to the Respondents amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory conduct. 7(e) In any case, there is a significant subsequent development, as during the pendency of the proceedings, the State of Haryana has agreed on releasing the subject land, provided that the Respondents provide a part of the land for basic amenities free of cost and use the remaining for charitable purposes. Since the Respondents have consented to put their land to such conditional use, this Court should give effect to such a conscionable agreement between the parties and may, therefore, dismiss the instant appeals in light thereof. (f) Since this Court has dismissed the previous appeals filed by the State of Haryana against the same impugned order, the present set of appeals are not maintainable and attract the auspices of the doctrine of merger. C. ISSUES 11. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at length, we find that the following four issues are to be analysed: i. Whether the mandatory