asserting that the structures were unauthorized. A declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 16.03.2000 to acquire both the land and the constructions thereon. 6. Aggrieved, the Respondents approached the High Court, pleading that their objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act had not been appropriately considered. 7. Subsequently, vide the impugned judgement dated 15.07.2008, the High Court allowed the Respondents’ writ petition and quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. This finding stood on two primary legs: (i) the 3Respondents’ objections were wrongfully rejected as the constructions were duly authorized; and (ii) it was discriminatory to acquire the Respondents’ land when similarly situated land belonging to Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘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