- (1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following main reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notices dated 4.4.2014 (Annexure No. 8 and 9 of the writ petition) issue by the respondent No. 3 in the interest of equity and justice. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 28.9.2011 (Annexure No. 10 of the writ petition) and Government Order dated 4.3.2014 (Annexure No. 11 of the writ petition) issued by the State Government, declaring the Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 4.3.2014 as null and void pertaining to the petitioner in the interest of equity and justice. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to execute the freehold deed in favour of the practitioners for their respective area of 3915 sq.ft. each relating to the Nazul Plot No. 82, situated at 3, Park Road, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur, in pursuance of the applications dated 16.5.2008 after issuing the necessary demand note for balance amount in the interest of equity and justice. (iv) issue any other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (v) Award cost of petition to the petitioners." We have heard Sri J.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under:
(2.) The petitioners claim that the property in dispute was allotted to Sri P.N. Rai, the father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 and Sri L.R. Bajpai, the father of the pensioner No. 2 in the year 1968 and they were statutory tenants. After death of the aforesaid two allottees, the rights have been inherited by the present petitioners and they are the sitting statutory tenants. The two petitioners moved an application for getting the free hold rights over the area in their possession in pursuance of the policy of the State Government promulgated through Government Order dated 1.12.1998 and 17.3.2008. It has further been alleged by the petitioners that neither the erstwhile lessee late Purshattam Das nor his heirs respondents No. 4 to 7 ever exercised their rights for renewal of the lease deed which had expired. The petitioners further claim that in pursuance of Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 which conferred a right upon the statutory tenant to apply for grant of free hold rights in case the lessee fails to make such application for free hold rights in his favour, they made application alleging that they had a right for being considered for grant of free hold rights.
(3.) It appears that on the basis of the nomination made by the respondents No. 4 to 7 in favour of respondent No. 8, he also made an application for grant of free hold rights. Writ petition No. 4976 (MB) of 2009 was filed by the respondent No. 8 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2009 by following order: "Heard the Counsel for the petitioner Sri Vishal Dixit, Sri A.K. Bhatnagar for the State and Sri Sharad Tiwari for respondent No. 3. It is admitted to the respondents that application for conversion of leased nazul land into free hold is pending before the competent authority. Counsel for the State, Sri A.K. Bhatnagar says and draws attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the State in which it has been stated that the matter is under consideration, as apart from the petitioner, three more persons have applied for conversion of the land and, therefore, the matter may take some time. We take notice of the fact that proceedings for conversion of the nazul land into free hold are pending since long, therefore, we dispose of the writ petition, with the consent of the parties' Counsel, with a direction that the pending matter be considered and disposed of by the competent authority by passing appropriate orders expeditiously, say within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While deciding the matter, the relevant Government orders and Rules shall be taken into account and the matter shall be decided by a speaking and reasoned order. We may clarify that we have not addressed on the claim of either parties for conversion of the nature of the land and the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.";