barred under the Punjab Periphery Act. 22. However, the Respondents’ strategy of arguing that their constructions were authorized (being agricultural), while simultaneously seeking exemption from acquisition on the ground that their lands were subserving the same intention as the acquisition (being residential), is not only contradictory but also ill-advised. Furthermore, in first placing themselves at par with the object of acquisition, and then vitiating that very purpose by claiming that it contravenes the Punjab Periphery Act, the Respondents have effectively shot themselves in the foot. 1623. The Respondents have also failed to discharge their burden of proof. They have not produced any reliable material to prove that the constructions on their land were authorized, and if anything, have further created doubts, as to whether these structures are indeed permitted under the auspices of the Punjab Periphery Act. 24. On the contrary, there is ample material on record to show that the