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 construction was duly authorized, and consequently, the Competent Authority was justified in repudiating the Appellant’s objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. (b) The Collector did not recommend the release of the Respondents’ land. He merely stated that the State Government may consider such release. The issue of exemption from acquisition was consequently left open for consideration by the Competent Authority. (c) Even if it is assumed that the Collector recommended the release of the land, it would not bind the State Government. After due inspection, the High-Powered Committee had determined that the construction was unauthorized and not in conformity with the Developmental Plan. The State Government, therefore, committed no error on disagreeing with the Collector and proceeding