Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the averments made by the petitioners in support of the first plea are totally vague and evasive. If the averments made in the writ petition are to be believed, the land of private builders was released in the years 2006-2007. Thus the plea of discrimination, in our considered view, cannot be entertained at this belated stage. As regard the release order passed in the year 2012, prima-facie, it appears that plots measuring a few hundred square yards of some individuals were released as they had constructed their houses. The Government Policy envisages to release the structures which are found to be in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have not approached the authorities at any stage for the release of their acquired land under the Government Policy. They have directly rushed to this Court after 7-8 years of acquisition of their land. As regard to nonutilization of the petitioners' land for any public purpose, we are of the considered view that non-utilization of the land perse would not entitle the petitioners to seek the release of acquired land. Since the acquisition was made for a public purpose, it is imperative upon respondent Nos.1 to 4 to utilize the acquired land for one or the other public purposes only. We direct them so not to release the land of the petitioners in favour of a private builder and/or for the benefit of any
