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, the Respondents contend that the acquisition of their land was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They claim that the land of Maharaja Harinder Singh ‘Khalaf’ Maharaja Varinder Singh had been exempted from the acquisition. This contention was also accepted by the High Court, which held the subject-acquisition to be discriminatory in nature, for leaving out lands of similarly placed owners from the process of acquisition. 28. We find this patently erroneous, for three reasons. First, the High Court overlooked the fact that the total land proposed to be 19acquired through the Section 4 notification was 952.18 acres, out of which land admeasuring 950.14 acres eventually stood acquired. The acquisition of 99.78% of the initially notified land demonstrated the intention of the State to acquire