(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) HAVING heard the counsel on both sides and given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we propose to dispose of the matter on merits. The only question is whether the appropriate government under Section (2 of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short the Act) has decided the objections raised by the claimants for further action under Section 6 of the Act. The Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation, authorised by its resolution dated 27/2/1992, the Municipal Commissioner to take appropriate action to acquire the land in question for relieving parking and traffic congestion near Surat Railway Station. On 31/7/1992, permission was granted by the Town Planning Department to the Corporation to acquire the land in question under Section 78 of the Town Planning Act. A declaration in that behalf was made. Accordingly on 29/10/1992, the Collector had published the notification under Section 4(1 of the Act. It is stated in the declaration that "the District Collector of Surat feels that the lands shown in the attached list may be required for the road and parking for the purpose of public at large by Surat Municipal Corporation". Thereafter, notice under Section 5-A was issued and the appellant had objected to the acquisition in his objections dated 4/1/19933 and 23/2/1993. Later the Land Acquisition Officer duly conducted the enquiry under Section 5-A(1 and submitted the report to the government for appropriate decision in that behalf. Here the dispute arises as to whether the decision has been taken by the State government to proceed with the acquisition or to stop further action in that behalf. It is seen that the Revenue Department of the State government had decided, as reflected in the letter dated 12-7-1993 written by the Section Officer of the Revenue Department that "taking into consideration the objection submitted by the account holder and that taking into consideration the legal position and also the Revenue circular dated 20/6/1970, notification under Section 6 cannot be sanctioned. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to do the necessary proceedings accordingly." The Ministry of Urban Development did not agree with the view of the Ministry of Revenue. Consequentially, they moved the Chief Minister to have the issue re-examined. However, before a decision was taken, the Section Officer of the Revenue Department communicated its decision to the Land Acquisition Officer to take further action as indicated above. Since action was not being taken in that behalf, the appellants have approached the High court for necessary directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned order dated 7/12/1994, made in Special Civil Application No. 7890 of 1994, the High court has held that the government had not taken the decision under Ss. (2 of Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition was rejected. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3) SHRI Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the communication sent by the Section Officer, referred to hereinbefore, read with the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief secretary of the Revenue Department which says that "I say that noting made by me in the file that (1 may be submitted to government (II) legal position being what it is, it will serve no useful purpose in discussing the issue in formal meeting with Urban Development Department (UDD) is in agreement to the noting of Shri Shamji Patel, the then Deputy secretary, Revenue Department as aforesaid". The Minister for Revenue had approved the proposal sent up by the Revenue Department on 6/7/1993 not to take further action under Section 4(1. Therefore, the citizen is made to believe that the government have taken a decision under its business rules not to proceed with the acquisition. The High court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that the decision was no