(1) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition out of which these appeals arise relying upon its decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of Haryana. In a large number of cases disposed of by this court already this court has disapproved the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta case and set aside the orders of the High court by which it had quashed the acquisition proceedings which had been completed several years prior to the date on which the petitions were presented before it. We are of the view that there was no justification to set aside the acquisition proceedings impugned in these cases. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High court and dismiss the Writ Petition filed before the High court.

(2) IT is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners in the High court) that some of the respondents have constructed some shop buildings on the land in question subsequent to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings and that this court should direct the Faridkot Improvement Trust to consider whether the land on which the shop buildings are standing may be rele