ORDER 1. Counsel for the petitioners fairly tells us that a no-objection certificate was issued as early as on 15-1-1991. The suggestion that it was under f pressure and threat of a contempt proceeding is made out from the record. 2. We agree that two alternatives are open under the scheme of the legislation: (i) the Union of India through the appropriate authority could buy the property, or (ii) in the event of its decision not to buy, it has to issue a "no-objection certificate" leaving it open to the parties to deal with the property. In that view of the matter, the High Court was right in its g conclusion. The special leave petition is dismissed. No costs. Court Masters