would be necessary, provided the land was to be utilized for agricultural purposes. However, the submissions proffered by the Respondents undermine their own case. While attempting to attack the public purpose element of the 14acquisition proceedings, they admitted that the usage of the land was not limited to ‘agricultural purposes’ and that it was intended to be ‘residential’ in nature as well. This disharmony is visible in the Respondents’ Section 5A objections: “6. That the above said land of the objector is situated adjacent to sector 4 Mansa Devi Complex and the objector has purchased this costly land with a view to set up a farm house thereon, since the purpose of Acquisition is also residential, it would be against the principal of natural justice to uproot the objector first and then to develop the same land for residential purpose meaning thereby the State would be providing residential accommodation to one of after taking away the residential land from the objector, which