was put up in the land with the approval of the authority cannot be a bar for acquisition of the land. Public interest overrides individual 6 NOIDA v. Darshan Lal Bohra, 2024 SCC Online SC 1690. 7 Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164. 8 (2014) 15 SCC 410, para 8. 18interests. In our view, the High Court was not justified in saying that the acquisition is bad since permission was earlier granted for change of land use and developing the area as an industry and that the Government is estopped from initiating acquisition proceeding” [Emphasis supplied] 26. The existence of constructions on the Respondents’ land, whether authorized or not, legal or not, cannot be by themselves an absolute embargo on the Government’s power of eminent domain. The challenge brought by the Respondents on the anvil of Section 5A of the 1894 Act, therefore, falls flat. D.2. Discrimination and Article 14 of our Constitution 27. In addition to seeking refuge under Section 5A of the 1894 Act,