10.2014 of Shri Ramesh Krishan, Secretary of the Government of Haryana, Home Department had been placed on record wherein, as per the inspection report, it was noticed that Pockets B and C had no contiguity to the land already acquired whereas Pocket A has contiguity to the land already acquired for the construction of the police lines. It is pertinent to mention that Pocket B pertains to land pertaining to CWP No.17562 of 2011, Subhash Chand measuring 29 kanals and 15 marlas whereas Pocket C is pertaining to land of Sohan Lal measuring 21 kanals and 3 marlas, which is subject matter of consideration in CWP No. 10432 of 2011. The contiguous land is of Roop Chand which is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 9213 of 2011 measuring 42 kanals and 15 marlas, which would be clear from Annexure R- 1 appended with the subsequent report read with coloured site plan attached with the affidavit dated 08.12.2021 of Sh. Rajiv Arora, Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The map (Annexure R-1) is shown as under:- 12.A Resultantly, the report of the then Home Secretary was that the land of all the three Pockets A, B and C should be acquired. Resultantly, it was noticed on 17.08.2015 that how the acquired land can be used for the stated purpose as Pocket A and C have been bifurcated by a minor and Pocket B was at a distance and also bifurcated by a minor. Accordingly, the co-ordinate Bench observed on 17.08.2015 that there were two options, either to withdraw from acquisition altogether or to acquire the land which had been released earlier. 13. Thereafter, affidavit of Sh. Shekhar Vidyarthi, Special Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department was filed wherein, it has been specifically averred that the various amenities are needed to be provided to the Police Lines, which included accommodation for the officers and the jawans apart from Armory Block for Arms and Ammunitions and DAV Schools etc. and other play grounds since the Administrative Block was already in place. Therefore, the Government had decided to acquire the balance 123 kanals and 3 marlas as well, which had been released earlier. The decision of the Government dated 27.01.2016 was appended as Annexure R-1 alongwith the said affidavit. and other play grounds since the Administrative Block was already in place. Therefore, the Government had decided to acquire the balance 123 kanals and 3 marlas as well, which had been released earlier. The decision of the Government dated 27.01.2016 was appended as Annexure R-1 alongwith the said affidavit. Applications were then filed to implead various applicants who had allegedly purchased the land allegedly prior to the publication of notification, which was dismissed as withdrawn to file a fresh one with better facts and particulars. On 30.01.2017, State counsel had submitted that the process of acquisition would be completed within a period of six months as per instructions received from the then Special Secretary to Government of Haryana (Home), Sh. Suresh Goel. Resultantly, affidavit of Sh. Nitin Kumar Yadav, Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department was placed on record dated 12.05.2017 taking the plea that the Rules were being framed for purchase of land voluntarily offered to Government for development projects and the process of re-acquisition would be started immediately after the framing of the Rules and necessary communications were attached alongwith the same. 14. Respondent No.6 sought to impugn the order dated 27.01.2016 by way of CM-10303-CWP-2017 regarding the decision to acquire the land, which was dismissed on 31.07.2017 giving him liberty to avail his appropriate remedy as it was not permissible in the present set of proceedings. Proceedings were deferred on 16.08.2017 on the pretext of the Rules to be framed. On 15.01.2018, additional affidavit of Dr. Saket Kumar, Special Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department was filed giving list of various officials who had dealt with the matter and reiterating that the process for acquisition of the released land has been initiated by the State. Similarly, affidavit dated 01.05.2018 of Sh. Rohtash Singh Kharb, Special Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department was filed that the acquired land was demarcated and all necessary information has been done, which was followed up by another affidavit dated 10.09.2018 by the said official that the value of the land was assessed at Rs.53,00,000/- per acre and the price of total land measuring 14 acres 4 kanals and 4 marlas comes out to Rs.7,69,82,500/-. The value of the 13 pucca houses was assessed at Rs.2,32,00,000/- and one tube well at Rs.2,00,000/- and 70 trees were assessed at Rs.6,19,000/- and total sum of Rs.10,10,01,500/- had been requested by the Director General of Police, Haryana and the administrative approval had been accorded vide letter dated 10.09.2018. 15. Respondent Nos.8 to 16 filed a short reply that the inspection of the land had been done and there existed a water course which separated the land from the rest of the land sought to be acquired and it would be difficult to use and utilize the land of the answering respondents. The applications for impleading respondent Nos.8 to 16 and 17 to 23 were then allowed on 14.11.2019. The interim order dated 01.06.2011 was vacated on 06.03.2020 and it was observed that mere pendency of the petition would not be hindrance for further development as none had put in appearance for the petitioners. The interim order adjourning the proceedings was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP Nos. 15750-51 in Roop Chand's case whereby status quo was sought and directions were issued on 08.10.2021 to take up the matter on an early date. On 26.11.2021, status quo as it existed on the said date was ordered to be maintained till the next date of hearing. Angoori Devi also filed an affidavit justifying that there was no contiguity of land as such in challenging the decision to acquire the land. 16. On 08.12.2021, the State had a change of heart in the affidavit filed by the then Additional Chief Secretary, Sh. Rajiv Arora wherein, the issue raised was that if a decision is taken to acquire the land, it would amount to the private respondents getting higher compensation in terms of the 2013 Act and, thus, would give benefit to those who had got unlawful benefit by extraneous means and the ultimate sufferer would be the State exchequer. Resulantly, fall back was made that there should be a deemed award for the land which has already been released while placing reliance upon the judgment in Rameshwar and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2018) 6 SCC 215 The respondent No.6 then filed a counter affidavit objecting to the said proposal of the State in justifying the earlier proceedings and suggesting various other options which was again propped up by Angoori Devi, w/o Dhoop Singh. Arguments 17. Mr. Arguments 17. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, alongwith other counsels, appearing for the petitioners have primarily argued on the principle of equality as such that once land measuring 14.53 acres has been released from acquisition, similar benefit should also be granted to them on the ground of parity as such. It has also been argued that apparently it has been noticed time and again that there is no contiguity with Pockets B and C and, therefore, the purpose as such to acquire the land for the purposes of extension of the Police Lines would be frustrated as it was bifurcated by a minor. It is accordingly contended that if the principles of release have to be applied, then same has to be done evenly and reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Hari Ram and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2010 (2) SCR 756 to submit that equality was also the right of the petitioners as action of the State has to be fair and for legitimate reasons. Government could not pick and choose some land owners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to the others by creating artificial distinctions in view of Division Bench judgment in Devdutt and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (3) PLJ 363. It is accordingly further contended that there is no specific denial that survey under Section 4 of the Act was carried out or not while referring to the interim order dated 11.10.2012 passed in the proceedings. Accordingly, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in CWP No. 3550 of 1990, Risal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 09.11.2011 wherein, it was held that in the absence of proper and adequate survey and planning before embarking upon the acquisition and notifying to start acquisition of land far larger than required and then making arbitrary deletions and withdrawal from acquisition could not be justified. 18. 18. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently argued on the strength of the additional affidavit dated 08.12.2021 now filed, that if acquisition is to be done of the land which was earlier released on 15.09.2021, it would amount to enriching the said land owners as admittedly they are benefitted on account of the reports which were allegedly procured at the behest of the interested person namely Angoori Devi through her husband Dhoop Singh, Halqa Kanungo, who forwarded the said report. It is submitted that there was a collusion as such with the revenue officials which has led to the wrongful dropping of proceedings and, therefore, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction while placing reliance upon the judgment in Rameshwar's case (supra) and Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 378 . It is accordingly argued that the principle of equality is not a negative concept as such and merely because a wrong benefit was granted to someone else, the other person cannot illegally get the same by placing reliance upon the judgments in Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 ; Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1996) 1 SCC 334 ; Shanti Sports Club and another v. UOI and others, (2009) 15 SCC 705 ; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, (2010) 11 SCC 455 and Baswaraj and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 . It has accordingly been brought to our notice that some of the sale deeds were executed between 2008 to 2010 and after the date of issuance of Section 4 notification while referring to Annexure P-15. 19. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the private respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there are more than 82 persons who are now owners of the land which was released and not all of them are party and, therefore, no adverse order can be passed in their absence without impleading all of them as respondents. It is accordingly contended that once possession was never taken, the State was always at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition while referring to Section 48 of the 1894 Act. It is accordingly contended that once possession was never taken, the State was always at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition while referring to Section 48 of the 1894 Act. It is accordingly argued that it is a policy decision and once the State had taken a decision, there could be no such ground even if objections under Section 5A of the Act were not filed as it was on the basis of a report received that there were some constructed houses standing in the land which was sought to be acquired. Reliance was placed upon judgment in Bahori Lal v. Land Acquisition Officer and others, AIR 1970 Allahabad 414 and two judgments of the co-ordinate Benches Krishan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2004) 1 RCR (Civil) 385 and CWP No. 9160 of 2013, Beer Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 16.07.2013. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in M/s. Anand Buttons v. State of Haryana and others, (2005) 9 SCC 164 that the Court would not pass any adverse order against persons who were not party. Reference was made to the communication dated 26.02.2009 addressed to the Financial Commissioner by the Director General of Police that there was application of mind as such at the highest level and objections had been raised but in spite of that, land had been released and, thus, no fault can be found as such in the said decision taken earlier. Reliance was placed upon subsequent policy dated 26.10.2007 (Annexur R-3/1) that the Government had the power to release the land under Section 48(1) of the Act under exceptionally justifiable circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. It was accordingly submitted that there was never any challenge raised to the benefit granted to the private respondents who have now been impleaded and, therefore, the argument of the State as such that the relief which had not been prayed for could not be allowed as a Court could not grant the relief which had not been asked for. Reliance was accordingly placed upon the judgment in Manohar Lal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ugrasen (D) by L.Rs. and others, (2010) 11 SCC 557 . Question Arising For Consideration: 20. Reliance was accordingly placed upon the judgment in Manohar Lal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ugrasen (D) by L.Rs. and others, (2010) 11 SCC 557 . Question Arising For Consideration: 20. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the State can now hide behind its earlier decision wherein, out of the 26.23 acres of land notified for acquisition admittedly, it had de-notified and had released 14.53 acres of land, which if now acquired, would give rise to different rate of compensation to similarly placed land owners. Our Findings: 21. The original file for the said release has also been produced by the State. A perusal of the same would go on to show that initially 55 acres 7 kanals and 11 marlas of land had been sought to be acquired, which had run into the first round of litigation which went upto the Apex Court and two large chunks of land as such had been released measuring 32 kanals (4 acres) belonging to Rajinder Shah and 77 kanals and 8 marlas (9.7 acres) belonging to Baba Vishwa Nath Puri vide order dated 02.05.2012. It was thereafter the notification was issued on 12.09.2008 under Section 4 of the Act, which was followed up by the notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 05.06.2009 apparently to make good the shortage of land which had also occurred. The requirement as such was that on account of the fact that the land was required for expansion of Police Lines and, therefore, the requirement was for acquiring the additional land. An adverse report as such was put up that no objections under Section 5A of the Act had been filed on the application filed by Shingara Singh. Accordingly, it was opined that it was not possible to release the land and request had been made to the SDM for the valuation of the land, tube-well and the other houses on the land. Resultantly, proposal was given that for payment of compensation of land, houses and trees also, the DGP should be given the option by the concerned Secretary on 18.06.2010. The case was again put up on 03.08.2010 with orders that the earlier position be seen and a clear proposal be sent. Resultantly, proposal was given that for payment of compensation of land, houses and trees also, the DGP should be given the option by the concerned Secretary on 18.06.2010. The case was again put up on 03.08.2010 with orders that the earlier position be seen and a clear proposal be sent. The report of the Tehsildar was also noticed that there were four pucca houses constructed in the year 2006 in Murabba No: 153//1/2, 10/1, 10/2 and 11 and also two houses in Murabba No: 154//6, 15 which were constructed in the year 2007 and as per the spot inspection, foundation of 20 plots was found filled which was done from January, 2008 to March, 2008. Resultantly, the file was put up before the then Chief Minister for orders if the land is to be released as per recommendations by concerned Secretary and the Financial Commissioner (Home) on 01.09.2010. Eventually, a noting was arrived at on 10.09.2010 by the Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister that the approval has been granted for the release of the land under reference in view of the fact that houses/structure exist on this land prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 22. From a perusal of the above, it would thus be clear that the objection as such of the Police Department, the beneficiary of the said acquisition and the land for whom was sought to be acquired, was brushed aside. It was noted as such that the cost of the land was to be Rs.18,00,000/- per acre for prime land and Rs.10,00,000/- for normal land. Apparently, the release order was passed on 15.09.2010, which had led to the present litigation being initiated. The petitioners had been granted the benefit of status quo order on 01.06.2011 while noting that the release was apparently to do a favour to the persons who had filed the application and directions had been issued that construction was to be maintained as far as the land of the petitioners is concerned and also of those land owners whose land had been exempted from acquisition. The award was then passed on 02.06.2011. The award was then passed on 02.06.2011. Though the said award has not been placed on record but a copy of the same would go on to show that it was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Collector, Kaithal that CWP Nos.9213 and 10432 of 2011 had been filed by Roop Chand and others and Sohan Lal and others, respectively and dispossession had been stayed but on account of the fact that the copy of the orders could not be produced since it was passed only a day earlier, the Collector proceeded to pass the Award and assessed the land value at Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. The possession of the vacant land was given to the acquiring department except the land involved in the above two cases. In the Award itself also, it has been mentioned that the Government had released 14.53 acres of land and only 11.70 acres of land was being acquired out of the 26.23 acres. The number of houses in the area obviously increased taking advantage of the situation as at the initial time, 6 pucca houses were found constructed whereas, in the affidavit dated 08.05.2012, the number of houses went upto 13 and similarly the foundations of the plots from 20 went upto 28. Throughout the litigation, the State has been propagating that the report as such was on the basis of a proper verification done of the actual situation at the site and the release order had been justified. The Deputy Commissioner, in its enquiry report, had justified that the release of land from acquisition was on account of scattered habitation and which report was not approved by this Court on 11.10.2012 and it was held prima facie mechanical. Only in the affidavit dated 07.11.2012, the Additional Chief Secretary had then admitted that no report/document existed in respect of the survey of the land in question in the year 2002 or thereafter before publication of Section 4 notification. Accordingly, the plea taken was that on the recommendations made by the authorities, the competent authority had approved the release of land. It was on 07.10.2014, the decision was apparently taken that land would be acquired in all the three pockets which was on the directions of this Court that a Committee be constituted. Accordingly, the plea taken was that on the recommendations made by the authorities, the competent authority had approved the release of land. It was on 07.10.2014, the decision was apparently taken that land would be acquired in all the three pockets which was on the directions of this Court that a Committee be constituted. Apparently, the valuation of land has now been assessed at Rs.53,00,000/- per acre, which would be clear from the affidavit dated 01.05.2018 and, therefore, the State had a change of heart to now argue that the release was vitiated and now submits that the responsibility lies upon this Court to ensure that no one is prejudiced. The policy which, thus, the State is following apparently falls within the ambit of the observations of the Apex Court made in Hari Ram's case (supra) wherein, it was held that "you show me the face and I will show you the Rule". A large chunk of land which was as such contiguous and falling on the other side of the minor but having access to the road next to the railway line and having a nominal construction at that point of time in the form of 6 built up houses had been dropped on the basis of report which came and was verified from the lowest level and unfortunately was also handled by a beneficiary. The State had taken no redressal steps for withdrawal of the release order dated 15.09.2010. The petitioners are similarly situated as majority of the land on an earlier occasion was also lying vacant but the said aspect was never considered and only a large chunk of land was released frustrating the whole purpose of acquisition. 23. We have also examined the photographs now produced before us taken through drones which would go on to show that had the land at Pockets 'A' and 'C' and the released land and Pocket 'B' been uniformly acquired, the present situation would not have arisen. The land falling in Pockets A, C and B is lying vacant in the form of agricultural in nature apparently on account of the interim order granted by this Court whereas there are as many as 12 built up houses of reasonable size now existing, half of which apparently have come up during the course of litigation also in spite of the interim orders passed. The argument which is raised that Pockets 'A' and 'C' cannot be as such utilized is without any basis as it would be easy for the State to amalgamate Pocket 'A' at least, which is adjoining the present Police Lines. Pocket 'C' lies across the irrigation channel which can also be bridged easily if the State wants to do so. Pocket 'B' can only be utilized provided the land which was released is also acquired to consolidate all the four pockets. It is for the State to take a decision as such as to what it proposes to do. However, one fact remains that the beneficiaries as such of the release would be entitled for higher compensation, which has now been assessed as noticed, whereas the petitioners as such would get a paltry amount of Rs.18,00,000/- per acre as per the amount then assessed. The discrimination thus is rampant as even the solatium aspect would be 100% in comparison under the 2013 Act. There would be other statutory benefits and the land which had then been released, their owners would be unduly benefitted. Apparently, the State did not carry out the survey in its proper manner after issuance of Section 4 notification, which would also be clear from the affidavits now filed which maintain a studied silence regarding the survey carried out after the Section 4 notification. If the said survey had been carried out, the factual aspect as to when all the houses had been constructed would have come forth and the subsequent construction could have been identified. Resultantly, the observations of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswami v. Bangalore Development Authority and others, (2010) 7 SCC 129 have been violated before embarking upon the acquisition, not once but twice. The argument raised by the State that the land which is now the subject matter of acquisition and of the present litigation does not have any construction on it is also without any basis as even on the land which has been released measuring 123 kanals and 7 marlas, there was scanty construction but in spite of that, the same was got released. Even a perusal of the site plan would go on to show that the benefit of release has been taken and plotting has been neatly done and plots had been cut out taking benefit of the fact that there is an approach road parallel to the railway line and providing easy access to the land from the other side. If this land had been acquired in a one large chunk, which was the initial proposal, the Police Department would have been benefitted as such on account of the same fact that approach could also be from the other side to the Police Lines and for effective utilization of the land, which initially it had in mind. The State authorities, thus, had let down their own department at the hands of a petty revenue official who has complicated the issue and created several hurdles to the extent that the State Government had justified the release on all occasions before taking a different stand at the end of the litigation over a decade. The old adage that "the lowest revenue officials entry into a revenue record cannot be shaken or removed by the highest officials" has come true. 24. The argument raised by the State in such circumstances cannot be accepted as apparently the State has chosen not to withdraw its order dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P-3) whereby the land was released though now it is submitted that it was a colourable exercise of power by the then Chief Minister. It is also to be noticed that there is neither any challenge by any of the land owners to the said release and nor all the land owners are party who were the beneficiaries as such and, therefore, it is not for this Court to pass any order adverse to the owners of the said land as neither any relief has been claimed in the present writ petitions against them. As noticed, apart from some respondents who have got themselves impleaded, there are 82 owners who would be affected and, therefore, the argument raised by Mr. Mittal that there should be deemed Award for all the land would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances. As noticed, apart from some respondents who have got themselves impleaded, there are 82 owners who would be affected and, therefore, the argument raised by Mr. Mittal that there should be deemed Award for all the land would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances. The judgment in Rameshwar's case (supra) has been passed in different facts and circumstances in as much as that the acquisition had been initiated with a mala fide intention to divulge the land owners of their valuable and fertile land at throw away prices under the threat of acquisition to certain private builders and thereafter dropping the acquisition proceedings just two days before the date fixed for declaration of the Award. It is in such circumstances the Apex Court held, while rejecting the plea of the builders, that the transactions entered by the land owners and the builders/private entities was not voluntary and it was grabbed by fraudulent influence. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that there was fraud of power, it was held that it is necessary to set aside such exercise of power so that there is no unjust enrichment directly or indirectly and there was full and substantial restoration. Accordingly, directions were issued that the land covered under the deemed Award passed would vest in HUDA/HSIDC, free from all incumbrances and the State Authorities were thus liable to take possession forthwith. The facts in that case were totally different. 25. Similarly, in Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd.'s case (supra), the release orders in favour of the builders in respect of the land covered by the Award in exercise of power under Section 48 were initiated by noting that the findings recorded by this Court that there was abuse of power in releasing the land in favour of the builder was justified and the transfer of land by the land owners to the builders was without any authority of law and by colourable exercise of power. It was noticed that it was inappropriate to release the land in favour of the builder by permitting the builder to take over the acquired property and granting license for colonization on the land covered by acquisition. It was noticed that it was inappropriate to release the land in favour of the builder by permitting the builder to take over the acquired property and granting license for colonization on the land covered by acquisition. The judgments relied on the principle of negative equality as such thus would not be applicable as the State, all along, has been taking the stand that the release was on valid grounds as per the reports received which have been noticed in Para Nos.8 to 13. 26. Rather, the judgment of the Apex Court in Hari Ram's case (supra) would apply wherein also the Joint Inspection Committee did not recommend the release of land from acquisition. Resultantly, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the land owners were similarly situated and have a right of similar treatment by the State Government and the State Government cannot pick and choose some land owners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other land owners by creating artificial distinction. Resultantly, directions were issued by allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the State Government rejecting the claim and asking the State to pass appropriate orders on the same terms and conditions as has been done in the case of others and saving only the lay out plans which forms part of roads and common sites for public utilities. The relevant portion in Hari Ram's case (supra) reads thus:- "24............It is equally true that a landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose by following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition but where the State Government exercises its power under Section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule of law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition proceedings and for same public purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory. More so, it is not even the case of the respondents that release of land from acquisition in favour of various landowners, as noticed above, was in violation of any statutory provision or actuated with ulterior motive or done due to some mistake or contrary to any public interest. As a matter of fact, vide order dated August 19, 2008, this Court gave an opportunity to the State Government to consider the representations of the appellants for release of their land and pass appropriate order but the State Government considered their representations in light of the policy dated October 26, 2007 ignoring and overlooking the fact that for none of the landowners whose lands have been released from acquisition, the policy dated October 26, 2007 was applied. The State Government has sought to set up make believe grounds to justify its action that development planning has been kept into consideration and that the appellants have been offered developed plots of double the area of construction while the fact of the matter is that in some cases where the plots were vacant and had no construction, the entire plot has been released from acquisition and also the cases where one room or two rooms construction was existing, the whole of plot has been released. While releasing land of more than 40 landowners having plots of size from 150 sq. yards to 1500 sq. yards, if development plan did not get materially disturbed in the opinion of the State Government, the same opinion must hold good for the appellants' lands as well. While releasing land of more than 40 landowners having plots of size from 150 sq. yards to 1500 sq. yards, if development plan did not get materially disturbed in the opinion of the State Government, the same opinion must hold good for the appellants' lands as well. It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering representations of the appellants by applying the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their land under the same acquisition proceedings. If this Court does not correct the wrong action of the State Government, it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State Government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The action of State Government in treating the present appellants differently although they are situated similar to the landowners whose lands have been released can not be countenanced and has to be declared bad in law." 27. It is to be noticed that the land which was released by order dated 15.09.2010 had only scattered habitation in the form of 6 houses in 14.53 acres and there were only some foundations and some plotting had been done. The report of the Deputy Commissioner produced in Para No.8 would go on to show that there was only 13 pucca houses which was also four years post the Section 4 notification and as noticed, in view of the litigation, people have raised construction during the pendency of the same and plotting has taken place. The majority of the land there was vacant land and only foundations of plots were there and, therefore, without filing the objections also, the benefit had been granted and the same is now being sought by the present petitioners. 28. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the grouse of the petitioners is well justified and by dismissing their writ petitions, it would only enhance the feeling of discrimination that certain sections are benefitted who got the land released which is more than 50% which was sought to be acquired initially. 28. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the grouse of the petitioners is well justified and by dismissing their writ petitions, it would only enhance the feeling of discrimination that certain sections are benefitted who got the land released which is more than 50% which was sought to be acquired initially. In such circumstances, we feel that in the interest of justice, it would be equitable and to balance the equities inter se, the acquisition as such based on Sections 4 and 6 notifications dated 12.09.2008 and 05.06.2009, respectively and which eventually led to the award dated 02.06.2011 being passed cannot be sustained on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was a blatant colourable exercise of power by the State authorities regarding the release of land, which has destroyed the fabric of the planning and affected development of the area and construction of the Police Lines for providing proper infrastructure to the department. If some body is to be blamed, it is the State authorities themselves and now they cannot as such fire the gun from the shoulder of the Court by falling back on the judgments which have been relied upon. 29. As noticed above, the land owners were successful to get an order of status quo on 01.06.2011 which is continuing till now and had only been vacated for a short period on 06.03.2020 and which was restored on 26.11.2021 in view of the fact that the land owners had approached the Apex Court also against vacation of the said order. 30. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the land owners have had the benefit of interim protection, we are of the considered opinion that they are also entitled for the same amount of compensation which the State is now proposing to grant to the other land owners who had got the land released and the assessment of which is now fixed at Rs.53,00,000/-per acre, which was also way back on 01.05.2018. Therefore, it would be a travesty of justice that one set of land owners who were agitating for their rights would get only Rs.20,00,000/- per acre whereas the ones who got their land released would be beneficiaries of a higher market value apart from the fact that they would also get the benefits under the 2013 Act and the solatium would also correspondingly jump up to the extent of 100%. 31. Resultantly, we reject the argument of the State and allow the writ petitions. The notification dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Act and the notification dated 05.06.2009 issued under Section 6 of the Act and the resultant Award dated 02.06.2011 which is passed during the pendency of the present writ petitions in spite of the interim order passed are quashed. Liberty is given to the State if it wishes to acquire all the land as per its utility and feasibility at the present point of time, it is open to do so. The said exercise will also facilitate equal amount of compensation to be paid to one and all. The original record be returned to counsel for the State.