Furthermore, the acquisition proceedings do not violate the provisions of the Punjab Periphery Act. 10. Per contra, Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Learned Senior Counsels representing the Respondents, have supported the impugned judgement by arguing that: (a) The burden of proving that the constructions were not supported by the building plan lies on the Appellant. Since the same has not been proved, there cannot be any adverse presumption against the legality of the construction. In any case, as confirmed by the order dated 05.04.1994 of the ADJ, 6the Appellant was not obligated to seek any permission and hence, non-submission of the building plan is not material. (b) There is a flagrant violation of Section 5A as the Respondents’ objections have not been considered in accordance with law. Since Section 5A of the 1894 Act provides a valuable safeguard to an expropriated land owner, it warrants mandatory compliance and cannot be treated as an