‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh had been exempted from acquisition. 8. Discontented with the quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, the Appellant—beneficiary of the acquisition, is before us in these appeals. This Court, vide order dated 01.09.2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo which is operating till date. B. CONTENTIONS 9. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General of Haryana, appearing on behalf of the Appellant— beneficiary of the acquisition contended that the High Court erred in quashing the aforementioned notifications. In support of this assertion, he made the following submissions: (a) The constructions undertaken by the Respondents were unauthorized. Although permission was granted by the Commissioner, Ambala, it was conditioned on the Respondents submitting the building plan. However, there is 4no evidence substantiating that such a plan was ever submitted. Hence it cannot be presumed that the