# Smt. Sheela Sachdeva & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10292 of 2007
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sheela-sachdeva-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49804
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - Nazul land - Freehold right
- GO dated 31.12.2002 and 14.12.2004 -
Part of the plot has already been made
freehold in favour of petitioner - Effect
- Application to freehold in respect of
remaining
part
rejected
-
legality
challenged
-
GO
dated
3.12.2002
providing for freehold right on deposit
of 25% valuation amount, relied upon -
Permissibility
-
Held,
GO
dated
31.12.2002 does not refer to or advert
to
such
Nazul
land
over
which
Government
Office
or
any
other
accommodation is standing and is in
possession
of
the
Government
department / Office - By making an
application for grant of freehold right,
petitioner did not acquire vested right.
(Para 15, 24, 30 and 36)

B. Practice and procedure - Decision on an
application
-
Government
Policy
-
Applicability - The Government policy
applicable on the date of decision of the
Government would apply while disposing
off the applications of the petitioners for
freehold right. (Para 36)

C. Constitution of India - Article 296 -
St.'s ownership - Word 'Nazul' - Meaning
- Principle of escheat - Explained -
'Nazul' is an Arabic word. It refers to a
land annexed to Crown (Rajbhoomi) i.e.
Government land. It is only such land
which is owned and vested in the St. on
account of its capacity of sovereign -
Article 296 of the Constitution of India,
has retained power of St. to get ownership
of such land, in respect whereof principle
of 'escheat', 'lapse' or 'bona vacantia'
would have been applicable prior to the
enforcement of Constitution of India.
(Para 17 and 18)

Writ petition dismissed of . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

3 All. Smt. Sheela Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315

8. The interesting question that arises
is whether the appeal can be dismissed
only on the ground that the same is
without the mandatory pre-deposit? From
the
law
with
regards
to
bar
of
entertainment of appeal as explained
above, it is clear that what cannot be
entertained cannot be dismissed either.
The only benefit of filing an appeal
without the mandatory deposit under
Section 21 will be that the appellant
would be entitled to the benefit of
limitation and nothing more and the Bank
or the Financial Institution would be at
liberty to initiate and prosecute recovery
proceedings against the borrower.

9. In the present case the DRAT has
erred in law rejecting the application only
on the ground of inordinate delay. From
the order, it is clear that the appeal is
dismissed for want of pre-deposit which
action of the Tribunal itself is bad, as for
want
of
pre-deposit,
the
appeal
technically could not be entertained and
thus could not be dismissed either.

10. The Counsel for the respondent
Bank, Sri P.N. Tripathi argues that the
petitioner has not paid the dues and is
adopting dilatory tactic and when steps
were taken to recover the dues of the
Bank, he made the application after
depositing the amount as stated above.

11. In view of the said rival
submission, coupled with the fact that
the issue raised in the present writ
petition pertains to the interpretation of
Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993, I am
not inclined to keep the matter pending,
as such, the order impugned dated
03.01.2023 is set aside with directions to
the Appellate Tribunal to hear and
decide
the
appeal
on
merit,
in
accordance with law, with all expedition,
preferably within a period of four
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

12.
It
is
provided
that
no
unnecessary adjournment shall be granted
to either of the parties.

13. The amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in
the form of demand draft(prepared but
not accepted by DRAT ) shall be
deposited within two weeks from today.

14. It will also be open to the
petitioner to approach the respondent
Bank for any settlement in accordance
with law, if so advised.

16. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ C No. 10292 of 2007

Smt. Sheela Sachdeva & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Sri S.K. Singh, Sri S.K.
Srivastava, Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Shashi
Nandan, Sri Rajesh Shukla, Sri Ravi Kant
(Sr. Advocate). Sri K.N. Tripathi (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Addl. Advocate General, Dr. Y.K.
Srivastava
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - Nazul land - Freehold right
- GO dated 31.12.2002 and 14.12.2004 -
Part of the plot has already been made
freehold in favour of petitioner - Effect
- Application to freehold in respect of
remaining
part
rejected
-
legality
challenged
-
GO
dated
3.12.2002
providing for freehold right on deposit
of 25% valuation amount, relied upon -
Permissibility
-
Held,
GO
dated
31.12.2002 does not refer to or advert
to
such
Nazul
land
over
which
Government
Office
or
any
other
accommodation is standing and is in
possession
of
the
Government
department / Office - By making an
application for grant of freehold right,
petitioner did not acquire vested right.
(Para 15, 24, 30 and 36)

B. Practice and procedure - Decision on an
application
-
Government
Policy
-
Applicability - The Government policy
applicable on the date of decision of the
Government would apply while disposing
off the applications of the petitioners for
freehold right. (Para 36)

C. Constitution of India - Article 296 -
St.'s ownership - Word 'Nazul' - Meaning
- Principle of escheat - Explained -
'Nazul' is an Arabic word. It refers to a
land annexed to Crown (Rajbhoomi) i.e.
Government land. It is only such land
which is owned and vested in the St. on
account of its capacity of sovereign -
Article 296 of the Constitution of India,
has retained power of St. to get ownership
of such land, in respect whereof principle
of 'escheat', 'lapse' or 'bona vacantia'
would have been applicable prior to the
enforcement of Constitution of India.
(Para 17 and 18)

Writ petition dismissed of . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

1.
Sharif
Ahmad
Vs
Regional
Transport
Authority, Meerut; (1978) 1 SCC 1

2. Gujrat Pottery Works Vs B.P. Sood; AIR 1967
SC 964
3. Virendra Sahney & anr. Vs District Officer /
Collector, Mau & ors.; AIR 1997 ALL. 82

4. Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2018 (7) ADJ 617

5.Shyam Lal Vs Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela
Garib Das; (2016) 7 SCC 572

6. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs Miss Violet
Ouchterlony Wapsnare; AIR 1969 SC 843

7. St. of U.P. Vs Zahoor Ahmad; 1973 (2) SCC
547

8. Prakati Rai & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2020(1) ADJ, 469 (DB)

9. Anand Kumar Sharma's case (FB) ; 2014(2)
ADJ 742 (FB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri Amit Verma, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The property in issue pertains to
Nazul Plot No. 10 Civil Station, Allahabad
(Prayagraj), admeasuring 11761.41 sq.
meters. The petitioners claim freehold right
of the property.

3. The admitted, facts, inter se, parties
are that a lease came to be executed by the
State-respondents in favour of Smt. Khetar
Dasi for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 1 April,
1914. Thereafter, the afore-noted plot came
to be recorded in the name of Lala Mattu
Mal in the Nazul register. After the death of
Lala Mattu Mal, on the basis of a registered
family partition dated 04 December, 1935,
area admeasuring 4211 sq. meters, fell in
3 All. Smt. Sheela Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317
the share of Ganesh Prasad Seth, son of,
Lala Mattu Mal. The property devolved on
the death of Ganesh Prasad Seth upon his
widow Smt. Tara Devi. Smt. Tara Devi
executed a Will in favour of petitioners on
26 June, 1972.

4. It is not in dispute, inter se, parties
that the terms of the lease expired on 15
March, 1963. As per the stand of the Staterespondents the Nazul plot in question was
initially allotted to one A.M. Zeller on 16
March, 1863, for a period of 20 years on
lease,
duly
executed
by
the
then
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad. The lease expired on 16 March,
1930, which came to be renewed for
another 50 years w.e.f. 01 April, 1914. On
expiry of the lease in 1963, after a lapse of
27 years, the petitioners herein field an
application on 28 February, 1999 for
freehold rights.

5. As per the State-respondents,
freehold rights has already been granted to
the petitioners for 1427 sq. meters of the
Nazul land on 26 March, 2002. Further,
freehold rights on an additional area
admeasuring 612 sq. meters was granted to
the petitioners on 30 March, 2002. In other
words 2084 sq. meters of the Nazul land
was made freehold in favour of petitioners.
The petitioners claim freehold right on the
remaining part of the Nazul plot.

6. It appears that on a part of the Nazul
land a building was standing, which was in
the occupation of the Department of Food
and Supply of Government of Uttar
Pradesh, that portion of the Nazul land, the
petitioners claim freehold rights from the
State. The applications of the petitioners
seeking freehold rights on the constructed
portion of the Nazul land came to be
rejected by the State Government by
passing an order dated 12 October, 2006,
wherein, it has been noted that the building
was in occupation of the Department of the
State Government. Consequently, pursuant
to the Government Order referred therein,
the lease for freehold rights for the land
over which building stands cannot be
granted to the petitioners. Pursuant to the
impugned order, the second respondent
District Magistrate, Allahabad (Prayagraj),
by order dated 30 November, 2006,
resumed the building / land admeasuring
1513.10 sq. meters. The petitioners by the
instant writ petition are assailing the aforenoted orders and claim freehold rights on
the said portion of the Nazul land.

7. It is submitted that on 28 February,
1999, petitioners filed an application for
freehold right for an area admeasuring
1289.20 sq. meters. As per the Government
Order, 25% of the self assessment of
valuation of the plot came to be deposited
by the petitioners vide Treasury Challan
No. DP-2 at Rs. 1,54,704/-. Pursuant
thereof, a demand notice was issued by the
Additional District Magistrate for the
balance amount at Rs. 3,16,700.84 for
conversion of the Nazul land into freehold.
The amount came to be deposited by the
petitioners on 05 June, 2000. A proposed
freehold deed, thereafter, was supplied to
the petitioner by the office of the
Additional District Magistrate. On 05 June,
2000, petitioners submitted a freehold deed
along with stamp papers. It appears,
thereafter, neither the deed was executed by
the second respondent on behalf of the
State Government, nor, did the occasion for
registration arise.

8. In the meantime, by the impugned
communication dated 12 October, 2006,
issued by the Special Secretary to the State
Government, addressed to the second
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent that part of the Nazul land
admeasuring 1513.10 sq. meter over which
the office of the District Supply Officer and
Additional District Magistrate (Na. Aa.)
were
functioning,
pursuant
to
the
Government Order dated 14 December,
2004, came to be allotted for the office of
District Supply Officer, Allahabad, on the
terms and conditions specified therein.
Pursuant thereof, the District Magistrate
passed the consequential order dated 30
November, 2006, resuming the property,
admeasuring 1513.10 sq. meter, after
demarcation.

9. Relying upon the Government
Order dated 14 December, 2004, the
application of the petitioners, herein, for
freehold rights, on part of the property
admeasuring 1289.20 sq. meters, sought
vide applications dated 28 February, 1999,
came to be rejected. Further, order was
passed to refund the amount deposited by
the petitioners towards freehold rights
along
with
interest.
Nazul
land
admeasuring
1513.10
sq.
meters,
accordingly, came to be resumed, as per
Government Order dated 12 October, 2006,
for the purposes of office of the District
Supply Officer.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that since the second respondent
acted upon the application submitted by the
petitioners for freehold rights, the demand
amount raised by the office of the second
respondent came to be deposited, along
with the freehold deed and stamp papers, it
is urged that the second respondent cannot,
thereafter retreat, rather, was bound to
execute the deed and got it duly registered.
It is further submitted that the second
respondent is estopped from retracting and
resuming the property in favour of the
office of the State Government. It is,
therefore, submitted that the respondents be
directed to execute the freehold deed for
the area of the plot for which the papers
was duly completed and submitted for
execution and registration.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners
placed
reliance
on
the
following
judgements in support of his submission.

(i) Sharif Ahmad vs. Regional
Transport Authority, Meerut 1;

(ii) Gujrat Pottery Works vs.
B.P. Sood2;

(iii)
Virendra
Sahney
&
Another vs. District Officer / Collector,
Mau & others3;

(iv) Sangam Upnivashan Avas
Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs.
State of U.P. & State of U.P. & others4
and;

(v) Shyam Lal vs. Deepa Dass
Chela Ram Chela Garib Das5.

12. In rebuttal, the learned counsel
appearing for the State-respondents submits
that the lease, admittedly, came to expire in
the year 1963. It is not in dispute that the
office of the State Government exists on
the constructed area of the Nazul plot and
has continuously been in possession of the
State, until the building was declared
dilapidated and not fit for habitation.
Consequently, the office came to be shifted
to another tenanted building, in view of the
status quo order passed by this Court.

13. It is further submitted that the
application for renewal of lease came to be
filed by the petitioners almost after three
decades, the petitioners do not have any
vested right and authority to insist upon
the State Government to declare a part of
the Nazul plot freehold in favour of
petitioners.
3 All. Smt. Sheela Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319

14.
Rival
submissions
fall
for
consideration.

15. The facts, inter se, parties are not
in dispute. Admittedly, the entire plot
belongs to the State and it is also not in
dispute that an area admeasuring 2084 sq.
meters, in two parts (1472 + 612 sq.
meters) has already been made freehold in
favour of the petitioners. The claim of the
petitioners on that part of the Nazul plot
over which, admittedly, office of the State
Government
was
operational
and
functional, has been refused as per the
Government Orders applicable on the date
of the decision. Government Order dated
14 October, 2004, mandates allotment of
Nazul plot in favour of Government, over
which offices has been setup. In other
words, that portion of the land would not be
made freehold in favour of the lease holder.
Further, the construction of the office of the
District
and
Supply
Officer,
after
demolition of the dilapidated building is
pending since 2010, due to the pendency of
the present writ petition.

16. The sole question that arises for
determination is as to whether the State
Government was justified, in view of
Government Order dated 14 October, 2004,
refusing freehold right in favour of the
petitioners for the Nazul plot on which
office of the State Government was
functional.

17. 'Nazul' is an Arabic word. It refers
to a land annexed to Crown (Rajbhoomi)
i.e. Government land. It is only such land
which is owned and vested in the State on
account of its capacity of sovereign, and
application of right of bona vacantia, which
is covered by the expression 'Nazul', as the
term is known for the last more than one
and half century.

18. Article 296 of the Constitution of
India, has retained power of State to get
ownership of such land, in respect whereof
principle of 'escheat', 'lapse' or 'bona
vacantia' would have been applicable prior
to the enforcement of Constitution of India.
The above power continued to apply after
enactment of the Constitution with the only
modification that if such land is situate
within the territory of State Government, it
will vest in State and in other cases, it will
vest in Union of India. (Ref : Pierce Leslie
and Co. Ltd. vs. Miss Violet Ouchterlony
Wapsnare6; State of U.P. vs. Zahoor
Ahmad7 and Prakati Rai and others vs.
State of U.P. and others8.

19. The Government Order dated 14
October, 2004, addressed to all the
Divisional
Commissioners,
District
Magistrates and Vice Chairman of the
Development Authority, pertains to the
offices standing on leased Nazul plot,
accordingly, mandating allotment of that
portion of the Nazul land to the respective
State departments free of cost.

20. The above noted Government
Order and the relevant paragraphs for the
purposes of the this case is being extracted
:-

निषय- प्रर्देश के निनिन्ि जिपर्दों में पट्टागत िजूल
िूनम पर अिनथित राजकीय कायाालयों के पक्ष में िजूल िूनम का
आिंटि नििःशुल्क नकया जािा।

१. िजूल की नजस िूनम का ितामाि में शासकीय
(कायाालय, आिास या अन्य प्रयोजि हेतु) प्रयोग हो रहा हो उिके
पट्टे की अिनि यनर्द समाप्त हो गयी हो तो इसे फ्री होल्ड/ििीिीकरण
तब तक ि नकया जाये जब तक नक उपयोगकताा नििाग द्वारा
नलनित रूप में यह सूनित ि नकया जाये नक अब उन्हे इस िूनम की
आिश्यकता शासकीय उपयोग के नलये िहीं है।

२. .....................

३. ऐसे प्रकरण जहााँ पट्टागत िूनम का आंनशक रूप से
शासकीय प्रयोग हो रहा है तिा आंनशक रूप से यह पट्टािारक के
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
कब्जे में है उसमें यनर्द शासकीय प्रयोग िाले नििाग को अपिे
नििागीय उत्तरर्दानयत्िो के नििाहि हेतु िूिण्ड/ििि की
आिश्यकता है तो पट्टे की अिनि समाप्त होिे पर पूरी िूनम
प्रशासकीय नििाग को आिंनटत कर र्दी जायेगी।

४. .......................

५. .......................

६. नजि मामलो में पूिा में तत्समय प्रिनलत िजूल
िीनत के अन्तगात पट्टािारकों के पक्ष में फ्रीहोल्ड करिे हेतु
थिमूल्यांकि ििरानश जमा की जा िुकी है परन्तु फ्रीहोल्ड डीड
निष्पानर्दत िहीं की गयी है, उिमें िी शासकीय कायाालय नथित होिे
तिा उसके उपयोग के नलये आिश्यकता होिे की नथिनत में फ्रीहोल्ड
करिे से मिा नकया जा सकेगा और जमा थिमूल्यांकि ििरानश
जमाकताा को सब्याज िापस कर र्दी जायेगी।

21. On bare perusal of the afore-noted
Government
Order,
it
mandates
that
wherever, on leased Nazul land government
office, residential accommodation or any
other activities are continuing and the term
of the lease has expired, freehold / renewal
of the lease would not be renewed / granted
without obtaining prior approval from the
concerned department as to whether, the
property is required for the State. The
Government Order further provides that
where
on
the
leased
Nazul
land,
Government Offices are situated and in
possession of the State department, and that
the property is required for the purposes of
the office, the same would be allotted to the
concerned department, upon expiry of the
lease. In other words, freehold right would
not be granted.

22. Paragraph 6 of the Government
Order mandates and clarifies that where the
lease holder of the Nazul property has
deposited the amount of the self assessment
valuation, but the freehold deed is yet to be
executed or has not been executed, the
same would not be executed for the portion
of the Nazul land over which government
office is situated. In that event, the amount,
so deposited would be returned to the lease
holder along with interest.

23. On specific query, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners fairly admits
that the Government Order dated 14
October, 2004 is not under challenge in the
present writ petition.

24. On the contrary, reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners on the Government Order dated
31 December, 2002, clarifying the earlier
Government Order dated 10 December,
2002. In paragraph 3 of Government Order
dated 31 December, 2002, it has been
provided that the lease holders of expired
lease, who have deposited 25% of the self
assessment valuation amount prior to 10
December, 2002, and pursuant thereof the
entire formalities were been completed, as
per government policy, in that event all the
applications pending for freehold should be
processed and completed pursuant to the
Government Order dated 10 December,
2002.

25. The relevant portion of the
Government Order dated 31 December,
2002, is extracted :-

"31.12.2002

निषयिः- िजुल िूनम के प्रबन्ि एिं निथतारण के
सम्बन्ि में जारी शासिार्देश। नर्दिांक 10 नर्दसम्बर 2002 के
सम्बन्ि में मागा र्दशाि।

2- उक्त सम्बन्ि में यह थपष्ट नकया जाता है नक
शासिार्देश संख्या - 2873 / 9 - आ - 4 - 2002 - 152
एि / 2000 टी०सी०नर्दिांक 10 नर्दसम्बर 2002 द्वारा प्रनतपानर्दत
िीनत तत्काल प्रिाि से लागू की गयी है। अतिः नर्दिांक
10.12.2002 से पूिा में नजि आिेर्दको िे थिमुल्यांकि की 25
प्रनतशत ििरानश जमा करते हुए िालाि की प्रनत के साि प्रािािा पत्र
प्रथतुत कर नर्दया िा तिा फ्री होल्ड की पात्रता सम्बन्िी समथत
नििााररत औपिाररकतायें पूणाकर र्दी िी, उि प्रकरणो में तत्कालीि
3 All. Smt. Sheela Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
िीनत अिुसार र्दरे ि शते लागू होगी। ऐसे मामलो में शासिार्देश
नर्दिांक 10.12.2002 लागू िही होगा।"

26. Further, reliance was placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners on the
order dated 24 March, 2003, issued by the
Special Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh,
addressed
to
the
District
Magistrate, Allahabad, in respect of Nazul
land No. PP Civil Station, Allahabad,
wherein, it has been directed that in the
event, the lease holder has deposited the
self assessment valuation amount in the
State Treasury, in the year 2000, it was
incumbent that as per the Government
Policy pertaining to Nazul land freehold
right could not have been refused.

27. In view of the afore-noted
Government Orders and communications, it
is submitted that the petitioners, admittedly,
completed the formalities pursuant to their
application dated 28 February, 1999, and
the deed came to be prepared on the
proposed draft supplied by the second
respondent on 05 June, 2000, upon deposit
of the self assessment valuation amount of
the plot. It is urged that the petitioners
could not be discriminated against and
freehold rights should be executed as per
Government Order dated 31 December,
2002.

28. In support of the submissions
reliance has been placed on Sangam
Upnivashan Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari
Samiti Ltd. (supra), wherein, petitioners
seeking freehold rights, the Division Bench
after referring to the Full Bench decision in
Anand Kumar Sharma9, was of the view
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,
judicial
review
whereof
would
be
permissible. Relevant portion of judgement
is extracted :-

"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, judicial review whereof would be
permissible.
This
would
remove
any
element
of
uncertainly
possibility
of
arbitrariness as and when the occasion
arises."

29. In this backdrop, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that petitioners
cannot be discriminated as it is admitted
that petitioners had completed all the
formalities for freehold right pursuant to
Government Order dated 31 December
2002 and in view of the decision rendered
in Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam
Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (supra),
petitioners are entitled to freehold right of
the remaining Nazul plot.

30. We do not find merit in the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners. Upon careful perusal of the
Government Orders, relied upon by the
petitioners, we find that it is of no
assistance
to
the
petitioners.
The
Government Order dated 10 December,
2002 and 31 December, 2002, merely,
mandates that in the event, the lease
holders of Nazul plot have complied their
part by depositing self assessment valuation
for freehold rights before 10 December,
2002, freehold deed be executed in their
favour. The Government Order does not,
however, refer to or advert to such Nazul
land over which Government Office or any
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other accommodation is standing and is in
possession of the Government department /
Office. The petitioners herein have been
declined allotment of the Nazul land over
which government office was functioning,
in view of Government Order dated 14
December, 2004. It is also not being
disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that petitioners have already
been granted freehold rights of the Nazul
land in respect of 2084 sq. meters. A part of
the Nazul land admeasuring 1513.10 sq.
meters, over which the Government office
was functional and in possession of the
Government department, in view of the
Government Order dated 14 October, 2004,
the
District
Magistrates
have
been
restrained from converting the Nazul plot
into freehold, if the department has sought
allotment of the property for the purposes
of office / accommodation.

31. The question referred to the Full
Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar
Sharma (supra) is extracted :-

"1. Whether the application of
the
petitioner
dated
25.07.2005
submitted for grant of freehold right on
the basis of the Government Order dated
01.12.1998 (Paragraph 7) and the
Government Order dated 10.12.2002
(paragraph 5) was entitled to be
considered in accordance with the
Government policy as was in existence
on the date of application or the
Government policy as amended by
Government Order dated 04.08.2006,
was to be taken into consideration while
deciding the application while deciding
the application on 18.12.2006?

32. In other words, the question posed
to the Court was as to whether, the
Government policy applicable on the date
of application for freehold right would
apply or the Government policy applicable
on the date of decision of the Government.

33. In paragraphs 41 and 42, the Court
clarified that by merely making an
application for grant of freehold rights,
petitioners did not acquire a vested right.

34. Paragraphs 41 and 42 are extracted
:-

"41. Vested right can be different
kind of vested right in context of different
variety or nature of right. It is true that the
words "vested right" are generally used in
context of a right in a property, but the
concept of vested right cannot be confined
only to right of enjoyment of possession of
land. The issue in the present case is as to
whether by submitting an application for
grant of freehold right any vested right has
been acquired by the petitioner.

42. We after considering the
relevant Government Orders on the subject
and pronouncements of the Apex Court as
noted above, are of the view that merely by
making an application for grant of freehold
right, petitioner did not acquire a vested
right.

35. The Court, thereafter, answered the
reference in the following terms :-

(i)
The
application
of
the
petitioner dated 25.07.2005 submitted for
grant of free hold right on the basis of the
Government Orders dated 01.12.1998 and
10.12.2002 was entitled to be considered in
accordance with the Government's policy
as was in existence at the time of passing of
the order. The Government Order dated
04.08.2006 was rightly relied on by the
Collector while rejecting the application on
18.12.2006.
3 All. Nasir Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
323

36. The Full Court was of the view that by
making an application for grant of freehold
right, petitioner did not acquire vested right. The
Government policy applicable on the date of
decision of the Government would apply while
disposing off the applications of the petitioners
for freehold right.

37. Accordingly, in view of the law laid
down in Anand Kumar Sharma (supra), the
application submitted by the petitioners for
freehold rights, was entitled to be considered in
accordance with the Government policy as was
in existence on the date of passing of the order
on the application. The State respondents were
justified in disposing of the application
submitted by the petitioners as per the
Government policy mandated vide Government
Order dated 14 December, 2004.

38. It is noted in the impugned order that
the District Supply Officer had demanded the
premises to continue the office in the same
building, after removing the dilapidated
structure and constructing a new building,
thereupon. It is informed that budget was also
sanctioned for the construction but due to
pendency of the present writ petition, the same
could not be executed. The office was shifted to
another rented accommodation.

39. The plea of the petitioners that
petitioners
have
been
discriminated,
is
unfounded. It is not being disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioners have been granted freehold right on
2084 sq. meters of the same Nazul plot, like
being the case of other occupants of the plot.
Further, parity claimed by the petitioners with
lease holder of Nazul plot No. PP Civil Station,
Allahabad, contending that since they were
granted freehold rights, petitioners being
similarly placed should also be granted freehold
right. The claim based on parity lacks merit. On
Nazul plot No. 10, Civil Station, a Government
Office was in occupation of the building,
whereas, there is no such building in the
possession and occupation of the Government
department on Nazul plot No. PP Civil Station,
Allahabad. The Government Order dated 14
October, 2004, would govern all such Nazul
land over which Government Office /
Department is in occupation. That is not the
case with Nazul plot No. PP Civil Station,
Allahabad. In any case, petitioners are not the
lease holder / occupant of Nazul plot No. PP
Civil Station, Allahabad, therefore, it is not open
for the petitioners to submit that they have been
discriminated against after allottees of Nazul
plot No. PP Civil Station, Allahabad. The ratio
of Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (supra), would not apply
in the case of the petitioners.

40. The learned counsel for the petitioners
failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or
perversity in the impugned order.

41. The writ petition being devoid of
merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

42. The State respondent to proceed with
the construction of the Government office in
accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 19100 of 2022

Nasir Ali & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: