making the offer of release, deemed it imperative to delve deeper. 39. A perusal of the original record casts a cloud of doubt on the legal necessity of the entire exercise and has disappointed us regarding the manner in which the State Government’s decision to release the land has been taken. The record reveals that this issue was first discussed in the letter dated 08.09.2023, in which the Appellant (HUDA) noted on record that the land in question cannot be spared. Nevertheless, the Appellant deferred the final decision to the State government. This note was authored by an official in the rank of an Assistant. Following this, the file moved with remarkable celerity and received approval from various departments and officials, including as high as the office of the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development on the very same 25date. Unfortunately, none of the officers thought it appropriate to write even a single word while agreeing with the proposal to release the land. This rapid