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 procedure contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act has been complied with? 8ii. Whether the land acquisition proceedings deserve to be vitiated on the ground that similarly placed landowners have been treated differently? iii. Whether the instant appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of the subsequent developments like `settlement’ between the parties? iv. Whether doctrine of merger is attracted in view of the fact that State appeals against the same impugned judgment have already been dismissed? D. ANALYSIS D.1 Evaluation of objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act 12. The focal contention of the Respondent-landowners is that the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated and ought to be quashed as they were carried out in violation of Section 5A of the 1894 Act,