more lands. The latter approach only furthers the discrimination and creates more aggrieved landowners. Moreover, it is settled law that Article 14 cannot be ordinarily employed as a ground to claim negative equality, i.e., it cannot be used for claiming illicit benefits simply because someone else has been allowed such an undue favour, especially when doing so would 9 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 1964 SCC Online SC 121, para 11. 20jeopardize the entire acquisition by undermining its contiguity.10 Therefore, instead of multiplying the illegality, the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to annul such illicit benefit received by the similarly placed person.11 31. Third, and most crucially, the illegality, if any, has since been remedied. It could not be disputed before us that the land of Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh had been subsequently acquired through notifications dated 16.05.2007 and 27.03.2008. The very