Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- Shri Lal appearing for the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition has raised a formidable number of points, although we are unable to agree with any of them. Earlier this Special Leave Petition had been disposed of by a certain limited direction which is not being interfered with by this order but counsel perhaps rightly pointed out that he had more to say than was covered by that order and, therefore, should be accorded a fuller hearing, We have heard him exhaustively but remain unconvinced about any of the points.

2. Shri Lal contended that the land sought to be acquired from his clients, though extensive in area, was contiguous with a samadhi and, therefore, under the standing orders which have a statutory flavour (in his submission) could not be acquired without going through the exercise provided for. Since those procedures had not been followed the acquisition was bad in law. Counsel for the respondent-Trust had consented to the exclusion of two survey plots, namely, 3667 and 3668 on which the samadhi actually stood. However, the considerable extent which was owned by the institution and lay contiguous, was acquired for development purposes. The co