Arbitrary land acquisition exclusion: unequal treatment of similarly situated lands required reconsideration after hearing the owners.

Refusal to exclude lands with existing structures from acquisition was found arbitrary and discriminatory where similarly situated nearby lands had been excluded without any material basis for the alleged A, B and C classification of structures or any shown rational nexus with planned development. The absence of a disclosed intelligible differentia justified the challenge to unequal treatment, and the decision was set aside for reconsideration. The appellants were also required to be heard before any fresh decision on their objections is taken.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's refusal to exclude the appellants' lands having existing structures from acquisition was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Analysis: The acquisition was for planned development, and the record showed that some lands with structures had been excluded while the appellants' similar request was rejected. No material was placed to justify the alleged classification of structures into A, B and C classes, nor to show that such classification had an intelligible differentia or a rational nexus with the purpose of acquisition. The absence of a disclosed basis for treating nearby similarly situated lands differently rendered the rejection of the appellants' request unfair and unreasonable. The direction to reconsider the objections also required that the appellants be heard before a fresh decision is taken.

Conclusion: The refusal to exclude the appellants' lands was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered with an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

---