Allahabad High Court
Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam Nirman ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Housing & Urban ... on 11 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ALL 2198
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19608 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Housing & Urban Planning & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Gupta,Ashok Singh,Chandan Sharma,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Singh,R.S.Umrao,S.C.,Y.K.Srivastava,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
This writ petition questions the correctness of the order dated 25th January, 2010 whereby the District Magistrate, Allahabad has rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking freehold rights in favour of the petitioner society in respect of Plot No. 2 (B-2) Civil Station, Allahabad, which the petitioner claims as a matter of right in terms of the Orders dated 10.01.2002, 27.02.2003, 21.11.2005, 25.03.2008 and 18.11.2009. Further a mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent no. 3, Allahabad Development Authority to release the sanctioned map for raising constructions over the site in question.
An Amendment Application No. 190749 of 2014 has also been filed praying for quashing the Government Orders dated 28.09.2011 and 04.03.2014 contending that the said Government Orders cannot be utilized as a tool by the State Government so as to defeat the rights which have accrued to the petitioner in terms of the Government Orders already brought on record.
A counter affidavit by the State to the writ petition as well as to the amendment application has been filed disputing the stand of the petitioner on various grounds and also contending that the property in dispute was originally leased out. The lessor from whom the petitioner's society is claiming a transfer has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of the deed executed in favour of the petitioner's society. There was a direction to maintain status quo by the High Court on 8th March, 2006 in an appeal in the proceedings arising out of the said suit which may also be taken notice of.
The respondent no. 4 namely, the Nagar Nigam has also filed a counter affidavit even though it has absolutely no role to play in the matter of grant of freehold rights for which the petition has been filed.
An Impleadment Application No. 190805 of 2012 has been filed by Pushpraj Singh contending that the rights of the original lessor who is succeeded by the present applicant would be directly affected in the event of this petition being finally disposed off, and therefore, the applicant should also be heard in opposition to the writ petition. A counter affidavit to the said impleadment application has been filed disputing the stand of the applicant contending that the applicant cannot claim any rights in relation to the grant of freehold in which only the application of the petitioner is pending. A rejoinder affidavit to the said impleadment application has been filed reiterating that the suit with regard to the cancellation of the deed in favour of the petitioner is pending and in the said background, the orders passed from time to time should also be taken into account.
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma learned Senior Counsel and Sri Chandan Sharma, Advocate have advanced their submissions on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General has advanced his submissions along with Sri Nimai Das on behalf of the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri Ajit kumar Singh has also advanced his submissions on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Sri R.S. Umrao has advanced his submissions on behalf of the proposed respondent Pushpraj Singh.
We have considered the submissions raised and at the very outset, we may dispose of the two applications, one seeking amendment and the other for the impleadment, as no orders appear to have been passed on the said applications during the pendency of the writ petition.
Coming to the Amendment Application No. 190749 of 2014, the same challenges the Government Orders dated 28.09.2011 and 04.03.2014, whereby the State Government has modified the earlier procedure and method of grant of freehold rights. The petitioner contends that such Government Orders would not be applicable, inasmuch as, the same provides for a deemed rejection of pending applications if they have not been finalized. The Government Orders have been castigated as sporadic, casual and random, on the ground that the Government has not taken any action in respect of the pending applications, and to the contrary, it is proposes to defeat the rights of such applicants.
The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra, inasmuch as, the State Government has subsequently issued a Government Order on 10.01.2015 which supersedes the aforesaid Government Orders in respect of such pending applications. It has been provided for that the deeming clause of rejection would stand withdrawn and pending applications would be considered in terms of the new Government Order. The said Government Order has already been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit filed to the amendment application. There is yet another reason that deserves to be noted namely, that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2014 (2) ADJ 742 has held that by merely moving an application for grant of freehold rights, a person does not acquire a vested right. Secondly, it has been held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation is not attracted as the property has been leased out on certain terms and conditions subject to such arrangements that may be made by the State Government. Thirdly, it has been held that if an application for grant of freehold rights is to be considered, then the Government policy as existing at the time of the passing of an order granting such benefit would be applicable, and not the policy which was available at the time of moving of the application. In view of the aforesaid position of law and the promulgation of the subsequent Government Order dated 10.01.2015 the challenge raised to the Government Orders dated 28.09.2011 and 04.03.2014 are meaningless and infructuous. The amendment application is accordingly, rejected.
Coming to the Impleadment Application No. 190805 of 2012 moved by Pushpraj Singh, we find that the said applicant is the successor of the original lessor and Original Suit No. 538 of 2005 was filed for cancellation of the deed dated 23.03.1987 and sale deed dated 16.07.1988. The same is stated to have been dismissed for want of deposit of Court fees against which a Civil revision is pending before this Court. The interest of the applicant is as against the petitioner's society vis-a-vis the deed executed and relied upon by the petitioner's society. The present dispute is in relation to the grant of freehold rights. The petitioner is claiming freehold rights on the strength of the Government Order dated 10th January 2002, which clearly spells out that the petitioner's claim ought to be considered in the category of purchaser (kreta). The admitted case of the petitioner's society is that the society had obtained the deed from the predecessor in interest of the applicant which appears to be the subject matter of the original suit. The outcome of the suit or any proceeding arising therefrom, would therefore affect the rights of the petitioner's society as the Government Order dated 10th January, 2002 itself recites that the freehold rights as claimed by the petitioner is in the category of the purchaser (Kreta). In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant is a stranger to the proceedings, and therefore, instead of formally impleading the applicant, we in the exercise of the powers under Chapter 22 Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have proceeded to hear Sri R.S. Umrao on behalf of the said applicant. The Impleadment Application accordingly, stands disposed of.
The present writ petition in the aforesaid background was heard by us on 1st May, 2018 and the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. Arguments which have advanced today demonstrate that the petitioner appears to have entered into negotiation of the property with the original lessor and accordingly presented a transfer deed for being registered before the Sub Registrar on 23rd March, 1987. The said transfer deed on presentation was not registered and was stayed by the by the Sub Registrar.
On 27th May, 1987 a Government Order emanated that this permission for transfer is being granted in terms of the Government Order dated 16th October, 1986, and in the said permission one of the conditions imposed was the deposit of premium of a certain amount that was to be paid prior to the registration of the transfer deed. Second condition imposed in the Government Order is that a new lease would be created in favour of the petitioner renewable at an interval of 30 years each.
Before the said Government Order could be given effect to another Government Order was issued on 16th July, 1987 modifying the terms of deposit of the premium and allowing the petitioner to deposit the same in six-monthly instalments with the first instalment to be deposited forthwith. According to the petitioner the first instalment was tendered through Cheque on 13th October, 1987. The Government Order as modified on 16th July, 1987 also stipulated that the lease deed as per Government Order dated 27th May, 1987 should be executed on the deposit of first instalment. The lease deed was not executed nor the subsequent six monthly instalments were deposited in time.
At this juncture it appears that the Sub Registrar proceeded to register the transfer deed on 3rd December, 1987 in terms of the Government Order dated 27th May, 1987. The endorsement of the registration refers to the Government Order dated 27th May, 1987 but it no where mentions the Government Order dated 16th July, 1987.
On 31st January, 1989, the petitioner Society had already moved an application for sanction of map before the Allahabad Development Authority that was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner shall obtain a no objection certificate from the Collector.
In between, the original lessor appears to have applied for renewal and on 3rd June, 1987 lease was renewed in favour of the original lessor for thirty years with effect from 01.01.1970.
In the aforesaid background the petitioner also appears to have pursued the matter before the Allahabad Development Authority but having failed to get the no objection certificate, filed Writ Petition No. 19030 of 1992 praying for a Mandamus that the Development Authority should be commanded to release the map without insisting for the condition of no objection certificate contained therein. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed on 29th September, 1992 with the observation that grant of prior permission of the Collector to execute a transfer deed was a mere formality and further direction was issued that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent nos. 1 and 2 therein then in that event said respondents shall within two weeks' of the presentation of the judgment proceed to issue necessary directions for granting permission in relation to the execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. This was however subject to deposits that were to be made under the conditions already contained in the Government Orders issued earlier.
Against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court the State went up in appeal before the Apex Court. It is informed by Sri Chandan Sharma at the Bar that there was no interim order in operation in the special leave petition and finally on 26th July, 2001 the Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court making certain observations therein.
There is nothing on record before us to indicate as to whether the petitioner has approached the authorities for complying with the directions issued by the High Court on 29th September, 1992.
It is at this stage that another turn took place when the petitioner Society appears to have staked its claim for grant of free hold rights in respect of the property in question. It may be mentioned that the Government Orders have been issued including the Government Order dated 01.12.1998 that was in force at that time wherein grant of free hold rights were to be considered. Free hold rights could be granted in favour of the lease holder or in favour of the person nominated by the original lease holder. A copy of the said Government Order has been placed before us.
On 10th January, 2002 a fresh Government Order emanated in relation to the present dispute and same mentions two relevant facts firstly, that consideration of the grant of free hold rights of the petitioner would be considered under the category of purchaser (kreta) and second condition which is worth noticing is that the petitioner was called upon to given an undertaking that the petitioner shall not claim any right of any renewal of the lease either in pursuance of the earlier Government Orders or under orders of the High Court and the Apex Court referred to above. It was also mentioned therein that the petitioner will given an undertaking that he will not initiate proceedings of contempt or otherwise.
It is at this stage that the Court has put up a query regarding the issue of nomination in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to further study the case and then assist the Court accordingly.
As prayed, put up on Monday next i.e. 07.05.2018."
Elaborate arguments have been further advanced. The past history relating to renewal of lease rights in our opinion has become redundant, inasmuch as, even though the petitioner's society had fought the battle with regard to the renewal of lease before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 19030 of 1992 decided on 29th September, 1992 and the judgment of the High Court was not interfered with by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7397 of 1994 which was dismissed on 26th July, 2001, yet in view of the own admitted position of the petitioner society, it abandoned it's claim arising out of the said judgments as per the terms and conditions set out in the Government Order dated 10th January, 2002. Thus, according to the own case of the petitioner society it is claiming only freehold rights.
To understand the said background we may however in brief point out that the petitioner's society had got a transfer deed dated 23.03.1987 prepared and presented it before the Sub-Registrar for registration but the Sub-Registrar endorsed an order thereon that the registration will remain suspended. It appears this was done as no permission had been obtained from the Collector. Thereafter, the permission from the State Government for transfer of the lease rights in terms of the Government Order dated 16.10.1986 was sought and accordingly, the said permission was granted on 27th May, 1987 indicating certain terms and conditions of renewal of lease rights. The same also contained the conditions for deposit of the premium and lease rent for the said lease that was to be executed afresh for a period of thirty years in favour of the petitioner. It also stipulated that the lease shall be issued afresh in the name of the petitioner. The said Government Order dated 27th May, 1987 was modified on 16th July, 1987 permitting the petitioner's society to deposit the entire amount in six-monthly installments. The petitioner admittedly tendered one cheque but did not make the entire payments as per the said term fixed for renewal. Permission was granted by the Allahabad Development Authority for sanction of map but a rider was put therein that a no objection certificate should be obtained from the Collector. The payments made by the petitioner for grant of lease gains relevance as the said amount is sought to be adjusted against the amount payable for freehold in terms of the Government Order dated 10.01.2002.
A fresh sale deed was executed on 16.07.1988 that was registered on 19th January, 1991. These facts are borne out from paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. Thus, it is this sale deed that was presented on 16.07.1988 and registered on 19.01.1991 that has been made the basis for claiming freehold rights. The cancellation of this sale deed has also been sought in the suit filed by the original lessor which is evident from the copy of the plaint that has been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit dated 17.02.2017 to the impleadment application.
The original lessor from whom the petitioner had obtained the deed referred to above was granted renewal of the lease by the State Government on 3rd June, 1989 with effect from 01.01.1970 for thirty years.
In this factual backdrop, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 19030 of 1992 contending that the map cannot be withheld by the Allahabad Development Authority and no objection from the Collector in the wake of the aforesaid facts was unwarranted. As stated above, the said writ petition was allowed and the SLP was dismissed. However this entire episode of lease renewal in favour of the petitioner society stood dissolved with the Government Order dated 10th January, 2002.
It is undisputed that after the issuance of the Government Order dated 10th January 2002, the petitioner applied for freehold on 23.01.2002. Three payments were made previously on 13.10.1987 and 27.09.1989 and again a payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.09.1989 that is a total of Rs.9,30,294.04/-. This was the amount of premium and lease rent in relation to the lease transactions which was ultimately given up by the petitioner's society under the Government order dated 10th January, 2002. It is this amount, the adjustment whereof is sought by the petitioner in his application for freehold.
On 23rd December 2006, the learned Additional Civil Judge Senior Division passed an order enhancing the Court fees payable in the suit filed by the original lessor on the strength of the market value of the property treating it to be worth Rs.25 crores. This issue of Court fees was assailed in First Appeal From Order No. 280 of 2007 by the original lessor in which the petitioner society was the respondent no. 1. It was held that the trial Court should reassess the valuation of the suit and the Court fee, if payable thereon, the order of the trial court was set aside and it was directed to pass a fresh order in this regard, the judgment is dated 13th December, 2007. As pointed out by the learned counsel, the suit has been dismissed for non-payment of court fees against which a civil revision is stated to be pending before the High Court.
The question is as to what rights can be claimed by the petitioner's society as per the material brought on record. The State Government has the ultimate authority to decide an issue relating to grant of freehold rights. It has been held that the right of a person seeking consideration of the application for grant of freehold rights is not a vested right nor does it give rise to any legitimate expectation by the Full Bench in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma (supra). Secondly, it is not the date of the application but the date of the consideration for grant of such rights which would be relevant for applying the prevalent policy.
In the aforesaid background what can be seen is that the petitioner on the strength of the sale deed of 16th July, 1988 registered on 19th January, 1991 is claiming himself to be the purchaser of the property on the basis whereof he has a right for consideration of freehold rights. The petitioner filed an application on 23rd January, 2002 praying for grant of freehold rights, keeping in view the Government Order issued on 10th January, 2002 in favour of the petitioner's society. The Government Order dated 10th January, 2002 stated that the amount of premium and lease rent already paid by the petitioner's society shall be adjusted for the purpose of calculation of the pre deposit to be made in terms of the Government Orders applicable including the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998. This pre deposit had to be made on the basis of self assessment, the principles whereof have been culled out in the said Government Order. The amount to be calculated has to be on the basis of the circle rate on the cut off date multiplied by the area of the land and further multiplied by the prescribed rate for the proposed user of the land to be converted into freehold. It is 25% of such calculation that was to form the basis of self assessment that had to be deposited for consideration of the application. A deposit through a treasury challan was a condition precedent for entertaining the application. The petitioner admittedly in his application instead of making the deposit urged that in view of the Government Order dated 10th January 2002, the amount already paid by the petitioner for grant of lease should be adjusted, and he should then be informed of the balance of the amount that is payable. Instead of depositing the 25% amount on the basis of self assessment, the petitioner raised the aforesaid query in the application dated 23rd January, 2002. The State Government issued a direction on 27th December, 2003 calling upon the District Magistrate, Allahabad to take appropriate steps for compliance of the Government Order dated 10th January, 2002 and clarified the query which had been raised in this regard.
The District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner on 26th February, 2004. The ground for rejection was that the petitioner had not deposited the 25% amount on self assessment and therefore his application cannot be considered.
The petitioner approached the State Government by filing a representation on 1st March, 2004 complaining of the fact that the District Magistrate should be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner.
The District Magistrate by the Government Order dated 21st November, 2006 was directed to proceed as per the Government Order dated 10.01.2002 holding that the rejection order dated 26.02.2004 was contrary to the earlier direction of the Government on 10.01.2002 and 27.02.2003. It was also observed that such an action of the District Magistrate questions the credibility of the State Government and its action, therefore the District Magistrate should observe a discipline that is expected from all officials who are Sub-Ordinate to the State Government. Consequently, the freehold proceedings should be processed accordingly.
At this stage, it may be noticed that the society appears to have entered into an agreement to sale with Sri Bal Krishna Agarwal, Sri Anand Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Beena Agarwal, Smt. Parul Agarwal, Sri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Pratima Agarwal negotiating the property in question with them. On the basis of this agreement to sale, the abovenamed Agarwals' filed a Writ Petition No. 77818 of 2005 praying for grant of freehold rights in their favour and in the alternative to reimburse a sum of Rs.7,52,000/- for the loss suffered by them on account of the demolition of the boundary wall. Further reliefs of non interference with their possession was also sought. Another writ petition was filed by Rajendra Kumar Agarwal along with the petitioner society being Writ Petition No. 11017 of 2008 praying for grant of freehold rights after adjusting the amount already deposited by the petitioner's society.
During the said period, the District Magistrate had again raised a query, keeping in view the filing of Writ Petition No. 77818 of 2005 from the State Government on which a D.O. letter was issued by the Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Department on 25th March, 2008 calling upon the District Magistrate that there was no occasion to treat the application of the petitioner society as redundant. So far as the payments to be made by the petitioner society were concerned, the District Magistrate could have himself got it computed. It was also pointed out therein that the amount already deposited by the petitioner should be adjusted and certain other directions were also issued with regard to the payment of annual rent and interest thereon.
The writ petitions filed by the Agarwals' referred to hereinabove were dismissed on 27th May, 2009 holding that they had no right as prospective purchasers. It was also held therein that no rights had accrued to the society on the basis of deposits earlier made and it was also noticed that the Collector had fixed the amount realizable as per the self assessment to be made as Rs.71,91,595/-. While dismissing the writ petitions, it was observed that the passing of the said judgment will not affect the rights of the petitioners to approach the authority concerned if they so desire.
The District Magistrate on 15th April, 2008 had already written to the State Government about the amount that was required to be deposited, but at the same time it had also recommended that it will not be advisable to release the land by granting freehold rights as the land was at a very prime location, and the prices of such land had spiralled, therefore keeping in view the status of the land, the State Government should re-visit the entire issue and advice the Collector accordingly. Another letter was dispatched by the District Magistrate to the Principal Secretary on 18th June, 2008 that it would be appropriate that the said land is allotted to the Allahabad Development Authority as grant of freehold rights to the petitioner's society would not be permissible, keeping in view the fact that they had not made the deposits upon self assessment and that their transaction previously was in violation of the terms of the lease. The Allahabad Development Authority made a similar request and the petitioner thereafter moved a representation on 1st October, 2009 to the District Magistrate praying that it's claim should be considered for grant of freehold rights and also requested for issuance of the demand note of Rs.71,95,595/- for registration of a deed of freehold.
The State Government on 18th November, 2009 again issued a communication stating therein that after due consideration, directions had been earlier issued for processing the freehold rights in favour of the petitioner and no reason has been found to deviate from the earlier view of the State Government.
Since the action of issuing the demand note, and then grant of freehold rights had not been executed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, the petitioner society filed Writ Petition No. 70350 of 2009 which was disposed off with a clear direction to the District Magistrate to abide by the directions of the orders issued by the State Government on 10.01.2002, 27.02.2003, 21.11.2006, 25.03.2008 and 18.11.2009. The District Magistrate was called upon to pass appropriate orders in the light of the said directions.
The impugned order dated 25th January, 2010 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit the amount as was directed for grant of lease rights nor did the petitioner make the deposit of 25% as required under the Government Order for consideration of the application for grant of freehold rights. It was also observed that the two writ petitions filed earlier were dismissed, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 11017 of 2008 and 77818 of 2005, and consequently, no case was made out for grant of any such relief. It is also observed by the District Magistrate that First Appeal No. 162 of 2006 was filed by the original lessee in a matter arising out of the suit filed for cancellation of the deed where an order of status quo had been passed on 8th March, 2006.
It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed and learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the District Magistrate has failed to comply with the orders of the State Government referred to hereinabove as also the mandamus issued by this Court on 23rd December, 2009. It is urged that the District Magistrate was bound to comply with the said directions by informing the petitioner about the exact amount to be deposited and issuing a demand note. The District Magistrate now cannot reject the claim of the petitioner by taking advantage of his own inaction by not proceeding to inform the petitioner about the amount to be deposited or issuing a demand note.
It is submitted that this entire battle which was fought by the petitioner right from the inception, clearly, indicates that the State Government had been issuing directions after directions, yet the successive District Magistrates of Allahabad had been rejecting the application of the petitioner on frivolous grounds. The petitioner had never declined to make any deposit, and to the contrary, had been making a request for letting the petitioner know the amount that was required to be deposited after the adjusting the amount already lying with the respondents. The petitioner had also categorically requested for the issuance of the demand note of Rs.71,00,000/- and odd as referred to hereinabove, still no action was taken and the application of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected. It is urged that the action of the District Magistrate is not only arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also reflects complete disobedience to the directions issued by the State Government which is the ultimate authority to grant freehold rights. In such circumstances and the facts narrated above, the only option left to the District Magistrate was to allow the application of the petitioner and grant freehold rights in respect of the property in dispute.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State and the Development Authority have urged that with the coming into force of the new Government Order dated 10.01.2015, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for consideration of freehold rights, inasmuch as, the Full Bench judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma (supra), clearly holds that by merely moving an application no rights accrue in favour of an applicant. It is urged that the authority of the State Government to either grant such rights or refuse the same is absolute, and that the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 25th January, 2010 has abided by the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998 as well as the other Government Orders relating to grant of freehold rights. It is then urged that the very title of the petitioner is in jeopardy as the original lessor is contesting the same in civil proceeding. It is further submitted that non deposit of the amount through self assessment by the petitioner till date dis-entitles him to seek any such relief of consideration of freehold rights. The orders of the State Government which are being relied upon by the petitioner do not in any way amount to be in supersession of the Government Orders which require a deposit of 25% of the amount as a pre-requisite for processing of the application. The very first condition, therefore, was not fulfilled by the petitioner and the application moved for freehold on 23.01.2002 was not accompanied by the treasury challan of the deposited amount. It rather raised an unnecessary query about the amount required to be deposited. Even if the petitioner was seeking adjustment of any previously deposited amount as per the Government Order dated 10.01.2002, then too even, the previous amount deposited does not amount to fulfilling the pre-condition of 25% of deposit. It was the obligation of the petitioner society that ought to have made the self assessment as per the prescribed formula in the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998 but the petitioner society had no intention to do so, and had moved the application with a view to negotiate a settlement for which there was no occasion. Even if it is presumed that the application had been appropriately moved, the same did not create any right so as to restrain the District Magistrate from proceeding to consider the applicability of the relevant Government Orders, and consequently, in the absence of any foundation for the claim for grant of freehold rights, the impugned order dated 25th January, 2010 has been rightly passed which does not call for any interference.
In addition to such reasons having been given, the counter affidavit on behalf of the State also indicates that the land in question according to the District Magistrate of Allahabad deserves to be retained for utilization for public purposes as the land is at a prime location that may be required for establishing Government Offices, including, the office of the Allahabad Development Authority. This stand appears to have been taken as a supervening public interest as against the claim of an individual to develop a housing colony keeping in view the Governmnet Order dated 10.12.2002.
Sri R.S. Umrao, learned counsel for the intervenor Pushpraj Singh has urged that the very title of the petitioner society has been disputed and in the wake of such facts, the District Magistrate has rightly refused to grant freehold rights to the petitioner. He has invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application as well as the other facts brought on record.
We have considered the submissions raised. The purpose to grant freehold rights to the erstwhile lease holders, the unauthorized occupants or to the nominees of the lessee's or the occupants or sale deed holders was to promote stability and access to easy availability of land for housing and commercial purpose, in order to, speed up development in urban areas and also to augment the revenue of the State. This also aided in providing certainty to ownership of land and the building of a house or a business premises for decent living and earning a livelihood. This purpose touches Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The grant of freehold rights was with a purpose to create rights in land. The entire process through the Government Orders that have been placed before us indicates, that if, a decision is taken to grant a freehold right the same with the actual grant ends up in the creation of a vested right which is of course subject to the control of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. There is yet another dimension, namely, that while considering grant of such rights, the State and its authorities are bound not to violate the equality Clause of Article 14 and discriminate in matters of such grant between the same class of applicants. To this extent also, a person claiming a right of freehold can complain of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is a fundamental right in the event any such Act of hostile discrimination, or otherwise is complained of. Such action of the State, therefore has to pass the twin test of arbitrariness and discrimination. We are mentioning this as we find that these aspects were not for consideration and have not been dealt with by the Full Bench in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma (supra) that was confined only to the applicability of the Government Orders. It was held that the policy existing on the date of consideration would be relevant and not the date when the application was moved. The Full Bench also held that this process prior to grant of any such rights, the same does not amount to a vested or accrued right to claim freehold rights nor does it gave rise to any legitimate expectation. The Full Bench, however did not proceed further and, we therefore, find that it necessary to indicate that once there is a decision to grant freehold rights then the element of discrimination between the same set of applicants and any arbitrary act would give rise to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the judicial review whereof would be permissible. This would remove any element of uncertainty and eliminate possibility of arbitrariness as and when the occasion arises.
Viewed from the above principles, what can be seen in the present case is that the petitioner began it's investment by seeking grant of lease in the year 1987 itself. This battle while being contested along with the issue of sanction of a map by the Allahabad Development Authority was judicially pronounced in favour of the petitioner both by this Court and affirmed by the Apex Court but this dispute stood dissolved with the petitioner itself giving up the claim of lease rights in terms of the Government Order dated 10th January, 2002. It was clarified therein, that the petitioner's claim would now be considered only for grant of freehold rights in the category of a purchaser. This was possibly on the presumption that the petitioner had a valid sale deed from the original lessee which is dated 16.07.1988 but which came to be registered on 19th January, 1991. We are not concerned with the validity of such transaction which according to the intervenor is subject matter of a suit, and it would certainly be a matter of consideration for the authority that proceeds to consider the grant of freehold rights.
There is no doubt that the order of the State Government dated 10th January, 2002 recites that the concerned Deputy Secretary has been directed to say that there is a request of the petitioner to grant freehold rights upon adjustment of the amount that had been deposited by the petitioner while contesting his claim for lease rights. It further says that upon a consideration, it has been decided that on a calculation of self assessment as per the relevant Government Order, the amount already deposited by the petitioner be adjusted and his claim be treated in the category of a purchaser for consideration of freehold rights provided the petitioner files an affidavit with an undertaking that he will not claim any rights with regard to the grant of lease in terms of the previous litigation, nor the petitioner would raise an issue of contempt of the judgment of this Court and of the Apex Court. So far as the circle rate is concerned, the same shall be decided on the basis of the application that would be moved by the petitioner society.
The petitioner, accordingly moved the application on 23rd January, 2002 without any pre-deposit in terms of the Government Order applicable to the controversy. The relevant portion of Clause-1 of the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998 is extracted hereinunder:-
"1- vkosnu dh ÁfØ;k 1-1 Ýh gksYM gsrq fu/kkZfjr vkosnui= ds lkFk Ýh gksYM gsrq ns; /kujkf'k dk 25 izfr'kr fuEukuqlkj LoewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij tek dj Vªstjh pkyku dh izfrfyfi layXu djrs gq, vkosnu i= ftl frfFk dks tek fd;k tk;sxk] ogh frfFk vkosnu dh frfFk ekuh tk;sxhA LoewY;kadu dh /kujkf'k % lEcfU/kr Hkw[k.M dk fu/kkZfjr dV&vkWQ&MsV dk lfdZy jsV x {ks=Qy x Ýh gksYM d fy;s izLrkfor Hkw&mi;ksx gsrq fu/kkZfjr nj x 25%."
The self assessment calculation was not made by the petitioner nor any deposit was tendered. Rather the District Magistrate was requested to inform the amount that was to be paid after adjustment of the amount already tendered by the petitioner for grant of lease rights. The District Magistrate sought instructions from the State Government to which a reply was given on 27.02.2003 by the Government that the issues raised by the District Magistrate in no way affect the case of the petitioner's society, and therefore, the District Magistrate should proceed to comply with the earlier direction dated 10th January, 2002.
The District Magistrate on 26th February, 2004 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of non deposit of 25% of the amount. The petitioner represented before the State Government and the State Government reiterated its earlier stand vide order dated 21st November, 2006 to carry out the direction as per the order dated 10th January, 2002 as per the rates then prevalent.
The District Magistrate again raised a query, keeping in view, the filing of Writ Petition No. 77818 of 2005 by Bal Krishna Agarwal & Others with whom the petitioner society had entered into an agreement of sale. On receiving the said information, the Principal Secretary of the Urban Planning and Development Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 25th March, 2008 reiterated the earlier position indicating therein that the District Magistrate could have himself got the amount calculated and there does not appear to be any reason to deny grant of freehold rights on such a ground. Other directions were also issued.
In response thereto, the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 15th April, 2008 informed the Principal Secretary that a sum of Rs.71,91,595/- was the computation for the calculation of self assessment but no deposit was made by the petitioner, and even otherwise, keeping in view the prime location of the land it will not be advisable to grant freehold rights and that the State Government may revisit the matter.
The Allahabad Development Authority through its Vice Chairman on 1st May, 2008 also raised a proposal for providing the said land to enable the Development Authority to set up its office and administrative building.
The matter was taken up by the State Government and five queries were raised by the State Government to which the District Magistrate, Allahabad gave a reply on 18th June 2008, detailing therein the entire past history of the transaction of the said land and the existence of the litigation and the orders passed from time to time. The Government was also informed about the pendency of two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 77818 of 2005 Bal Krishna Agarwal & Others and 11017 of 2008 filed by Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and the petitioner society in which a counter affidavit had been filed by the State. It was categorically stated therein that since the earlier deposit made by the petitioner also did not fulfill the terms and conditions that were imposed in relation to grant of lease rights and there was no compliance of the pre requisite deposit of 25% for freehold either, therefore and in the above circumstances it would be appropriate not to accept the request of the petitioner and allot the land to the Allahabad Development Authority for its office.
The two writ petitions filed by Bal Krishna Agarwal & Others and Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, as well as, the petitioner's society being Writ Petition No. 77818 of 2005 and 11017 of 2008 were dismissed on 27th May, 2009 by the following judgment:-
"Both the aforesaid writ petitions being connected are placed before this Court for analogous hearing.
In the first writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 77818 of 2005, initially following prayers were made:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2, the Collector, Allahabad to grant freehold rights in regard to 2508 sq. mts. of land forming part of Nazul Site 2(B-2), Civil Station, Allahabad, and bungalow No. 4/6, Thornhill Road, Allahabad;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents, the Collector, Allahabad, and the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul) to reimburse the petitioners to the tune of Rs.7,52,000/- for the loss suffered by him on account of wholly illegal and highhanded and grossly irresponsible act of demolition of boundary wall raised by the petitioners over the property in dispute;
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from in any manner interfering with the possession of the petitioners and peaceful enjoyment of the property in dispute by the petitioners;
(iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case; and
(v) award costs of this petition to the humble petitioners throughout."
However, on 22nd December, 2005 the petitioners have made a statement before the Court that they do not want to press the 'Prayer No. 1'. Hence, the 'Prayer No. 1' was deleted under the order of the Court dated 22nd December, 2005. Therefore, such writ petition was restricted only with regard to reimbursement of certain amount on account of demolition of boundary wall and restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners, if any. It has been contended by Mr. Somesh Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that such prayer was deleted since the Samiti, namely, Sangam Upnivashan Avas Avam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. was not made party to such writ petition. However, from the order dated 22nd December, 2005 no such submission is reflected. On the other hand, we find that by a further order of the Court dated 16th August, 2007 the Samiti has been incorporated as party-respondent no. 6 in such writ petition. This earlier writ petition was filed by the pen of six individuals inclusive of one Sri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, as petitioner no. 5 therein.
However, we find that during pendency of such writ petition another writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11017 of 2008, was filed by said Sri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and the said Samiti by making both of them as petitioners, with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to freehold the Plot No. 2 (B-2), Civil Station, Allahabad in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law forthwith after adjusting the amount already deposited by the Samiti-petitioner no. 2.
(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of case, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners."
In such circumstances, the Court was compelled to call upon Mr. Khare to establish how the second writ petition can be maintainable when they themselves have not pressed such prayer in the earlier writ petition. Then it has been contended by him that the prayer is not identical but subject to adjustment of the amount deposited by the Samiti. According to us, it is circumventing approach. BOTH the prayers are identical in nature. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. However, Mr. Khare further submitted before this Court that there is no bar in approaching this Court by filing fresh writ petition by the pen of the petitioner no. 1, Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, as well as the Samiti because they are sailing in the same boat. On enquiry we have come to know that the petitioner no. 1 of the second writ petition is a prospective purchaser. Therefore, we are eager to know how the Samiti is represented before this Court being petitioner no. 2. There is no resolution to reflect that the Samiti is inclined to proceed with the writ petitions for the benefit of such Samiti. No aims and objects are reflected from any of the annexures that in what way the Samiti is entitled to proceed. Hence, it can be construed that the petitioner no. 1 appears to be really interested person at the behest of the Samiti. He is an individual. Therefore, when the interest of the Samiti can not be fulfilled, how it will be fulfilled in favour of a private individual, is best known to them. Moreover, it is a matter between him and the Samiti.
Apart from raising objections to the maintainability of the writ petitions, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended before this Court that the State has called upon the Samiti to deposit a sum of Rs.15,75,735.10 as premium long back on 25th July, 1987, which has not been paid. Only three amounts, two of Rs.3,15,147.02 each were paid on 13th October, 1987 and 27th September, 1989 and thereafter on 27th September, 1989 another amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid. Hence, no right can be accrued in favour of the Samiti far to say about an individual. Mr. Khare himself invited our attention to go through the letter written by the concerned District Magistrate, Allahabad on 15th April, 2008, being Annexure-16 to the counter affidavit filed by the State. There we find that on the basis of the circle rate prevalent as on 23rd January, 2002 the amount to convert the land from Nazul to freehold was fixed at Rs.71,91,595.00, which, according to him, has increased a lot by the passage of time and now it has become Rs. 17.16 crores. Apart from that, the District Magistrate also stated therein certain descriptions with regard to importance of the locality. We are of the view that if the petitioners are aggrieved by such order, they can at best challenge the same having certain established rights in their favour. Admittedly, neither of the petitioners are accrued any right because the sum as called upon by the State or its authority has not been deposited. Therefore, it is entirely open to the writ petitioners how to proceed before the authority and convince them to have the land freehold but it can not be done under the direction of the Court in such circumstances. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.
In any event, passing of this order will no way affect the right of the petitioners to approach the authority concerned, if so desire."
Thus from the gamut of facts as narrated up to the said stage, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner was neither accepted by the District Magistrate nor by this Court in the above writ petitions. It goes without saying that in the second writ petition, the petitioner society was a petitioner.
On the letter of the District Magistrate dated 18th June, 2008 mentioned above the under Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh of the Urban Housing and Planning Development Department on 18th November, 2009 reiterated the earlier communications of the Government with a recital that the earlier order issued did not require any deviation, and therefore, future action should be ensured accordingly.
At that stage, since the petitioner society was not able to secure the freehold rights, it filed Writ Petition No. 70350 of 2009 that was disposed off with a direction to the District Magistrate on 23.12.2009 to pass an appropriate order in the light of the orders of the State Government referred to hereinabove. The said judgment is extracted hereinunder:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Goswami, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. The counsel for the petitioner states that respondent no.4 is a formal party.
By a lease deed dated 8.8.1912 of nazul plot no.2 (B-2), Civil Station, Allahabad (area 2.809 acres). The land was leased out by the Secretary of the State for India in Council through Collector, Allahabad in favour of one Trigaman Rathori David for a period of 90 years. The lease was to be renewed after 30 years. Last renewal of the lease was made by order dated 3.6.1989 issued on behalf of the Governor by the Collector, Allahabad in favour of Smt. Praveen Kumari, wife of late Raja Martand Singh. Smt. Praveen Kumari executed a sale deed dated 23.03.1987 registered on 27.05.1987 in favour of the petitioner and the State Government by order dated 27.5.1987 granted permission on certain conditions to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was put in possession. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19030 of 1992 for execution of fresh lease deed in favour of the petitioner and the writ petition was disposed of on 29.9.1992 with the direction that the petitioner will deposit the amount and the respondents will execute the lease deed in accordance with law and the respondents will also release the map of the petitioner. This order dated 29.9.1992 was challenged by the State of U.P. and others before the apex court. The apex court dismissed the Civil Appeal No.7397 of 1994 on 26.7.2001 and affirmed the order of the High Court. Meanwhile the State Government took a policy decision that nazul plot would be converted into free hold after payment of necessary charges. In pursuance of the policy of the government the petitioner filed a representation on 19.10.2001 before the State Government that the land purchased by the petitioner be converted into free hold instead of granting fresh lease. The State Government, on the representation of the petitioner, issued a government order dated 10.1.2002 and directed the District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad that whatever premium towards the rent for grant of fresh lease has been deposited by the petitioner, be adjusted in the amount which is to be paid by the petitioner for granting free hold rights and an affidavit be obtained from the petitioner that he does not want a fresh lease to be executed and wants to get the land converted into free hold and thereafter needful be done in the matter. The petitioner on 23.1.2002 gave a letter to the District Magistrate along with an affidavit that he does not want to get a fresh lease executed and instead the land be converted into free hold and the amount deposited by the petitioner for execution of fresh lease as premium be adjusted towards 25% of the amount which is required to be deposited for grant of free hold rights.
It appears that the District Magistrate wrote a letter to the State Government on 30.5.2002 pointing out that there is some difficulty in granting free hold rights to the petitioner as the petitioner's case is similar to the case of Sushil Kumar Kharbanda. The State Government on 27.2.2003 issued a government order to the District Magistrate, Allahabad to the effect that the case of Sushil Kumar Kharbanda was different than that of the petitioner and the earlier order of the State Government dated 10.1.2002 be complied with. The District Magistrate on 26.2.2004 wrote a letter to the petitioner and since the petitioner had not deposited 25% amount and had not submitted the treasury challan in the format prescribed for making application, the petitioner's application cannot be considered. The petitioner made a representation on 1.3.2004 challenging the order of District Magistrate dated 26.2.2004 before the State Government. The Secretary to the State Government passed an order on 21.11.2006 to the effect that a decision was taken on 10.1.2002 by the State Government to convert the land of the petitioner into free hold and the District Magistrate has not given intimation about the self assessment to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not complete the formalities. When the petitioner submitted an affidavit along with representation, the District Magistrate, Allahabad should have acted on it in view of the directions of the State Government. It further mentioned in the order that the directions of the State Government are binding on its subordinate officers. Therefore, the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.2.2000 was not found to be reasonable in view of the government orders and the directions given by the State Government. The State Government directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad to comply with the government order dated 10.1.2002 and to convert the land of the petitioner into free hold on the rates prevailing at that time. In this order dated 21.11.2006 the State Government has issued a positive direction to District Magistrate, Allahabad to convert the land of the petitioner into free hold on the then prevalent rates. It appears that this order was also not complied by the then District Magistrate, Allahabad and another letter was written on 27.10.2007 to the State Government raising objection. The State Government again on 23.5.2008 directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad that on the application of the petitioner dated 23.1.2002 it has been found by the State Government that the conversion of lease land into free hold on the then prevalent rates was justified and issued direction to the District Magistrate, Allahabad that further proceedings be conducted by him. Certain conditions were also imposed in the order dated 25.3.2008 and the District Magistrate, Allahabad was directed to take necessary steps. It appears that the District Magistrate again wrote a letter dated 18.6.2008 to the State Government for withdrawing the earlier government orders and the State Government passed an order on 18.11.2009 and directed that in earlier orders the State Government had given correct directions on 10.1.2002, 27.2.2003, 21.11.2006 and 25.3.2008 and affirmed the aforesaid government orders and refused to rescind the aforesaid government orders and necessary steps were to be taken by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. It appears that for one reason or the other the District Magistrate is not complying with the orders of the State Government for converting lease land of the petitioner into free hold.
The facts narrated above are not disputed by A.D.M. (Nazul) Sri Subhash Uttam, who is present in the court and the issuance of the government orders and directions by the State Government could not be disputed by Sri S.Goswami, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The policy of converting lease land into free hold has been framed by the State Government and the State Government is the ultimate authority and once the State Government directs the District Magistrate to convert the lease land into free hold land the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to question the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the State Government as this will amount to act of insubordination because the District Magistrate, Allahabad acts in representative capacity on behalf of the State Government and he has no authority to question the decisions taken by the State Government. Since the facts are not disputed, we do not propose to call for any counter affidavit.
We dispose of this writ petition with a direction to District Magistrate, Allahabad to pass appropriate orders in light of the State Government orders dated 10.1.2002, 27.2.2003, 21.11.2006, 25.3.2008 and 18.11.2009. The orders shall be passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before District Magistrate, Allahabad.
There shall be no order as to costs."
There is one striking feature in the above quoted judgment, namely, there is no mention or consideration of the impact of the earlier judgment dated 27th May, 2009 extracted hereinabove.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the previous judgment dated 27.05.2009 where Writ Petition No. 11017 of 2008, which was filed by Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and the petitioner society jointly, was found to be not maintainable, and further the Court observed that there is no reflection as to in what manner the petitioner Samiti was entitled to proceed. It was also observed that since the interest of the petitioner Samiti cannot be fulfilled, then the private individual may not be able to succeed in establishing any claim. It was further observed that no right can be stated to have accrued in favour of the Samiti much less the individual who had joined in the petition. The Court, however, observed that it is for the petitioner to proceed before the authority and convince them about their claim of freehold but the same would not be possible under the direction of the Court.
The subsequent judgment dated 23rd December, 2009 without taking notice of the said observations issued a mandamus to the District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is in this background that the impugned order dated 25th January, 2010 has been passed by the District Magistrate clearly denying consideration of grant of freehold rights to the petitioner society on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make good the deposits as per the applicable Government Order, that there was a litigation pending with regard to the original title between the petitioner society and the original lessee, there was a need to reconsider the retention of a land for other public utility purpose and that the freehold could not be granted in violation of the Government Orders.
At this stage, we may clarify that we are not proceeding to consider the claim of the intervenor Pushpraj Singh who may assert his rights before the appropriate forum and which is a matter between the petitioner, the intervenor and the concerned authorities.
This petition is about the judicial review of the order passed by the District Magistrate on the grounds raised herein. We find that the State Government while proceeding was of the opinion that the orders passed by the State Government should be complied with by the District Magistrate, and therefore, the freehold should be processed in terms of the order dated 10th January, 2002. We may record that the order dated 10th January, 2002 is in the shape of a Government Order and so is the order dated 21st November, 2006. But the said Government Orders are subject to the Government Orders in general which are applicable to grant of freehold rights. The District Magistrate, Allahabad had been returning back the files continuously on the issue of non deposit of the requisite amount and later on also on the issue of the viability of granting freehold rights, keeping in view the supervening public interest of setting up the office building of the Allahabad Development Authority. In our considered opinion, the State Government while issuing orders through its officials does not appear to have considered the entire matter in a comprehensive manner. The orders issued by the State Government appear to be clearly directed for extending the benefit of freehold rights to the petitioner society without considering anything further. The State Government did not consider that if an application is moved without the pre deposit as required through a treasury challan, then whether such application moved by the petitioner would be competent or not. The State Government also did not look into, as to whether, such a recourse was permissible and whether the same would not result in discrimination if other applicants of the same category have been dealt with strictly as per the relevant Government Orders. The requirement of the land as stipulated in the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 was also not taken into account.
However, at the same time, we find that the District Magistrate, Allahabad kept on harping on the same issues again and again inspite of the repeated directions of the State Government. Even the Division Bench judgment dated 23.12.2009 does not appear to have been complied with in letter and spirit. On the other hand if an application for grant of freehold rights is moved, then the same has to be disposed off within a reasonable period of time and the District Magistrate cannot keep pondering over the matter for years together and create a disadvantage to the detriment of the applicant for no fault on his part. Any delayed action or in-action on the part of the District Magistrate cannot be an excuse for declining or withholding the consideration of an application for grant of freehold rights under the relevant policy. At the same time the impact of the judgment dated 27th May, 2009 has also to be considered.
Thus from what has been observed above, apart from the other considerations, the right of the petitioner to claim the processing of its application for freehold rights on the basis of a valid deed, the application moved by the petitioner for grant of freehold rights in terms of the order dated 10th January 2002, the issue of deposit upon self assessment as per the terms and conditions of the relevant Government Orders extracted hereinabove, the impact of the two judgments dated 27.05.2009 and 23.12.2009 and now coupled with the latest Government Order dated 10.01.2015 and the ratio of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma (supra) does require a reconsideration. Any other supervening public interest would also have to be taken into consideration. At the same time, the respondents will have to ensure that no discrimination or arbitrariness results upon the taking of any such decision in the light of what has been observed hereinabove.
For all the aforesaid reasons we do not find that the State Government has taken a satisfactory or comprehensive view of the matter but we find no justification for the District Magistrate to act in defiance of the directives issued by the State Government, or by the High Court. The writ petition, therefore deserves to be allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 25th January, 2010 be quashed with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to summon the entire records pertaining to the said claim of the petitioner and then proceed to take an appropriate decision after hearing the petitioner or any other concerned party and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove within three months.
The writ petition, is accordingly, allowed. The order of the District Magistrate dated 25th January, 2010 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the State Government-respondent no. 1 to decide the matter as per the directions and observations contained hereinabove preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 11.5.2018 S.Chaurasia