JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Background—The petitioner, Sri S.N. Lal has filed above writ petition with the pleadings, contending inter alia amongst others, that he is ‘tenant’ under U.P. Rent Control Act (Act XIII of 1972) of the house situated at 8/12, Loyal Road (New Patrika Marg), he is living with his family members as such since 21st July, 1973 on the basis of allotment order dated 18th December, 1972; the petitioner retired in the year 1993 from the post of Administrative Officer in the office of Director of Education, the premises held by the petitioner as tenant is situate on Nazul land numbered as plot No. 213-A, Civil Station, Allahabad in the records of Nagar Nigam, Allahabad; lease of the said ‘Nazul land’ expired on 3rd February, 1962; fresh lease was sanctioned in 1968 in favour of B.P. Rai by the then Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad; but fresh lease deed was never executed; after the death of B.P. Rai, (erstwhile lessee) names of his heirs/legal representatives-namely Smt. Aroti Mukharji, Sameer Kumar Rai and Sarit Kumar Rai were entered in the records of Nazul property in 1979 (as per record available in the Nazul department), the premises in tenancy of the petitioner was purported to be transferred illegally in favour of one Janta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. vide registered sale-deed dated 26-4-1979; name of the petitioner finds place in the said sale-deed as tenant of the premises in question; the said ‘sale-deed’ is illegal and ‘ineffective’ as it was executed without obtaining permission from the Collector; i.e. in breach of a condition to the Terms of ‘lease’; Janta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti filed original suit No. 534 of 1982 before Munsif West, Allahabad and obtained ex parte order dated 24-8-1983 by concealment/misrepresentation; legal representatives of erstwhile lessee (Sri B.P. Rai) are guilty of committing breach of Term and conditions’ of lease itself, and lastly that the then District Magistrate, Nazul, Allahabad vide order dated March 1, 1993 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) has already held said ‘sale-deed’ to be illegal and void. 3. For the purposes of deciding present writ petition, it will suffice to note that the State Government issued several Government orders from time to time for granting free hold rights over Nazul properties. 3. For the purposes of deciding present writ petition, it will suffice to note that the State Government issued several Government orders from time to time for granting free hold rights over Nazul properties. There is no dispute that one of such G.O. provided that ‘nominee’ or ‘tenant’ of a lease property, in certain contingencies and subject to the conditions laid therein could seek ‘free hold’ rights in that premises. The petitioner accordingly submitted his claim before concerned authority for granting free hold right in his favour in respect of the premises in his possession as tenant. 4. The proceedings, including the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent authorities, on record show that the then A.D.M. Nazul (Sri S.N. Srivastava s/o Uday Shanker Srivastava) issued notice to the petitioner dated 10-12-2004 requiring him to appear on 18-12-2004 for hearing on his application for granting free hold rights in his favour-which also required adjudication of validity of grant of ‘free hold’ rights in favour of Smt. Lata Agarwal/respondent No. 5. Copy of this notice dated 10-12-2004 is Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed alongwith Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2823 of 2005 dated 6-1-2005: 5. RELIEFS CLAIMED in the present writ petition (filed in the year of 2000) read : “(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4th February, 2000 on the basis of the report submitted by Nagar Nigam vide letter dated 22nd October, 1999. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the A.D.M. (Nazul) and other concerned authorities to consider the claim of free hold of the property in question in favour of the petitioner in view of para 14 of the Government policy in accordance with law within a stipulated period. (c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to consider the objection of the petitioner pending before District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate (Nazul) and Nagar Nigam before considering the claim of respondent No. 4 in accordance with Government policy dated 1st December, 1998 (Annexure 15). (e) to issue any other writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (f) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.” 6. (e) to issue any other writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (f) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.” 6. With the permission of the Court vide order dated 6-1-2005 following reliefs were added : “(g) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case quashing of alleged sale-deed dated 21-12-2004, executed in between respondent No. 5 and A.D.M. (Nazul), Allahabad on 21-12-2004. (h) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and his family in the house in question.” Order-sheet of the case dated 10-12-2004 reads : “Apar Jila Magistrate (Nazul) Jiladhikari Mahoday dawara apney adesh sankhaya 5105/S.T.-2004 dated 20-11-2004 ke antargart free hold vilekhon ke nishpadan hetu apko adhikrit kiya gaya hai. Jiladhikari Mahoday ne adesh kiya hai ki free hold ki dhanrashi jama karney ke uprant prastut kiye gay free hold vilekho ka nishpadan upper Jila Magistrate (Nazul) dwara swatah apney star se kiya jayega. Tatha is hetu prithak se swikrit apekshit nahi hogi atah kripya free holdvilekh hastaksharit karna chahey. Sri S.N. Lal ke prativedan/apatti dated 11-10-2004 par ubhay paksho ko sunajana awsayak hai. Atah dated 18-12-2004 ko at 4.00 P.M. Sunvai hetu niyat Kiya jata hai. Patra jari ho.” 7. The petitioner appeared on 18-12-2004 before the said authority, but for one reason or the other hearing did not take place. Case was adjourned to 20-12-2004. According to the petitioner, on 20-12-2004 also no hearing took place and the ADM (Nazul) Sri S.N. Srivastava took signatures of the parties and then placed his signatures and seal just below their names on the order-sheet of 20-12-2004; Sri S.N. Srivastava had assured to consider his contention and pass appropriate order later on but to the utter surprise and shock of the petitioner; a sale-deed in favour of respondent No. 5 was got executed the next day i.e. on 21-12-2004 without communicating the decision/order to the petitioner. Relevant pleadings in this context are contained in paras 5, 38, 39 and 40 of the supplementary affidavit. These pleadings have been replied by the Respondent Nos. Relevant pleadings in this context are contained in paras 5, 38, 39 and 40 of the supplementary affidavit. These pleadings have been replied by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 vide paras 7, 34, 35 and 36 of supplementary counter-affidavit (sworn by S.N. Srivastava), which are reproduced for ready reference— “7. That the contents of para-5 of the affidavit are incorrect and wrong, hence they are denied. It is respectfully submitted that the application of the petitioner dated 2-1-1995, the true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 14 to the abovementioned writ petition, was rejected by Sri Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, the then Additional District Officer (Nazul), Allahabad on the ground that the name of Shri Shri Narain Lal, 8/12, Patrika Marg (Lyall Road), Allahabad is not entered in the Nazul Property Register as lessee, vide his letter/order No. 1107/Nazul-C.La.-XXI-8 (Free hold) dated 7-12-1995 addressed to the petitioner, the true photocopy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure 11 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the answering respondents against the above mentioned writ petition. As the said application for free hold was moved by the petitioner in his capacity of tenant regarding whom no Government Order was issued for free hold, hence the same was rejected vide aforesaid letter/order dated 7-12-1995. It is respectfully submitted further that apart from the representations referred in the abovementioned writ petition, the petitioner also moved objection/application dated 11.10.2004 and its reminder on 13.12.2004 objecting therein not to do free hold in favour of Smt. Lata Agarwal and to permit the petitioner to apply for free hold as per Government policy dated 1.12.1998. The copy of the said objection/application dated 11.10.2004 and its reminder on 13.12.2004 has been filed as Annexures 4 and 5 respectively to the affidavit under reply. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No. 3 sent notice dated 10.12.2004 to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 for hearing on the objection/application dated 11.10.2004. the true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6 to the affidavit under reply. As the deponent was busy with law and order duty relating to the opening of tenders in Zila Panchayat, Allahabad on 18.12.2004 till 8 P.M., hence the hearing on 18th December, 2004 was adjourned to 20th December, 2004 till 10 A.M. On that date both parties were heard. As the deponent was busy with law and order duty relating to the opening of tenders in Zila Panchayat, Allahabad on 18.12.2004 till 8 P.M., hence the hearing on 18th December, 2004 was adjourned to 20th December, 2004 till 10 A.M. On that date both parties were heard. Shri Shailendra Advocate who had appeared on behalf of his father, the petitioner, while opposing the free hold application of the respondent No. 5 had argued that as the successors of the original lessee had executed sale-deed in favour of Janta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. without obtaining the permission and the Samiti had further executed sale-deed in favour of Respondent No. 5 without obtaining the permission, hence free hold proceeding in favour of Smt. Lata Agarwal be not done. He further said that in the absence of any application for free hold by lessees his father Shri Shri Narain Lal, the tenant, who is second party according to the Government Policy has the right to get free hold the land under his tenancy and the purchaser Smt. Lata Agarwal in the absence of permission would always be treated as third party. He further said that as the Hon’ble High Court has not restricted the free hold in favour of second party vide order dated 14-2-2000, hence his father Shri Shri Narain Lal, the tenant be given opportunity to file application for free hold. On behalf of Smt. Lata Agarwal, it was submitted that the successors of the original lessee after obtaining permission from the Hon’ble District Judge, Allahabad had executed sale-deed in favour of Samiti, which had further executed sale-deed in favour of Smt. Lata Agarwal. On her behalf it was said that in the present case tenant has no right to get free hold and the tenant should be treated as third party. On her behalf it was said that as the State Government had condoned the violation of the condition of the lease regarding obtaining prior permission of the lessor, hence on the basis of sale-deed executed in her favour by the Samiti, free hold be done in her favour. It was further said that the State Government treats the purchasers and subsequent purchasers as equivalent to lessee and his successors, therefore, they are all of the same category. It was further said that the State Government treats the purchasers and subsequent purchasers as equivalent to lessee and his successors, therefore, they are all of the same category. After hearing both the sides, the respondent No. 3 immediately informed Shri Shailendra, Advocate orally that even violation of the condition of lease regarding prior permission before transfer of lease hold right have been condoned by the State Government vide Government Order dated 20-8-2001 and as such under such circumstances Smt. Lata Agarwal being subsequent purchaser was to be treated equally with lessee or his successors. He was also informed that as no process of resumption has taken place in the present case and the sanctioned lease has not been cancelled, therefore, the tenant has no right to get free hold in view of the application of free hold by the subsequent purchaser. Under such circumstances, the tenant cannot be treated as Second party but the subsequent purchaser of the building and lease hold right has the right to get converted into free hold the lease hold land in question being equivalent to the lessee or his successor, the first party. As the respondent No. 3 had informed orally the son and Counsel of the petitioner Shri Shailendra, Advocate the real status of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 just after the hearing, hence no separate communication was made to the petitioner. After the completion of hearing and informing the petitioner’s son, the respondent No. 3 recorded the proceeding of 20th December. 2004 in the note side of the file on the same day. When thereafter the office submitted the report dated 21-12-2004 on the basis of free hold deed signed by the subsequent purchaser Smt. Lata Agarwal, the respondent No. 5, then the respondent No. 3 treating her equally with the lessee or his successor, the First party as per the Government Order dated 20-8-2001 bonafidely executed free hold deed on 21-12-2004 and as such the facts and assertions contrary to the aforesaid facts in the para under reply are denied. It is respectfully submitted that as the answering respondents were given liberty to proceed with the matter pursuant to the policy and the respondent No. 5, being subsequent purchaser of Nazul Land was to be treated equally with lessee or his successors, was not third party as per prevalent Government Orders regarding free hold and further the free hold deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 5 was subject to the final decision in the case of Satya Narain Kapoor v. State of U.P. & Ors., hence it is humbly submitted that the deponent has bonafidely followed the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 8. Sri S.N. Srivastava, A.D.M. (Nazul) in the above supplementary counter-affidavit admits to have issued notice dated 10-12-2004, that the parties appeared on 18-12-2004, that the case was adjourned to 20th December, 2004, without hearing, that he heard the matter and informed his ‘decision’ orally; that he wrote ‘Minutes of Proceedings’ on Note side of the order-sheet on 20-12-2004 after the hearing was over. It was then again signed and sealed by Sri S.N. Srivastava. There is no averment/material to show that said order was ever issued or communicated to the petitioner or the other side. There is no averment that he had orally informed the parties regarding this order being written later on. 9. The categorical case of S.N. Srivastava/respondent No. 3, in this supplementary counter-affidavit is that he had orally informed his views to Sri Shailendra, son of the petitioner, who appeared on the date in question before him. 10. Apparently, the ‘Minutes of Proceedings’ the so called order deciding application of the petitioner was written behind the back of the petitioner. Undisputedly no notice or information of said order was given to the petitioner. Sale deed in favour of respondent No. 5, was got executed on following day, i.e. 21-12-2004. According to the said officer, it was done on the basis of the office report of same date i.e. 21-12-2004. Unusual haste, proximity of dates, and the fact that the order dated 20-12-2004 was never communicated to the petitioner bring the said order under suspicion. Conduct of the officer is unusual, unheard of and strange, besides of being not acceptable in law. 11. Unusual haste, proximity of dates, and the fact that the order dated 20-12-2004 was never communicated to the petitioner bring the said order under suspicion. Conduct of the officer is unusual, unheard of and strange, besides of being not acceptable in law. 11. From the aforesaid admitted pleadings contained in the supplementary counter-affidavit sworn by Sri S.N. Srivastava, (the then A.D.M., Nazul) it is clear that his order/decision (Minutes of Proceedings) dated 20-12-2004 was never communicated to the petitioner or his representative. If ‘decisions’ are allowed to be taken and communicated orally, it will create a chaos. Such a course of communicating ‘decisions’ orally cannot be approved in ‘Administrative’ or ‘Judicial’ proceedings—affecting rights of parties. 12. Sri S.N. Srivastava did not care to file copy of his said order ‘Minutes of Proceedings’ on the ‘note side’ with his main counter-affidavit dated 18-2-2005. One expected copy of such order to be filed promptly with counter-affidavit. It raises doubt about its existence on 20-12-2004. 13. It will not be out of place to refer to the order dated 6-1-2005 passed by DB (A.K. Yog and K.N. Ojha, JJ.), which reads : “Hon’ble A.K. Yog, J. Hon’ble K.N. Ojha, J. On request being made on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner on the ground of urgency we had sent for the Application as well as original record of the case. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, Advocate who has appeared as Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed four weeks to file counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit, if so advised. Other respondents may also file supplementary counter-affidavit, if so advised, before next date of listing. Shri Shailendra, Advocate, submits that he be allowed to withdraw his Vakalatnama and that the petitioner be permitted to engage another Counsel, namely Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate. He is permitted to do so. Office is directed to show the name of Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate, as Counsel for the petitioner in future apart from the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Admit. Issue notice by R.P.A.D. Returnable at an early date. No notice need be sent to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are represented by learned Standing Counsel. Notice shall go to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Admit. Issue notice by R.P.A.D. Returnable at an early date. No notice need be sent to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are represented by learned Standing Counsel. Notice shall go to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Requisites be submitted within one week from today. Office shall dispatch notice within another one week time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his first stay application and subsequent stay application No. 2823 of 2005 be considered in the light of the submissions made in the Writ Petition and the Supplementary Affidavit. Earlier interim order dated 14-2-2000 passed by this Court reads : “Respondents are at liberty to proceed with the matter pursuant to the policy. However, they shall not finally create third party interest in the subject matter. We are reported that several matters questioning the policy of the State Government converting the Nazul land into free hold rights are pending in this Court. It is expedient and also in the interest of justice that all the matters be heard together expeditiously. State Counsel shall prepare the list and obtain appropriate order from the learned Chief Justice. Put up on 22-2-2000.” Record shows that said order still continues. The petitioner, by means of the Supplementary Affidavit (filed alongwith Stay Application No. 2823 of 2005) shows that respondent No. 3 has acted in flagrant violation of aforequoted ad-interim mandamus passed by this Court inasmuch as he has passed order/s to facilitate execution/registration of sale-deed in favour of respondent No. 5 on the basis of surreptitious proceedings. Reference may be made to paras 10 to 20, paras 27 to 40 and paras 43 to 47. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit (sworn by Smt. Lata Agarwal/respondent No. 5) possession of the petitioner as tenant is admitted. Curiously no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the above there is no doubt that petitioner is in possession of the premises in question namely 8/12, Loyal Road, Patrika Marg, Allahabad, for considerably long back in the past. Curiously no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the above there is no doubt that petitioner is in possession of the premises in question namely 8/12, Loyal Road, Patrika Marg, Allahabad, for considerably long back in the past. In view of the above, we direct that no rights shall flow on the basis of the sale-deed dated 21-12-2004 executed by Shri Satya Narain Srivastava, Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Allahabad on behalf of Governor, U.P. in favour of Smt. Lata Agarwal/respondent No. 5 (said to be registered by Sub-Registrar, Sadar, Allahabad), the said sale-deed shall be inoperative until further orders; all the respondents, their servants, agents, employees, representatives, nominees etc. are hereby restrained from creating charge, transfer, alienate or change the nature of the premises in question and further not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner (over the premises referred to above) in any manner whatsoever. Notice shall also go to Shri S.N. Srivastava, the incumbent on the post of A.D.M. (Nazul), Allahabad during relevant period as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for deliberately acting in flagrant violation of interim order dated 14-2-2000. He will file his own affidavit and shall be present on the next date fixed. Case shall be listed on 21-2-2005 alongwith other connected matters list of which shall be provided by the learned Standing Counsel, if not already supplied in pursuance of the earlier order dated 14-2-2000 passed by this Court, within one week from today.” (Italicised by us to lay emphasis) 14. We are surprised over the manner in which Sri S.N. Srivastava conducted the proceedings before him. 15. We called for the original record of the case. Sri Vishnu Pratap, Standing Counsel, has placed the same before us. Perusal of the alleged ‘Minutes of Proceedings’ against order-sheet dated 20-12-2004, give rise to serious suspicion for more than one reason which are as under : (i) whitener is used on a few dates : (ii) Sri Shailendra, son of the petitioner and other parties admittedly placed their signatures against their name in token of their presence on 20-12-2004. The officer placed his signature and seal just after the parties had placed their signatures. ‘Minutes of proceedings’ (sunvai ki karyawahi) has been written by hand on separate sheets numbered 6 to 12. Earlier order-sheet is written on both sides. The officer placed his signature and seal just after the parties had placed their signatures. ‘Minutes of proceedings’ (sunvai ki karyawahi) has been written by hand on separate sheets numbered 6 to 12. Earlier order-sheet is written on both sides. It is typed and also in hand. It is unusual that a long order running into 12-13 sheets is written in hand and not typed. (iii) Note is titled as ‘Sunvai ki karwahi’ and not as ‘order’. There is no reason as to why the officer did not mention, while placing his first signature/seal, that he shall record reasons later. Apparently, the officer wrote this order at the back of the petitioner but within the knowledge of his opponent, namely Respondent No. 5 who got the sale-deed executed on following day. Nexus between Sri S.N. Srivastava and Respondent No. 5, thus stands established on record. 16. Transparency and fairness in proceedings are required while adjudicating lis between the parties. Arbitrariness or adopting a strange procedure, renders the order void ab initio in law. 17. Sri S.N. Srivastava, A.D.M. Nazul (respondent No. 3) does not claim that he communicated the ‘written order’ dated 20-12-2004 to the petitioner. He has categorically stated in para 7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit: “As the respondent No. 3 had informed orally the son and Counsel of the petitioner Sri Shailendra, Advocate, the real status of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 just after the hearing, hence no separate communication was made to the petitioner.” 18. Even learned Standing Counsel did not support the contention of the officer that oral communication to the petitioner/his son was requisite compliance in law. Such defence of respondent No. 3 is of no avail. An order, not communicated is a dead letter, inoperative and of no consequence. 19. Alleged ‘minutes of proceedings’ appear to have been inserted subsequently. Moreover, the learned Standing Counsel conceded that the averments in the supplementary affidavit; viz. the Officer Sri S.N. Srivastava, had informed the son of the petitioner orally does not find place in the said ‘minutes of the proceedings’ dated 20-12-2004. It is a serious matter particularly when the officer is not a fresh hand or immature. The officer has acted arbitrarily. He adopted an uncalled for procedure—which reflects upon his integrity. the Officer Sri S.N. Srivastava, had informed the son of the petitioner orally does not find place in the said ‘minutes of the proceedings’ dated 20-12-2004. It is a serious matter particularly when the officer is not a fresh hand or immature. The officer has acted arbitrarily. He adopted an uncalled for procedure—which reflects upon his integrity. His approach to the case has compelled the petitioner to go through the litigation agony, loss of time, and money apart from harassment. Such irresponsible acts unnecessarily burden the Court apart from putting undue burden upon Government exchequer. The Government is called upon to take these facts into account and hold an enquiry into the conduct of the officer within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. Meanwhile we direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure that Sri S.N. Srivastava is transferred out from-this sensitive post preferably out of Allahabad (where he is sticking for long) so that he may not influence or interfere with the above enquiry. 20. Petitioner submits that the relevant claim for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4th February, 2000 has been rendered infructuous in view of subsequent development. With regard to the prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing of sale-deed dated 21-12-2004, ‘executed by respondent No. 5 and A.D.M. (Nazul) Allahabad on 21-12-2004, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit filed alongwith Civil Misc. Application No. 8283 of 2005) on the basis of the order dated 20-12-2004 (copy of which is brought on record by the learned Standing Counsel). We mould the relief and set aside the order titled ‘Minutes of Proceedings’ dated 20-12-2004 and declare that sale-deed dated 21-12-2004 (between respondent Nos. 3 and 5) shall remain in abeyance/inoperative till final decision on the question of grant of the free hold in favour of the petitioner and in case it is decided in the petitioner’s favour the respondent No. 5 shall be entitled to the refund of stamp duty on said sale-deed in her favour. 21. 3 and 5) shall remain in abeyance/inoperative till final decision on the question of grant of the free hold in favour of the petitioner and in case it is decided in the petitioner’s favour the respondent No. 5 shall be entitled to the refund of stamp duty on said sale-deed in her favour. 21. We direct the District Magistrate, Allahabad to consider the matter of grant of ‘free hold’ right in favour of the petitioner under relevant Government orders issued from time to time exercising unfettered discretion in accordance with law within three months of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 22. Photostat copy of the ‘order-sheet’ of the proceedings before Respondent No. 3 shall be retained as part of the record. The original record is returned to the learned Standing Counsel. 23. Writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above with cost, which we quantify at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by respondent No. 1 with liberty to realise it from the officer concerned. ————