was 952.18 acres, out of which land admeasuring 950.14 acres eventually stood acquired. The acquisition of 99.78% of the initially notified land demonstrated the intention of the State to acquire the land uniformly, and not pick and choose individual parcels of land. 29. A mere plea regarding differential treatment is insufficient; the claimant must instead demonstrate that similarly placed classes had been treated dissimilarly, unjustifiably.9 The burden lies on the Respondents to not only prove disparate treatment of equals, but that it amounts to hostile discrimination as well. 30. Second, we disagree with the remedy, even if discrimination was to have been established. The solution to some lands being unjustifiably left out is to direct their acquisition, not encourage the exclusion of 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