Saroj Bala, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 3.8.1995 (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Allahabad, respondent No. 3. The petitioner also seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to convert the lease hold rights into free hold rights and to refund the excess amount of Rs. 2,94,225-.
(2.) The back up facts leading to the writ petition arc these:
(3.) The U.P. State Government issued a Government Order dated 23.5.1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) announcing a policy for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights on depositing the assessed amount at the rates and manner prescribed therein. The petitioner moved an application on 16.1.1993 (Annexure-II to the writ petition) for conversion of the lease hold rights in Nazul land measuring 8001.41 sq. meter land situate at Bungalow No. 28/20, Sarojani Naidu Marg, Allahabad into free hold rights for the purpose of group Housing Scheme. According to the petitioner there was no restriction for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights but the Nazul Department insisted for renewal of the lease. The petitioner applied for and the lease was renewed on 7.4.1994. The Government Order dated 23.5.1992 was amended by an order dated 2.12.1992 and the conversion charges were reduced to 75% of the circle rate for group Housing Scheme. The Government Order dated 2.12.1992 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) provided that in case the amount assessed for conversion exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/- the lease holder would be permitted to deposit the same in four equal half yearly instalments with interest at the rate of 15% on the remaining amount. The permission to deposit the amount assessed was to be granted on the application of the leaseholder. According to the petitioner there was no condition for payment of stamp duty on the amount assessed for conversion of lease hold rights. The amount assessed for securing free hold rights being Rs. 67,25.380/- the petitioner applied for and was permitted to deposit the said amount in four equal half yearly instalments with 15% interest vide letter dated 30.9.1994 (Annexure-V to the writ petition). The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 16,81,034/- on 29.3.1994, Rs. 20,59,648/- on 20.10.1994 and Rs. 19,33,547/- on 27.5.1995 towards the first, second and third instalments through challans (Annexures-VI, VIA and VIB to the writ petition). The State Government vide Government Order dated 3.10.1994 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) again amended and modified the earlier government-order dated 2.12.1992 and announced the rebate of 20% for conversion in case the amount was deposited in lump sum within 90 days of demand. The free hold certificate was to be a duly registered document and stamp duty was payable on the amount of conversion. The petitioner moved an application on 15.9.1994 seeking rebate of 20% as he had deposited Rs. 16,81,034/- and was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount in lump sum. The respondent No. 2 vide letter 7.10.1994 (Annexure-IX to the writ petition) communicated to the petitioner that he had no information about the government order and directed the petitioner to make payment of the remaining amount. The petitioner deposited the remaining amount of second and third instalments on 20.10.1994 and 27.5.1995. After publication of Government Order dated 3.10.1994 the petitioner made a request vide letter dated 5.10.1994 expressing his willingness to deposit the entire balance amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Government Order dated 3.10.1994. The respondents slept over the matter for quite some time and on 3.8.1995 sent the impugned demand notice (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) calling upon the petitioner to deposit the last instalment of Rs. 18,07,446/- with interest at the rate of 15%. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order refers to a Government Order dated 23.11.1994. According to the petitioner the order dated 23.11.1994 is not a government order but clarification of Government Order dated 3.10.1994. The petitioner states that the total conversion charges payable being Rs. 67,25,380/- out of which after deduction of 20% rebate as per Government Order dated 3.10.1994, the petitioner is liable to deposit Rs. 53,80,004/-. The petitioner states that he having already deposited Rs. 56,74,229/- is entitled to the refund of excess amount. The contention of the petitioner is that the demand notice/ dated 3.8.1995 is illegal, arbitrary and against the notification dated 3.10.1994.;