JUDGMENT Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - Since the facts as well as the points involved in these three petitions are common, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Before we embark upon the controversy involved in these petitions, it may be recalled that the matter regarding the determination of rate of premium and renewal of leases relating to Civil Lines area of Allahabad has earlier been decided by this Court in the case of Purshottam Dass Tanden v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 All 56 . In the said case certain directions were issued to the opposite parties, among others, for the determination of rate of premium etc. We are given to understand that in compliance with the same the opposite parties have Luxmi Narain Sewa Puja Trust, Allahabad, calculated and determined the Nazrana and the yearly ground rent in regard to Nazul Respondents. plots of Civil Lines Area of Allahabad. 3. Dispute in each of these petitions relates to Nazul land which is situate on the Thornhill Road, Allahabad. Since the leases of the Nazul land in these cases have expired recently, the Collector, opposite party No. 3 in connection with the renewal of such leases has fixed Nazrana and yearly ground rent afresh against the petitioners for payment as consideration for grant of fresh lease. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the said calculation of Nazrana and yearly ground rent. 4. One of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the opposite parties while fixing the aforesaid amounts of Nazrana and yearly ground rent have adopted different standard for calculation inasmuch as for a land which is nearby and adjacent to the land of the petitioners they have fixed the rates of Nazrana and yearly ground rent at figures which are far below than these in the cases of the petitioners. Hence, the contention is that the opposite parties are not justified in law in making the said calculations regarding fixation of Nazrana and yearly ground rent in the case of persons other than the petitioners at less or rates while at the same time the calculation of Nazrana and yearly ground rent in the cases of the petitioners at high figures of rates arbitrarily. This has resulted in discrimination also. 5. This has resulted in discrimination also. 5. In reply, in paragraph 10 of the counter- affidavit it has been asserted that the calculations which have been made in cases of persons, other than petitioners, are in accordance with the Government order which applied to the plots situate in Civil Lines area of Allahabad. It has been further asserted that the disputed land of the petitioners is situate in Chikatpur village Naseebpur Bakhtiara and, therefore, the same is not governed by the G.O. which is applicable to Nazul plots situate in Civil Lines area of Allahabad. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. We find that the plots of the petitioners might be recorded to be situate in the old records in village Chikatpur, villages Naseebpur Bakhtiara, nonetheless it has not been denied that the Nazul plots of the petitioners are totally adjacent to the plots of such aforesaid other persons and are as a matter of fact for decades situate within the area of Civil Lines of Allahabad. In this situation, in our opinion, the distinction sought to be drawn on the facts in the counter-affidavit as stated above, is wholly without any substance. We, therefore, hold that the Nazul plots in question are situate in Civil Lines area of Allahabad and the rates of calculation of Nazarana and yearly ground rent in regard to the same shall be the same as in the case of other Nazul plots situate within the Civil Lines area of Allahabad. Apart from it the two lands i.e. land situate in village Chikatpur and in Civil Lines Allahabad being adjacent and there being no distinction nor State could point out any rationale on which any geographical clarification could be made to justify demand of a different rent from lessee of village Chikatpur the action of petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. The other defence taken in the counter- affidavit in the cases of the petitioners is that since the estimated value of Nazul plots is so high that it is only the State Government that can sanction the renewal of the lease in question. Reliance in this connection has been placed on R. 48 of the Nazul Rules. The contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties is that the matter has been referred to the State Govt. accordingly. Reliance in this connection has been placed on R. 48 of the Nazul Rules. The contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties is that the matter has been referred to the State Govt. accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioners very strongly controverts the same by submitting that having regard to R. 48 of the Nazul Rules, the said reference is incompetent inasmuch as the estimated value of the land does not exceed the powers of the Collector to grant the said lease. The relevant portion of R. 48 of the Nazul Rules reads as follows :- "48. Sale or lease of a plot shall, subject to the provisions of R. 50, be sanctioned by :- (1) The Collector, if the estimated value does not exceed Rs. 2,500/-; (2) The Commissioner, if the estimated value exceed Rs. 2,500 but does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-; (3) The State Government in other cases." 8. The figure of Rs. 2500/- as stated above in sub-cl. (1) of R. 48 of the Nazul Rules, has further been increased by the G.O.6422(8)/9- Nazul-485 N/86 dated 16th October, 1986 issued by the Joint Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow to all District Magistrates (Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter-affidavit) to Rs. 25,000/-. As regards the determination of the estimated value, we find that according to a G.O. No. 3162-A/IX- A-186-54 dated October 17, 1958, the estimated value is to be taken as follows : "Estimated value" shall be taken as twenty times the Annual value of the plot and shall include the value of any building on the plait, if the building is the property of Government.' Admittedly, in the present cases the building constructed on the Nazul land in question in the case of each of the petitioners is not the property of the Government and, therefore, the estimated value shall he taken as twenty times of the Annual value of the plot. It is admitted to the parties in each of these petitions that the estimated value so calculated is far below that and does not exceed the figure of Rs. 25,000/-. As such it is only the Collector who has jurisdiction to grant the leases of the plots. In this view of the matter, to our mind, reference to the State Government as has been done by the opposite parties.. is not warranted by law. 25,000/-. As such it is only the Collector who has jurisdiction to grant the leases of the plots. In this view of the matter, to our mind, reference to the State Government as has been done by the opposite parties.. is not warranted by law. Thus both the pleas taken by the opposite parties for the justification in calculation of Nazrana and yearly ground rent in the impugned notices of demand have got no substance. 9. Since in our opinion these petitions are liable to succeed on the above ground, the other pleas taken by the petitioners need not be gone into. 10. In view of the above discussions, all the three writ petitions are allowed with costs. The calculation of Nazrana and yearly ground rent as made by the opposite parties in the case of the petitioners and the consequent demand in regard thereto as well as reference to the State Government in regard to the none are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are further directed to calculate the Nazrana and the yearly ground rent on the basis of calculation applicable to the cases of Nazul land situate in the area of Civil Lines of Allahabad. Since some more cases like the present one may be filed in future in this Court we consider it appropriate also to direct that the above last direction shall also apply to the cases of other persons as well whose Nazul plots are similarly situate in Chikatpur, village Naseebpur Bakhtiara and now form part of area of Civil Lines, Allahabad. After complying with the above directions, the opposite parties shall proceed in accordance with law