1. Denial of equal treatment in similar circumstances relating to conferment of proprietary rights over the land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla and 24 Sft. situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road, Jammu in terms of Govt. order of 1981forms the foundation of this writ petition. The order out of which right is claimed to have flown may be noticed: "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR REVENUE DEPARTMENT Sub: Transfer of leases on proprietary basis Ref: (i) Cabinet Decision No: 280 dated 22.6.1981 (ii) Cabinet Decision No. 356 dated 17.8.1981 Government Order No: Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 Dated: 17.8.1981 It is ordered that the Wasidars who have acquired Nazool land on lease basis, shall have the option to acquire the said land on proprietary basis on payment of price equivalent to half the prevailing market price in the Estate (Mauza) By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Secretary to Government" 2. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties it will be advantageous to give a brief narrative of admitted facts. Initially lease hold rights over an area of 2 kanals 14 marlas and 54 Sft. came to be conferred on the petitioners father, late Dr.Ram Singh Pachnanda in the year 1952 against payment of premium and ground rent. It was followed by another allotment conferring similar rights but for commercial purposes on an area of six marlas and 242 Sft. vide Government Order No. Rev (NDJ)/267 of 1970 dated 03.07.1970 read with Corrigendum No. Rev (NDJ)/65/102 dated 24.03.1981. The additional area being in possession of the petitioner right from 1952 itself, the subsequent allotment was made effective retrospectively from 22.10.1952 under the Wasidari Rules. After the death of the petitioners father, the Wasidari rights were transferred in favour of his wife, Smt. Savitri Pachnanda vide mutation No. 97 and on her expiry, lease hold rights have been transferred in favour of her son, the petitioner herein, consequently, reiteration of claim for conferment of proprietary rights on the land described hereinabove but of no avail, resultantly OWP 1037/2001 which came to be disposed of by judgement dated 20-11-2001 extracted for facility of reference hereunder: "The short submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled to be proprietary rights being conferred on him vis-a-vis the land possession whereof has been regularized in his favour. For this, reliance is being placed on two judgments of this court given by this court in cases titled Dr. Ved Khullar Vs State and Others (WP No: 634/1987) decided on 13.9.1990 and Manjeet Singh and ors Vs State of J&K and others (OWP No: 933/1995) decided on 17.4.2000. Copies of these judgments are annexures "N" and "O" to the writ petition. This petition is, accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner and dispose them of in accordance with law. The judgments referred to above would be taken note of. Let this be done within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available by the petitioner to the respondents as also to the counsel who has put in appearance today on behalf of the respondents. Mr. B.S. Manhas Sr. AAG has put in appearance today on behalf of the respondents. Petition admitted and is disposed of in the manner indicated above." 3. In pursuance of the said judgement the petitioners claim was considered but rejected vide Government vide order which reads: "Government of Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Department. Subject: Application of Smt. Savitri Pachnanda Wd/o Late Dr. Ram Singh Pachnanda for grant of proprietary rights over t he Nazool Land situated at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu. Government Order No. Rev(NDJ) 56 of 2003 Dated 11.03.2003 Whereas Nazool land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla and 24 Sqft situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road, Rehari Jammu was leased out to Late Dr. Ram Singh Pachnanda in the year 1952 for a period of 40 years. Whereas after the death of Dr. Ram Singh Pachnanda the Wasidari rights were transferred in favour of Late Smt Savitri Devi wife of late Ram Singh and mother of Dr. V. K. Pachnanda. Whereas vide Govt. order No: Rev (NDJ) 184 of 1996 dated 28.10.1996, the lease hold rights of the lease have been renewed-cum-transferred in favour of Dr. V. K. Pachnanda son of the deceased lessee Dr. Ram Singh in respect of the following area for a further period of 20 years from the date the term of last leases expired viz 21.10.1992 and 13.12.1992 respectively. i. 2 kanals 14 marlas 54 Sfts Residential purpose ii. 6 Marlas 242 Sft Commercial purpose Whereas Dr. V. K. Pachnanda son of the deceased lessee Dr. Ram Singh in respect of the following area for a further period of 20 years from the date the term of last leases expired viz 21.10.1992 and 13.12.1992 respectively. i. 2 kanals 14 marlas 54 Sfts Residential purpose ii. 6 Marlas 242 Sft Commercial purpose Whereas Dr. V. K. Pachnanda represented that his mother had applied for ownerships rights of lease land on 20.11.1981 to the Asstt. Commissioner Nazool Jammu in terms of Govt. Order No: Rev (NDK) 248 of 1981 dated 17.8.1981 (which had provided option to the lessees to acquire the said land on proprietary basis on payment of price equivalent to half the prevailing market price in the estate. Whereas the said Govt. order No. Rev (NDK) 248 of 1981 dated 17.08.1981 was rescinded vide Govt. order No: Rev(NDK) 106 of 1984 dated 19.6.1984 which was subsequently withdrawn vide Government Order No. Rev(NDJ) 34 of 1985 dated 21.1.1985. Further the said Government order No. Rev (NDJ) 34 of 1985 dated 21.1.1985 was modified vide Government order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985 dated 24.9.1985 to the effect that the lessees who are interested in converting their leases into free hold rights may do so after payment of full market price. Whereas in the year 2001 the petitioner(Dr.V. K.Pacnhanda) filed writ petition OWP No: 1037/2001 before Honble High Court at Jammu praying for grant of free hold rights on aforesaid land. Whereas the said writ petition was disposed of by the Honble High Court vide its order dated 20.11.2001 with direction to consider the claims of the petitioner and dispose them off in accordance with law. Whereas Shri Pachnandas has represented that he may be given proprietary rights of the leased land on the analogy of Dr.Ved Khullar who has been granted proprietary rights of lease property on payment of price equivalent to half of the prevailing market rate vide Govt. Order No: Rev (NDJ) 69 of 1993 dated 22.04.1993 with specific clause that rights confirmed under this order cannot be construed a precedent precedence for other cases. Order No: Rev (NDJ) 69 of 1993 dated 22.04.1993 with specific clause that rights confirmed under this order cannot be construed a precedent precedence for other cases. Whereas the Government has passed the J&K State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to the occupants) Act 2002 known as "Roshni Act" which allows lessees (with leased in fora) to apply for grant of proprietary rights on payment of 75% of the market value of the land other wise against full market value of the land if the lease is not inforce. Whereas the request of the applicant has been considered in the light of Court direction and it has been established that there is no ground to grant ownership rights in favour of the petitioner on the analogy of Dr. Ved Khullar issued under Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 248 of 81 dated 17.08.1981. The application of the lesses mother has been found to be antidated and fabricated and is therefore rejected. By Order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Sd/- Secretary to Government Revenue Department" 4. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned Govt. order, (impugned order for short) a writ is sought for quashing the same with a further prayer to command the respondent-State to confer proprietary rights on the petitioner on payment of price equivalent to half the market price prevalent on 20-11-1981, the date when his mother had exercised the option to acquire the land which is sought to be defeated by the respondent-State for the reasons spelt out in the last three paras of the impugned order summarized hereunder: (i) That the Government has passed the J&K State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to the Occupants) Act 2002 known as " Roshni Scheme" (ii) There is no similarity between Dr. Ved Khullar and Petitioner; (iii) The application of the petitioner has been found ante dated and fabricated. 5. Elaborating the first ground of rejection it was contended by Mr. Qazi that in view of the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of ownership to the Occupants) Act 2001, the petitioner cannot claim conferment of rights under the orders preceding to the said enactment. To refute the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in OWP 933/95 titled Manjit Singh and others versus State and others decided on 17.04.2000, the relevant para whereof is extracted hereunder: ".............. To refute the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in OWP 933/95 titled Manjit Singh and others versus State and others decided on 17.04.2000, the relevant para whereof is extracted hereunder: ".............. So whether the petitioners are entitled to proprietary rights in terms of order dated 17.8.1981 or government order dated 24.9.1985 will depend upon as to when petitioners applied for grant of proprietary rights. Their specific case is that they applied immediately after the issue of govt. order dated 17.8.1981. It is also their case that number of persons who had applied under the aforesaid orders were granted proprietary rights. These averments have not been denied by the respondents. The State has simply stated that the order dated 17.8.1981 has been substituted by order dated 24.9.1985. This is no ground to defeat the right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners under govt. order dated 17.8.1981 because even if a single person has been given the benefit of earlier order and the petitioners case was not processed for whatever reason before the issue or order dated 24.9.1985 they cannot be denied the benefit of earlier order. Since these facts have not been denied by the respondents, this petition is allowed and respondents are directed to grant proprietary rights in terms of government order dated 17.8.1985 within a period of two months. This petition is disposed of." 6. With a view to appreciate the similarity of the facts reference to the Govt. Order of 1985 becomes imperative which may be noticed: "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR CIVIL SECTT REVENUE DEPARTMENT Sub Transfer of leases-HOLD RIGHT ON Nazool on proprietary basis Ref: Cabinet Decision No. 344 dated 22.9.1985 Government Order No: Rev/NDK/309 of 1985 Dated 24.9.1985 In partial modification to clause (1) of the Order No. Rev (NDJ)34 of 1985 dated 21.1.1985, it is ordered that the lessees who are interested in converting to lease leases into free hold rights, may do so after payment of full market price. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Sd/-ÿ (S.A. Qayum) Secretary to Government Revenue Department" 7. A plain reading of the Govt. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Sd/-ÿ (S.A. Qayum) Secretary to Government Revenue Department" 7. A plain reading of the Govt. order of 1981 reproduced in the beginning of this judgement and the order of 1985 as above reveal that the difference between the two orders is that the former (order of 1981) provided conferment of proprietary rights on payment of half the market price, whereas the latter (order of 1985) envisages the same benefit but on full market price. The contention of the State in Manjit Singhs case was that before granting the benefit of order of 1981, same was substituted by order of 1985, therefore, the petitioner was disentitled to the benefit. Dealing with the stance, the writ court found that the benefit was granted to some but the application of the petitioner was not processed even though he had applied during the subsistence of Govt. Order of 1981. On these facts, the writ court ruled that Manjit Singh and others, petitioners therein, could not be denied the benefit of the Govt. order of 1981. In the case on hand, Smt. Savitri Pachnanda had applied on 20-11-1981. Her application was on the official record but was not processed. In the meanwhile the Govt. introduced Roshni Scheme and relying upon the same the application of the petitioner has been rejected impliedly on the ground that it is the Roshni Scheme which has to apply to his claim and not the Govt. order of 1981. As is seen the similar opposition was registered by the respondents to the writ petition of Manjit Singh and others but was turned down by the writ court which has gone uninterfered with both before the Division Bench in LPA and the apex court in SLP, obviously the last word on the issue and answered against the State. More so, the respondents having acted upon the order of 1981 and having extended benefits to several persons, they cannot deny the benefit to the petitioner because of their inaction and introduction of Roshni Scheme will not deprive the petitioner of the benefits those have accrued to his mother during the subsistence of the Govt. order of 1981. 8. Second ground of rejection is that case of Dr. Khullar is distinguishable. Is there any substance in the contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the land possessed by Dr. order of 1981. 8. Second ground of rejection is that case of Dr. Khullar is distinguishable. Is there any substance in the contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the land possessed by Dr. Khullar was originally allotted to one Shri Kanwar Navinder Singh who had transferred his lease hold rights by sale to the former and upon sale of such rights, Dr. Khullar made an application to the Government for transfer of lease hold rights which was granted and sanction accorded. The petitioners case is on a better pedestal because transfer of the lease hold rights in his favour is by devolution being a legal heir of Smt. Savitri Pachnanda. As regards factum of construction of a residential house by Dr. Khullar, petitioner in no manner falls behind because his father, Dr. Ram Singh Pachnanda, the original lessee too had raised a residential house. Examining from any angle, the petitioner is similarly circumstanced with Dr. Khullar, therefore, there is no justification for the respondents to deny similar treatment to the petitioner. It may not be impertinent to make a mention about the judgement passed by the writ Court in petitioners earlier cause urged in writ petition OWP 1037/01 wherein the Court had specifically directed the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner on the analogy of Dr. Ved Khullar and Manjit Singh but they chose not to comply with the judgement as is evidenced by impugned order itself which does not make any mention about Manjit Singhs case. Non adherence to the mandate of the judgement smacks of mala fide in abundance because fall out of consideration of the petitioners claim on the analogy of Manjit Singhs case would be his entitlement to the similar treatment, consequently conferment of proprietary rights in terms of Govt. order of 1981. 9. The petitioner has not restricted to the instances of Dr. Khullar and Manjit Singh only referred to in the judgement passed in his earlier writ petition but has amplified his stand stretching to the settlement of claims by the Government in case of Smt. Rishi Kumari and Shri Ghulam Hassan. In Smt. Rishi Kumaris case cost of the plot was received at the rate assessed nine years before. Another instance latest in point of time relates to the land situated at Kothi Bagh, Srinagar evidenced by communication of the Govt. In Smt. Rishi Kumaris case cost of the plot was received at the rate assessed nine years before. Another instance latest in point of time relates to the land situated at Kothi Bagh, Srinagar evidenced by communication of the Govt. dated 01-09-2003 which may be noticed: "Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Secretariat Revenue Department The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Incharge Nazool Organization, Srinagar No; Rev (NDK) 78/85 Dated 01.09.2003 Subject: Regularization of possession over State Land in favour of Sh. Ghulam Hassan Bhat Proprietor M/S Ahdoos Restnurant Kothi Bagh Srinagar in terms of Government order No. Rev (NDK) 48 of 1986 dated 04.02.1986 Sir, Kindly refer to the subject cited above, Shri Gh. Hassan Bhat M/S Ahdoos Restaurant Kothi Bagh Srinagar was allotted an area of State Land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas and 241 Sft in Estate Kothi Bagh Srinagar on lease basis vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 212 of 1982 dated 09.08.1982 against payment of premium of Rs 2 lac per kanal + ground rent at commercial rates subject to certain terms and conditions. The lessee made an application on 07.10.1985 that proprietary rights be granted to him over leased land against payment of market value. The Government issued Order No. Rev (NDK) 48 of 1986 dated 14.02.1986 conferring proprietary rights over this land on the lessee against payment of market value. The lessee then made another application in 1986 requesting that the amount of premium paid by him in 1982 may be adjusted towards the cost of land. The matter remained pending all along for the for more than 16 years. Now the application has been examined and it has been found that the plea of the lessee does not merit any consideration as he had himself consented to payment of full market value vide his application dated 07.10.1985 and that more than 20 years have already elapsed (the lease had been granted to the lessee for a period of only 20 years vide Government Order No: Rev (NDK) 312 of 1982 dated 09.08.1982. Therefore the application of the lessee for adjustment of premium towards cost of land has been rejected. Therefore the application of the lessee for adjustment of premium towards cost of land has been rejected. The lessee has now to pay the cost of land at the rate assessed in 1986 i.e. Rs 3.80 lac per kanal + 6% interest over it for a period of 17 years 6 months and 12 days towards works out at Rs 8,77,221/- The total amount payable by the lessee comes to at Rs 77,11,055/- for conferment of proprietary rights on him over an area of 2 Kanals 3 Marlas and 241 Sft of State Land comprising Survey No: 158 min and 159 min of Estate Kothi Bagh Srinagar. You are therefore, directed to take further action in the matter. Yours faithfully Sd/ Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department" (underlining supplied) 10. Perusal of the above communication reveals that Shri Ghulam Hassan, proprietor Ahdoos Hotel and Restaurant, Srinagar had filed the application in the year 1986 for conferment of proprietary rights over nazool land measuring 2 kanals 4 marls and 241 Sft. situated at Kothi Bagh Srinagar which stands decided in the year 2003 requiring him to pay a rate that was assessed in the year 1986 apparently as per the market rate that was prevalent seventeen years ago on the ground that he had applied seventeen years before. Since petitioners mother had also filed an application in the year 1981, the respondents owe an explanation to the Court as to what prompted them to allow lease hold rights in favour of Shri Ghulam Hassan at a rate less than rupees four lacs per kanal and not to concede to the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner approved of by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, fetching a sum of rupees ten lacs per kanal, ex facie much more than what is charged from Mr. Ghulam Hassan, explanation much less satisfactory one is lacking. Ghulam Hassan, explanation much less satisfactory one is lacking. As is seen the petitioners claim is contested because of introduction of Roshni Scheme also but while dealing with the claim of Shri Ghulam Hassan in the year 2003, Roshni Scheme of 2001 did not work as an impediment for the beneficiary, for, his case was pending prior to Roshni Scheme, rightly so because that makes no difference as ruled in Manjit Singhs case but what is disturbing is that when State could appreciate the legal position correctly in case of Shri Ghulam Hassan, what prevented it to apply same standard to the petitioners case. Even this sole instance speaks volumes. 11. This brings me to the crucial objection that application dated 20-11-1981 of Smt. Savitri Pachnanda is antedated and fabricated. To substantiate the contention Mr. Qazi, learned AAG submitted that the application was signed by Smt. Savitri Pachnanda in english in the year 1981 whereas in the Will executed by her in 1994 in favour of Dr. Pachnanda, she had affixed her thumb impression. His contention is that if she could sign in 1981 why didnt she do so in 1994. The contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the communication of the Additional Commissioner Jammu addressed to the Financial Commissioner (R), Srinagar which reads: "OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER JAMMU No: 502/188/95/NJ/64 Dated 6.8.2001 The Financial Commissioner (R), J&K Government, Srinagar. Subject: Application of Smt Savitri Pachnanda Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Singh Pachnanda R/o Exchange Road Jammu for grant of proprietary rights over Nazool land measuring 3 KLs-01 Ml 24 Sqft situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road Rehari Jammu. Sir, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu vide his letter No: 2049/N/96-97/135-36 dt 11.5.1999 (copy enclosed) has recommended for grant of proprietary rights over Nazool land measuring 03 Kls 01 Mls 24 Sqft situated at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu on payment of full market price of Rs 10.00 lacs per kanal in terms of Govt. order No: Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985 dated 24.9.1985 in favour of Dr. V. K. Pachnanda. Some doubts have been expressed on the application dated 20.11.1981 given in terms of Govt. order No: Rev (NDK) 246 of 1981 dated 17.8.1981 by Smt Savitrai Pachnanda Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Singh Pachnanda wherein she has put her signatures in english whereas she has affixed her thumb impression on the "WILL" dated 29.3.94. V. K. Pachnanda. Some doubts have been expressed on the application dated 20.11.1981 given in terms of Govt. order No: Rev (NDK) 246 of 1981 dated 17.8.1981 by Smt Savitrai Pachnanda Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Singh Pachnanda wherein she has put her signatures in english whereas she has affixed her thumb impression on the "WILL" dated 29.3.94. Besides, even through the application given by Smt Savitri Devi was marked on 20.11.1981 by an unidentified officer. Yet no action was taken till 16.9.1995. Both the apprehensions have been verified in this office and it is found that Smt Savitri Pachnanda Wd/o R.S.Pachnanda used to sign in english but started putting thumb impression after suffering from paralysis of small muscles of her hand. Dr. V.K.Pachnanda has produced a certificate issued by Dr. S.K. Gupta, Neurologist, Medical College Hospital Jammu wherein he has written that Smt Savitri Devi Pachnanda is having paralysis of small Muscles of her hand and because of the above disease cannot do movement. Instead of signing, she has started putting her thumb impression. As regard marking of the application presented by Smt Savitri Pachnanda on 20.11.1981 in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Nazool) it has been found that Sh.Raj Paul Sharma was holding the charge of Assistant Commissioner (N) on that date and it is he who has marked this application in the office which has been ascertained from the initial of Sh. Raj Paul Sharma on the record maintained in the office of Asstt Commissioner (N) and in the office of Dy. Controller Weights and Measures as he had also held the charge of Dy. Controller, Weights and Measures Jammu for some period. Copy of the Acquittance Roll signed by Shri Raj Paul Sharma in the capacity as Dy. Controller Weights & Measures is also enclosed. Moreover Shri Raj Paul Sharma then Asstt. Commissioner (N) has also given in writing on 23.6.2001 that the application was marked by him as it bears his signatures. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Govt. Copy of the Acquittance Roll signed by Shri Raj Paul Sharma in the capacity as Dy. Controller Weights & Measures is also enclosed. Moreover Shri Raj Paul Sharma then Asstt. Commissioner (N) has also given in writing on 23.6.2001 that the application was marked by him as it bears his signatures. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Govt. order No. Rev (NDJ) 184 of 1996 dated 28.10.1996 sanction has been accorded to the renewal-cum-transfer of lease hold rights over Nazool land measuring 03 kanals-01 Ml and 24 Sqft (02 Kls 14 Mls) and 54 Sqft for residential and 06 Mls 242 Sqft (for commercial) covered by item No: 371 of wasidari register situated at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu in favour of Shri V. K. Pachnanda S/o Late Ram Singh Pachnanda for a further period of 20 years from the date the term of last expired viz 21.10.1962 and 13.12.1992 AD In view of the aforementioned facts, I am desired to request that necessary sanction to the grant of proprietary rights over Nazool land measuring 03 kanals -01 Mls and 24 Sqft situate at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu may kindly be accorded in favour of Dr. V. K. Pachnanda on payment of full market price of the land @ Rs 10.00 (Rupees ten lacs) per kanal in term of Govt. order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985 dated 24.9.1985 as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner Jammu. Yours Faithfully, Sd/ Addl. Commissioner Jammu." (Underlining supplied) 12. The very first para of the above said communication makes it clear that the contentious issue had evoked concern of the authorities also and upon its examination it was found that Smt. Savitri Pachnanda had suffered a paralytic attack, consequently unable to sign, therefore, thumb impression. The finding is returned in pursuance of a query made by the higher authorities which stands accepted. Endeavor of Mr. Qazi appears to unsettle a settled issue without there being any material. It is also contended by him that transfer of lease hold rights in favour of Smt. Savitri Pachnanda was impermissible in law because it was without permission. In this behalf sight cant be lost of the fact that there is no dispute that mutation was attested by the competent authority way back in the year 1986. It was not challenged at any point of time by anyone even as on date. In this behalf sight cant be lost of the fact that there is no dispute that mutation was attested by the competent authority way back in the year 1986. It was not challenged at any point of time by anyone even as on date. It has been acted upon and fact of the matter is that the controversy was examined in detail by the respondents but was found devoid of any force as evidenced by departmental record (see notes 13 to 17 of File No. Rev(NDJ)/1995. The matter does not end here, there is something more to debase the objection and that is the Government order No. Rev(NDJ)/184 of 1996 dated 28-10-1996 which reads: "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR REVENUE DEPARTMENT Subject: Renewal/transfer of lease hold rights in favour of Shri V. K. Pachnanda S/O Late Shri Ram Singh Pachnanda R/O Exchange Road Jammu Reference: Divisional Commissioner Jammus letter No. 502/J/N/188/1411-12 dated 6.10.1996 Sanction Government Order No: Rev(NDJ)184 of 1996 Dated 28.10.1996 Sanction is accorded to the renewal-cum-transfer of lease hold rights over Nazool land measuring 3 kanal 01 Marla and 24 Sft (2 Kanal 14 Marlas and 54 Sft residential) and 6 Marla 242 Sft commercial) covered by item No: 371 of Wasidari Register situate at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu in favour of Shri V. K. Pachnanda S/o Late Shri Ram Singh Pachnanda R/O Exchange Road Jammu for a further period of 20 years from the date the term of last leases expired viz 21.10.1992 and 13.12.1992 AD respectively, on an enhanced ground rent at 150% upon the original terms and conditions of the lease. The lease hold rights shall be governed by the provisions of J&K Land Grants Act 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Sd/ (Suresh Kumar) IAS Spl. Secretary to Government Revenue Department" 13. A conjoint reading of Govt. order aforementioned besides contemporaneous record maintained by the Government makes it clear that the order conferring lease hold rights on the petitioner was passed after deriving absolute satisfaction about the genuineness of the mutation 79 of 1986. That being so, I have no hesitation to say that contention of Mr. Qazi is quiet contrary to the record and devoid of any logic. It was also canvassed by Mr. Qazi that the petitioner had slept over the matter. That being so, I have no hesitation to say that contention of Mr. Qazi is quiet contrary to the record and devoid of any logic. It was also canvassed by Mr. Qazi that the petitioner had slept over the matter. The contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that Smt. Savitri Devi died on 06.09.1994 and it was on 12.09.1995 that the petitioner reminded the respondents about the application of her mother dated 1981 followed by a series of reminders which failed to evoke any response, resultantly, constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court vide OWP 1037/01 decided on 29.11.2001 requiring the respondents to decide the petitioners application within a period of three months. Reckoned from the date of judgement, an obligation was cast upon the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner by the end of March 2002 but it was decided on 11-03-2003, apparently after a gap of one year. The conduct of the respondents makes it very clear that even the mandate of the judgement could not make them to speed up things, yet they are attributing inaction to the petitioner least appreciating that right to pursue the claim for conferment of proprietary rights in his own right accrued to him on 06-09-1994 upon the expiry of his mother, Smt. Savitri Pachnanda, that too during the subsistence of Govt. order of 1985 and as is seen from the record, he has lost no time in chasing the respondents untiringly ever since. Mr. Qazi has also ignored that it was for the respondents to decide the application one way or the other. Be that as it may the petitioner can, by no stretch of imagination, be punished for the failure of the respondents to dispose of his mothers application during the existence of Govt. order of 1981. 14. In the sequel, the objection to the Will contending that the petitioner could not have claimed the lease hold rights to the exclusion of his sister. It is saddening to note that this argument is strikingly different from the record which reveals that an observation on that count made on the file was dealt with by the respondents in detail and among other things what prevailed on them is that the petitioners sister did not lay the claim contrary to the Will. It is saddening to note that this argument is strikingly different from the record which reveals that an observation on that count made on the file was dealt with by the respondents in detail and among other things what prevailed on them is that the petitioners sister did not lay the claim contrary to the Will. It is not understandable as to how this objection could be conceived of in the face of the Govt. order which has clinched the issue for good by having conferred lease hold rights on the petitioner on the basis of the Will itself. The disclaimer only discloses the curiosity of the respondents to defeat the petitioners claim as otherwise it is devoid of any basis. 15. Reverting to the decisive issue that the application is antedated and fabricated, I have meticulously examined the record of the Government, perusal whereof reveals that a suspicion was registered by the Additional Secretary which resulted in an inquiry as is evident by the communication of the Additional Commissioner which reads: " OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER JAMMU No: 502/188/95/NJ/64 Dated 6.8.2001 The Financial Commissioner (R), J&K Government, Srinagar. Subject: Application of Smt Savitri Pachnanda Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Singh Pachnanda R/o Exchange Road Jammu for grant of proprietary rights over Nazool land measuring 3 KLs-01 Ml 24 Sqft situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road Rehari Jammu. Sir, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu vide his letter No: 2049/N/96-97/135-36 dt 11.5.1999 (copy enclosed) has recommended for grant of proprietary rights over Nazool land measuring 03 Kls 01 Mls 24 Sqft situated at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu on payment of full market price of Rs 10.00 lacs per kanal in terms of Govt. order No: Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985 dated 24.9.1985 in favour of Dr. V. K. Pachnanda. Some doubts have been expressed on the application dated 20.11.1981 given in terms of Govt. order No: Rev (NDK) 246 of 1981 dated 17.8.1981 by Smt Savitrai Pachnanda Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Singh Pachnanda wherein she has put her signatures in english whereas she has affixed her thumb impression on the "WILL" dated 29.3.94. Besides, even through the application given by Smt Savitri Devi was marked on 20.11.1981 by an unidentified officer. Yet no action was taken till 16.9.1995. Ram Singh Pachnanda wherein she has put her signatures in english whereas she has affixed her thumb impression on the "WILL" dated 29.3.94. Besides, even through the application given by Smt Savitri Devi was marked on 20.11.1981 by an unidentified officer. Yet no action was taken till 16.9.1995. Both the apprehensions have been verified in this office and it is found that Smt Savitri Pachnanda Wd/o R.S.Pachnanda used to sign in english but started putting thumb impression after suffering from paralysis of small muscles of her hand. Dr. V.K.Pachnanda has produced a certificate issued by Dr. S.K. Gupta, Neurologist, Medical College Hospital Jammu wherein he has written that Smt Savitri Devi Pachnanda is having paralysis of small Muscles of her hand and because of the above disease cannot do movement. Instead of signing, she has started putting her thumb impression. As regard marking of the application presented by Smt Savitri Pachnanda on 20.11.1981 in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Nazool) it has been found that Sh.Raj Paul Sharma was holding the charge of Assistant Commissioner (N) on that date and it is he who has marked this application in the office which has been ascertained from the initial of Sh. Raj Paul Sharma on the record maintained in the office of Asstt Commissioner (N) and in the office of Dy. Controller Weights and Measures as he had also held the charge of Dy. Controller, Weights and Measures Jammu for some period. Copy of the Acquittance Roll signed by Shri Raj Paul Sharma in the capacity as Dy. Controller Weights & Measures is also enclosed. Moreover Shri Raj Paul Sharma then Asstt. Commissioner (N) has also given in writing on 23.6.2001 that the application was marked by him as it bears his signatures. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Govt. Copy of the Acquittance Roll signed by Shri Raj Paul Sharma in the capacity as Dy. Controller Weights & Measures is also enclosed. Moreover Shri Raj Paul Sharma then Asstt. Commissioner (N) has also given in writing on 23.6.2001 that the application was marked by him as it bears his signatures. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Govt. order No. Rev (NDJ) 184 of 1996 dated 28.10.1996 sanction has been accorded to the renewal-cum-transfer of lease hold rights over Nazool land measuring 03 kanals-01 Ml and 24 Sqft (02 Kls 14 Mls) and 54 Sqft for residential and 06 Mls 242 Sqft (for commercial) covered by item No: 371 of wasidari register situated at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu in favour of Shri V. K. Pachnanda S/o Late Ram Singh Pachnanda for a further period of 20 years from the date the term of last expired viz 21.10.1962 and 13.12.1992 AD In view of the aforementioned facts, I am desired to request that necessary sanction to the grant of proprietary rights over Nazool land measuring 03 kanals -01 Mls and 24 Sqft situate at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Jammu may kindly be accorded in favour of Dr. V. K. Pachnanda on payment of full market price of the land @ Rs 10.00 (Rupees ten lacs) per kanal in term of Govt. order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985 dated 24.9.1985 as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner Jammu. Yours Faithfully, Sd/ Addl. Commissioner Jammu." (Underlining supplied) 16. It transpires that on a comprehensive examination of the entire record it was found by the respondents that the signature of Shri Raj Paul Sharma, the then Assistant Commissioner Nazool on the application of Smt. Savitri Pachnanda, tallies in all respect with his signatures borne on the official files. The said officer happened to be the custodian of the record at the relevant point of time and in his statement he has admitted that the application does bear his signatures. As regards allegation of manipulation of the application, it is the brain child of the Additional Secretary who had no proof to observe so, excepting his own impression which stands dispelled by a finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer in the inquiry initiated and conducted by the authorities at the helm on their own and without associating the petitioner. The conclusion of the enquiry recorded by the Additional Commissioner on the basis of evidence being crystal clear on the score that application was actually filed by Smt. Savitri Pachnanda which does form part of the official record produced by the respondents, coupled with the fact that there is no evidence even worth the name on the record to the contrary, it emerges that the impugned order emanates from a unilateral and grossly unreasonable exercise of power suggesting discharge of public duty in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. That being so, impugned order is quashed. As a corollary, a direction is called for requiring the respondents to grant the proprietary rights to the petitioner. 17. Here arises a question as to which order should be applied to the case of the petitioner for the purposes of settlement of the price. Dealing with the question Mr.Qazi contended that price cannot be as was prevalent on the date of application but should be as per "Roshni Scheme". To bring home the point reliance is placed on the judicial decisions in State of Bihar Vs. Commissioner Prashad (AIR SCW 2000 SC 2389). The facts of the said decision reveal that a claim was laid for counting the officiating service towards seniority on an analogy held impermissible in law. Writ petition in hand does not represent a situation where benefit is sought on analogy of a policy which runs contrary to law, therefore, judgement is not attracted. Reliance is also placed by him on Union of India Vs. International Trading Company (AIR 2003 SC 3939) which has dealt with refusal to extend the lease to operate Foreign Deep Sea Fishing by Foreign Vessels in terms of the Maritime Zone of India (Regulation of Fishing by foreign Vessels) Act 1981, emanating from change in the policy, whereas in the case hand there is no denying that the policy envisaging conferment of proprietary rights is in vogue and benefits on the basis of Government policy have flown to several persons, conversely, in the case relied upon by Mr.Qazi policy of renewal was virtually said goodbye by the Government. Thus non-existence of the policy of renewal makes the judgment distinguishable and inapplicable. Reference was also made to New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 1). The case involved a controversy relating to procedure for allotment of flats. Thus non-existence of the policy of renewal makes the judgment distinguishable and inapplicable. Reference was also made to New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 1). The case involved a controversy relating to procedure for allotment of flats. It was held that mere drawl of lots does not vest indefeasible right in the allottee in respect of the price prevailing on the date of drawl of lots. It is opposite to notice here that a clause exists in the scheme itself relied upon in the judgment supra which among other things mentioned in the brochure is illustrative and is subject to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies of lay out, cost of construction etc. (See para 8 of the judgment supra). No such condition is stipulated in the order which forms basis of the petitioners claim. More so, escalation in the cost of material is irrelevant to the writ petition because neither lay out nor construction does have any relevance to the case on hand which makes a world of difference between the two sets of facts. Dissimilarity being manifest judgment does not apply. 18. Back to the core issue as to which of the Government orders is applicable to the petitioners case. Is it the one which permits conferment of right on payment of price equivalent to half the market price or the one that envisages full market price. Yet another question, whether it should be on the rate the Government has accepted in case of Dr. Khullar or Shri Manjit Singh or Smt. Rishi Kumari or Shri Ghulam Hassan. To answer the question it needs to be reiterated that an in depth examination of the pleadings of the parties in the light of the record has brought me to a definite conclusion that the petitioners mother has not contributed in any manner whatsoever to the failure of the respondents, that has occurred in disposal of the application filed on 20-11-1981. May be that the paralytic lady had not visited the corridors of power to remind the authorities about their duty to take a decision on her application but still it is of no consequence because the Govt. order of 1981 only calls for an option to be exercised, thereafter it is the obligation of the respondents to address to it and accept or reject the same. order of 1981 only calls for an option to be exercised, thereafter it is the obligation of the respondents to address to it and accept or reject the same. Option having been exercised, ball is in the court of the respondents who have miserably failed to discharge their obligation in spite of the fact that mandate of Manjit Singh and Ved Khullars cases rule the field entitling the petitioner to the conferment of proprietary rights on the strength of application filed by his mother in the year 1981. It appears that respondents are oblivious of their legal duty that so long rule of law prevails discrimination is impermissible. Apart from that it needs to be borne in mind that it is not a case where parties are at variance about the existence of the policy of conferment of proprietary rights and fact of the matter is that the benefit is claimed by dint of the policy which is in force and is being acted upon by granting benefits and recent instance evidencing adherence to the policy are not wanting yet I am loath to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner alike the above said beneficiaries in respect of entitlement to the rate and not even similar to Shri Ghulam Hassan. That should take care of the contention of Mr.Qazi despite the fact that the judgments relied upon by him do not help his view point. My divergence from the standard set by the Government in the instances aforementioned is traceable to the communication of the Deputy Commissioner which may be noticed: "Office of the Deputy Commissioner Jammu. No: 2047/N/96-97/135-136 Dated 11.5.1999 The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. Subject: Application of Smt Savitri Pachnanda W/o Late Shri Ram Singh Pachnanda R/O Exchange Road Jammu for grant of proprietary rights over Nazool leased land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla 24 Sft (2 kanals 14 marlas 54 Sft residential and 6 marlas 242 sft commercial) situated at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Rehari Jammu. Sir, As per the copy of the Wasidari Register item No. 371 and area of Nazool land measuring 3 kanals 1 Marla 24 Sft (2 kanals 14 marlas 54 Sft for residential and 6 marlas 242 Sft for commercial purposes) at Ahata Kalan Exchange Road Rehari Jammu was held on lease basis by Smt Savitri Pachanand W/o Late Shri Ram Singh Pachnanda. The lease period was to expire on 21.10.1992 and 13.12.1992 respectively. The lessee on 20.11.1981 made an application to this office for grant of proprietary rights over the leased land at half rate of the market price in terms of Govt. Order No. Rev(NDK) 248 of 1981 dated 17.8.1981. As per the provisions of Govt. order No. Rev(NDK) 248 of 1981 dated 17.8.1981, a person who acquired Nazool land on lease basis can acquire it in proprietary rights basis on payment of price equivalent to half the prevailing market price in the locality. However, later on the said Govt. order was rescinded under another Govt. order No. Rev(NDK)106 of 1984 dated 19.6.1984. The lessee died on 6.9.1994 and her son/successor-in-interest Shri V. K. Pachnanda on 13.9.1995 presented an application to this office to intimate him the status of his mothers application dated 20.11.1981 regarding grant of proprietary rights. On the other hand, the lease period of the land was expired and vide this office letter No: 2027/N/95-96/666 dated 4.9.1995 the case was recommended to your office for its renewal. Ultimately the Govt. vide their order No: Rev (NDJ) 184 of 1996 dated 28.10.1996 renewed the lease for a period of 20 years w.e.f 21.10.92 and 13.12.92 respectively on an enhanced ground rent of 150% on the original terms and conditions in favour of the successor-in-interest Shri V. K. Pachnanda. He executed the necessary Lease Deed and deposited the ground rent upto date. The present lessee Shri V.K. Pachnanda is representing to this office to grant him the proprietary rights in pursuance of his mothers application. Since the Govt. Order conferring proprietary rights over the leased land to the lessees on payment of half of price of the prevailing market rate stands rescinded, the application of the mother of the lessee cannot be considered. However, under an other Govt. order No. Rev(NDJ) 309 of 1985 dated 24.9.1995 provision exists to grant proprietory rights over the leased land on payment of full market price and hence the present lessee can be granted the benefit on full payment of price of the land at the prevailing market rate in the locality. The prevailing market rate of the land is Rs 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) per kanal as approved for adoption in this case in a meeting of Committee of Collectors on 20.2.1999 in this office. It is, therefore, requested that necessary Govt. The prevailing market rate of the land is Rs 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) per kanal as approved for adoption in this case in a meeting of Committee of Collectors on 20.2.1999 in this office. It is, therefore, requested that necessary Govt. sanction for grant of proprietary rights over the land on payment of full price of the land at the rate of Rs 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) per kanal may kindly be obtained and conveyed at the earliest. The connected papers are submitted herewith. Yours faithfully Sd/ Deputy Commissioner Jammu" (Underlining supplied) 19. It is evident from the communication aforementioned that the Deputy Commissioner had disagreed to the entitlement of the petitioner under the said Government order and instead made a recommendation for transfer of proprietary rights under Govt. order of 1985. The recommendation dates back to 1999, obviously, from 1999 it was not only within the knowledge of the petitioner but he has been expecting transfer of proprietary rights in terms of the said recommendation which is based on the Govt. order of 1985 envisaging conversion of lease into free hold rights but on payment of full market price which stands determined by the committee of Collectors in its meeting on 20-02-1995 at the rate of rupees ten lacs per kanal. The recommendation so made by the Deputy Commissioner received approval of the Divisional Commissioner as also of the Financial Commissioner again within the knowledge of the petitioner but neither determination of the price by the committee of Collectors nor the recommendation was represented against which makes it clear that he was quite satisfied both in respect of conferment of rights in terms of Govt. order of 1985 as also settlement of price, therefore, estopped by acquiescence to turn around. 20. Considering the matter in totality of the circumstances I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by subjecting the petitioner to the price settled by committee of the Collectors constituted for the purpose. Accordingly the respondents are directed to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla and 24 Sft. situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road Jammu @ of rupees ten lac per kanal within a period of two months. 21. Disposed of along with all connected CMPs. However no order as to costs. Record stands already returned to Mr. Qazi, learned AAG.