( 24 ) ON the basis of the notings contained in the order aforesaid, Mr. Lekhi contended that it was to be seen from the material placed on record whether subsequent Minister before reversing the. order had any material before him which necessitated the change of the view. As every actor is bound by rules and there has to be strong reason based on policy to disagree with the view of previous Minister in a democratic set up in a parliamentary democracy governed by principle of collective responsibility which is absent in the order passed by the subsequent minister.

( 25 ) MR. Lekhi has contended that once an order was passed by Mr. Ram jethmalani on 13. 4. 1999 and a draft notification was also prepared, it was only to be published by a Clerk in the Ministry and on that basis he has contended that it became, a promise and the respondent cannot take shelter that that document/ noting was in the file of the Government which was neither known nor announced to anyone. In his support Counsel for the petitioner has cited Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and Am. v. State a/punjab and Am. , (1992) 2 SCC 411.

( 26 ) MR. Lekhi has contended that in view of note of 5. 4. 1999 by the Under. Secretary of the Union Government a conscious decision was taken. The note is reproduced below:

"the case on file relates to the request of Shri Moti Goel on behalf of villages/ land owners of village Kotia Mahigiran, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi for deacquisition of land. The case in brief is that one Shri Moti Goel on behalf of the villagers/land owners of village Kotia Mahigiran, Tehsil Mehrauli, New delhi submitted a Representation dated 21. 5. 1994 to the then UDM requesting for the release of land from acquisition. Before taking a view on this request, a report was called for from DDA and GNTCD vide our letters at page l8/cand page 54/c respectively. GNCTD intimated us that comments of DDA have been called in the matter. (Ps. 73-74/c ). In its letter dated 1. 5. 1995, DDA intimated the details of the case and also stated that the land in question formed part of DDA's Residential Scheme known as Sarita Vihar and Jasola. On receipt of this reply of DDA, the matter was examined and put up to the then UAEM who passed the following orders on 7. 7. 1995. 'uaem has observed that even though the DDA has mentioned that this land is a part of its residential scheme know as Sarita Vihar and Jasola, they do not appear to have made an effort to get possession of land for these schemes for nearly three decades. The DDA has also not clearly stated for what purpose they intend to use the land. UAEM is, therefore, of the view that this old pending case can be closed. However, the land so released will be used by the owner for the purpose earmarked in me Master Plan/approved Layout Plan. In view of the above UAEM has directed that the matter may be taken up with government of NCT of Delhi for denotifying and release of the land immediately under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. ' 2. Notes on pages 3-10 ante may kindly be seen in this regard. Pursuant to the above orders an order was issued on 28. 7. 1995 denotifying the land in question, 3. After the issue of orders dated 28. 7. 1995, the matter was discussed by secretary (Landb), GNCTD (Mrs. Suman Swarup) with the then Additional secretary (NFS) on 1. 8. 1995. She had pointed out that the entire matter of acquisition of land in Delhi was sub judice in the High Court of Delhi and, therefore, the Ministry's action in releasing land of village Kotia Mahigiran was not proper. The matter was again examined at the level of the then UAEM and as a result of this examination, the order dated 28. 7. 1995 was withdrawn by order dated 4. 8. 1995. 4. In the meantime, both the Courts i. e. High Court and Supreme Court uphold the acquisition proceedings. 5. Shri Goel again submitted a representation which was forwarded to DDA vide this Ministry's letter dated 31. 1. 1997 for their comments. Snri Ravi Kant, commissioner (LM) vide his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document