". . . HOWEVER, the petitioner/applicant is at liberty to make any representation to the authorities for getting the land released and it is for the authorities to examine whether in view of the modern sports complex having been brought into existence in the land in question could it serve the public purpose of acquiring this land for that particular scheme or the scheme is liable to be modified or amended in respect of the land in question. . . . "we have given serious consideration to the aforesaid submission. The much needed housing project, which is required for large number of applicants, is one of the considerations for the impugned decision. The decision making authority had given primacy and preference to the housing project over the sports dub. Such a consideration is implicit in the decision itself. It was not necessary to state the obvious. It is well settled that right to shelter is a fundamental right [see New Reviera Coop. Housing society and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 1 Supreme court Cases 731]. In view of this position, preference given to the housing project over the sports club cannot be frowned upon as the State is fulfilling t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document