JUDGMENT : Prakash Chandra Verma, and S.N.H. Zaidi, JJ. – In both these writ petitions common questions are involved, as such, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. By means of the present writ petitions, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad as contained in Annexure No.1 and the order dated 19.3.2004 passed by the Nazul Adhikari/ Upper Zila Adhikari (Vitta Evam Rajaswa) Faizabad as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition and further to direct the opposite party no.2 to grant and declare the free hold right to the petitioner in respect of the premises in question after getting the formalities completed and also declare the word 'rent control' before the word 'tenant' written in point no. 14 of the Nazul Bhoomi Free Hold Neeti as ultravirus. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner State Bank of India is a banking institution incorporated and constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate office at Nariman Point Mumbai, one of its local Head Offices situated at Moti Mahal Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow and interalia Branch Office, known as Main Branch at Station Road, Mohalla Civil Lines, City and District Faizabad. The Nazul plot no. 4099, measuring 14 Bigha 14 Biswa situate at Mohalla-Civil Lines, City-Faizabad, was leased out to Raja Pratap Narain Singh and Raja Brij Narain Singh on 22.5.1876 for a period of 99 years. The lease granted by the Nazul Department was "Patta Sakni". 3. The descendants of aforesaid lessee Smt. Maharani Jagdamba Devi w/o (Sir Maharaj) Raja Pratap Narain transferred Kothi, out-house and vacant land measuring 6 Bigha 6 Biswansi 15 Kachwasi 3 onwansi through sale deed to M/s Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. For a sum of Rs. 4,755.00 on 31.12.1915 and again M/s Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. transferred the aforesaid Kothi and vacant land through sale deed dated 29.1.1916 in favour of Lala Ram Raghubir Lal S/o Lala Ram Ratan for a consideration of Rs. 4,755.00. This sale deed has a recital to the effect that only structure is sold not the land and specific word "Bila Zamin" is written. Thus Lala Ram Raghubir Lal had purchased only the structure existing therein and the user of the land. 4,755.00. This sale deed has a recital to the effect that only structure is sold not the land and specific word "Bila Zamin" is written. Thus Lala Ram Raghubir Lal had purchased only the structure existing therein and the user of the land. The building (Kothi and out-houses) situate in an area of 01 Bigha 14 Biswa while 4 Bigha 12 Biswa 15 Biswansi and 8 Kachwansi was vacant land. Thus the total area is 6 Bigha 6 Biswas 15 Biswansi and Kachwansi or 4.34 Acres. On the east as well as south to the aforesaid land, there is Pucca Road. 4. Lalal Ram Raghubir Lal let out the above mentioned Kothi, out-houses and vacant land to the Imperial Bank of India on 1.4.1923 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- through registered agreement and after his death names of Sri Hari Narain s/o Lala Ram Raghubir Lal and Sri Pramod Narain son of Shri Hari Narain have been mutated in Nazul records on 15.2.1955 which was carried on 20.8.1958. The tenancy of Imperial Bank of India continued and Imperial Bank of India merged with State Bank of India under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, as such the tenancy rights continued with State Bank of India which still exists. 5. By efflux of time, 99 years lease period of the Nazul Land- Nazul Plot No. 4099 Chak Civil Lines, Faizabad expired on 21.5.1975, consequently lease rights of the heirs of Lala Ram Raghubir Lal expired on 21.5.1975. At that time, the tenancy rights of State Bank of India continued on a monthly rent of Rs. 437.50 exclusive of other taxes. The vacant land in the tenancy of State Bank of India, measuring 3 Bigha 7 Biswa i.e. 91,000 Sq. Ft. (Approx.) was released on the request of Sri Hari Narain and Sri Pramod Narain under a compromise dated 3.12.1981. The tenancy of State Bank of India continues over an area of 83,300 Sq. Ft. which comprises of built up area measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswa (48,227 Sq. Ft.) and open land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswa 15 Biswansi 8 Kachwansi i.e. 35,072.2 Sq. Ft. 6. Shri Hari Narain and sons of Shri Pramod Narain viz. The tenancy of State Bank of India continues over an area of 83,300 Sq. Ft. which comprises of built up area measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswa (48,227 Sq. Ft.) and open land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswa 15 Biswansi 8 Kachwansi i.e. 35,072.2 Sq. Ft. 6. Shri Hari Narain and sons of Shri Pramod Narain viz. Shri Samarth Narain, Shri Tanuj Narain and his wife Smt. Manju Narain filed Regular Suit No.96 of 1981 for partition of the property including land plot No. 4099 Minjumla which was decided by Civil Judge, Faizabad on 2.2.1982 on the basis of compromise whereby the building as well as open land has been partitioned amongst the aforesaid Sri Pramod Narain his sons Sri Samarth Narain, Sri Tanuj Narain and wife Smt. Manju Narain. This suit was filed in respect of Nazul land, whih was never owned by either Lala Ram Raghubir Lal or his son or grandsons. This suit was filed without implaeding State of U.P. or Nazul Department and further mutations in Nazul Department records too have not been made on the basis of collusive decree dated 2.2.1982. When the lease had already been expired on 21.5.1975 and title over the land vested with Nazul Department, the partition decree could not be obtained in respect of the property which was not in the ownership of the parties of the Suit. Actually,this decree was obtained to avoid the Government Order of releasing the vacant land from ex-lessee. 7. After expiry of the lease on 21.5.1975, no rent was paid by the ex-lessee or his heirs and their possession over the land was unauthorized, although State Bank of India was all along occupying the tenanted premises. State Bank of India has been occupying the premises continuously for the last 82-83 years. State Bank of India has also constructed its own Cycle/Scooter Stand and Staff Canteen with the prior consent of the landlords. The remaining open space is continuously in the occupation of State Bank of India and it is being regularly used for parking vehicles and other purposes of the Bank. The office of Regional Manager of the Bank too is functioning in the same premises. 8. Plot No. 4099 Minjumla, Mohalla- Civil Lines, Faizabad is recorded in the record of Nazul Department in the name of Sri Hari Narain and Sri Pramod Narain. The office of Regional Manager of the Bank too is functioning in the same premises. 8. Plot No. 4099 Minjumla, Mohalla- Civil Lines, Faizabad is recorded in the record of Nazul Department in the name of Sri Hari Narain and Sri Pramod Narain. The names of Sri Samarth Narain, Sri Tanuj Narain and Smt. Manju have not been recorded, in any capacity, in Nazul records even after passing of alleged partition decree. Some area of the vacant land measuring 91000 Sq. Ft., which was released on 3.12.1981 at the request of Sri Pramod Narain, has been sold out on very high rates and presently Hotel Krishna Palace and its Annexe are built and remaining area is being sold by making residential plots by nominated person. 9. It has come in the notice of the Bank that some very wealthy and influential persons are trying to get the tenanted premises free- hold in their favour and wish to dispossess the Bank. State Bank of India has given a letter to the District Magistrate, Faizabad to this effect. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Bank's Advocate, on the instructions of the Bank, perused the relative free-hold file on 23.2.2004 and Bank came to know that Smt. Sadiqa Khatoon W/o Shri Kafeel Ansari, R/o Mohalla- Sakrawal, Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, Smt. Shikha Kesarwani w/o Shri Vishnu Kesarwani, R/o Mohalla Shanti Niketan, Deokali Raod, Faizabad, Smt. Jaya Kesarwani w/o Shri Raksh Kesarwani, R/o House no. 126 A, Mohalla Haiderganj, Faizaad, Smt. Alka Verma w/o Shri Nisheet Verma, R/o Hari Niwas Mohalla Khawaspura, Faizabad and Smt. Rita Khatri, w/o Raj Kuamr Khattri, R/o Mohalla Bazaza, Faizabad, have obtained Order of Nomination to get the land free hold by practicing fraud and Nazul Department officials too have concealed the material facts. 10. The above mentioned persons have been nominated for free-hold rights in illegal way by the unauthorized persons on 29.12.2003 whereas the facility of nomination has been withdrawn by amendment through G.O. No. 2873/9 Aa-4-2002/152 N/2000 T.C. Dated 10.12.2002. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on coming to know about the order dated 29.12.2003 the petitioner made an application on 25.2.2004 before the District Magistrate/ Collector Faizabad for recall of the exparte order dated 29.12.2003. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on coming to know about the order dated 29.12.2003 the petitioner made an application on 25.2.2004 before the District Magistrate/ Collector Faizabad for recall of the exparte order dated 29.12.2003. 12. It would be pertinent to point out here that after the expiry of the lease on 21.5.1975 since no rent was paid by the ex-lessee or his heirs although they were realizing the rent after the expiry period of lease and further they had not exercised the option under the Nuzul policy for getting Nuzul plot converted into free hold within three months as a result whereof the petitioner bank applied with Nuzul Department in 1977 for which a specific assertion has been made in para 22 of the writ petition which has not been specifically denied in para 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3. 13. As already stated above Lala Ram Raghubir Lal had only purchased super structure standing on plot no. 4099 M as such neither he nor his heirs could claim any right over the land of plot no.4099 and the Nuzul Officer as well as District Magistrate while passing the order on 29.12.2003 for conversion of Nuzul plot into free hold and that too in favour of the nominee have ignored that aspect of the matter and the application made by the petitioner for recall was illegally rejected. 14. From the facts stated herein above it is thus apparent that the premises along with open land was leasedout to the Imperial Bank of India by Lala Ram Raghubir Lal on 1.4.1923 and thereafter Imperial Bank of India merged with the State Bank of India in 1955. The State Bank of India is the tenant since 1955. At the time of the letting to Imperial Bank of India there was no rent control legislation and at the time of merger of Imperial Bank of India with State Bank of India (petitioner) in 1955, the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was in force and in 1972 U.P. Urban Building Regulations of (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.3 of 1947) came into force w.e.f. 15.7.1972. Initially all the tenants which were governed by U.P. Act 3 of 1947, after the enforcement of Act 13 of 1972, are governed by the subsequent legislation and Clause (g) was inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 2 which deals with exemption from operation of the Act by U.P. Act 5 to 1995 w.e.f. 26.9.1994. Thus all the buildings whose rent was more than Rs. 2000/- were governed by the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and it was only by U.P. Act 5 of 1995 that the buildings whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2,000/- were exempted. The tenants who are in occupation of the building since prior to the commencement of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, will remain as tenant but on account of enhancement of rent the buildings will be exempted from the operation of Act 13 of 1972. The State Government while framing the Nuzul policy has given the benefit of getting the Nuzul land converted into free hold land to the tenant in case the lessee or exlessee fails to apply within three months for conversion of Nuzul plot into free hold. Admittedly neither Hari Narain nor Pramod Narain had ever exercised the said option rather after expiry of the lease in 1975 they obtained a collusive decree and thereafter after realizing exorbitant amount from the persons who were interested in the property, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 nominated opposite parties 4 to 8 who have applied for conversion of the portions of the plot into free hold also in their favour. 15. It would be pertinent to point out here that, as already stated above, the petitioner and prior to it the Imperial Bank of India was the tenant of the premises and the open land by virtue of lease deed executed by Lala Ram Raghubir Lal on 1.4.1923 and after the merger of the Imperial Bank of India with the State Bank of India, the petitioner is in occupation since 1955 till date and under the Nuzul policy being a tenant governed by the Rent Control Act and was a tenant prior to the amendment of Section 2 and the petitioner Bank is entitled to get Nuzul plot converted into free hold for which it is making efforts since 1977. In any case though not admitted if the petitioner is found/ held to be an unauthorized occupant, under the Nuzul policy, specially Clause 14, and the queries mentioned therein which have been replied even an authorized occupant who was in possession prior to 1.1.1992 is also entitled to get Nuzul plot converted into free hold in his favour. 16. He further submitted that as would appear from the facts stated herein-above the petitioner bank was the tenant of an area of 83,300 sq. ft. out of which nomination was made in favour of Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 in respect of an area of 38200 sq. ft. leaving behind an area of 45100 sq. ft. for which no application has been made by the ex lessees so for and the petitioner is at least in possession over an area of 45100 sq. ft. for the past 87 years. Hence that much area in occupation of the petitioner bank can very well be converted into free hold for which an application has already been made way back in 1977 and lastly on 13.9.10 (Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit) in view of the Nuzul policy. 17. It would be pertinent to point out here that the petitioner was depositing the rent regularly in the Court in SCC Suit No. 2/99 filed by Samrath Narain and others versus State Bank of India. 18. In view of the facts stated herein-above the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the orders dated 29.12.2003 and 19.3.2004 passed by opposite parties no. 2 and 3 perspectively are liable to be quashed and in any case the opposite parties no.2 and 3 may be directed to convert the lease hold rights into free hold in favour of the petitioner in respect to the remaining area of 45100 sq. ft. as afore- mentioned. 19. In reply to the contentions of petitioner's counsel learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by impugned order dated 29.12.2003 the District Magistrate has approved the rate/ amount at which the conversion of Nzaul land into free hold was to be done in favour of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8. The Nazul Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Faizabad has decided the objections of the petitioner in respect of the conversion of the land in question in favour of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8. 20. 4 to 8. The Nazul Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Faizabad has decided the objections of the petitioner in respect of the conversion of the land in question in favour of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8. 20. After passing of the above mentioned orders, the freehold deed in respect of the land in question has been duly executed and registered in favour of opposite parties no. 4 to 8 on 23.3.2004, thereby creating a vested right in their favour. The said freehold deed has not been challenged by the petitioner till date, as such, the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions are not bonafide and liable to be rejected. 21. The instant writ petition has been filed more than two and half years after the execution and registration of the freehold deed dated 24.3.2004, that too by concealing the factum of execution and registration of the freehold deed on 23.3.2004. In the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has tried to explain the delay on the ground that the relevant information/documents were not available and the writ petition was filed after obtaining the necessary information. If so, the petitioner must have acquired knowledge of the execution and registration of free hold deed on 23.3.2004, but it did not disclose the same in the writ petition, thus the writ petition is not only highly belated but the petitioner has also not approached this Court with clean hands. Reliance is placed on paragraph 3 of the short counter affidavit of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8. 22. Under the Nazul Land Freehold Policy of the State Government the categories of persons eligible for conversion of Nazul land into freehold, in order of preference, are as under:- 1.The lease holders/ their legal heirs. 2.Nominees of the lease holders 3.Persons in whose favour the lease holders have executed the sale deeds. 4.Persons in whose favour lease holders have executed agreement to sale subject to certain conditions. 5.Lessees of Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika etc. 6.Unauthorized occupants since prior to 1.1.1992. 7.The rent control tenants of the lease holders subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 23. The opposite parties no. 9 and 10 are the legal heirs of Lala Ram Raghuveer Lal, the lessee in respect of the property in question and as such they were competent to nominate the opposite parties no. 6.Unauthorized occupants since prior to 1.1.1992. 7.The rent control tenants of the lease holders subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 23. The opposite parties no. 9 and 10 are the legal heirs of Lala Ram Raghuveer Lal, the lessee in respect of the property in question and as such they were competent to nominate the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 for conversion of an area measuring 34200 sq. ft., which is part of Nazul Plot No. 4099 M, referred to above. Accordingly the opposite parties no. 9 and 10 nominated the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 under the Freehold Policy of the State Government, on 25.10.2002 and on that very day the requisite ? amount i.e. Rs. 3,50,000/-was deposited. On 29.12.2003 the District Magistrate approved the rate/ amount at which the land was to be converted. Thereafter on 25.2.2004 the petitioner filed its objections regarding conversion of the aforesaid land seeking recall of the order dated 29.12.2003. After giving due and proper opportunity of hearing the objections of the petitioner were decided/ rejected by means of order dated 19.3.2004. After completing the necessary formalities the free hold deed was executed and the same was registered on 23.3.2004. More than two and a half years of registration of the free hold deed the instant writ petition was filed, concealing the said fact. 24. The opposite parties no. 9 and 10 are admittedly the legal heirs of Lala Ram Raghuveer Lal, the lessee, and the petitioner ever since the year 1923 has accepted the right and title of the ancestors of the opposite parties no. 9 and 10 over the property in question and subsequently it has accepted the right and title of the legal heirs and has paid rent to them, as such, it is not open for the petitioner to deny the right and title of the lessees and their legal heirs and to take the plea that the lease expired in the year 1975. In this regard reliance is placed on paragraphs 4,6 and 7 of Annexure No.4 to the writ petition as well as judgment dated 29.5.2008 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 2/99. 25. In this regard reliance is placed on paragraphs 4,6 and 7 of Annexure No.4 to the writ petition as well as judgment dated 29.5.2008 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 2/99. 25. On the other hand, the petitioner has never applied for conversion of the property in question into freehold under the Freehold Policy of the State Government as per the procedure prescribed by depositing 1/4th amount of consideration for free hold and there is nothing on record to prove to the contrary. In this regard relevant extract of paragraph 16 of the Counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 (State Government etc.) is being quoted below:- "16. It is further stated that the petitioner never applied for getting the lease land converted into freehold after depositing the required 1/4th amount as per provisions of Freehold Policy in the prescribed format, the petitioner simply filed objection against the approval regarding freehold made by the District Magistrate in favour of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8, so no question of making any freehold in his favour arises in any manner." 26. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not even applied, in accordance with the Freehold Policy, the writ petition has no legs to stand and the petitioner has no legal grievance. 27. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the Freehold Policy of the State Government applies to subsisting as well as expired leases. The lessees always maintained that the lease was a perpetual one and not for 99 years, however, assuming that the lease had expired, though not conceding, even then, the freehold policy was applicable and as such, the issue of expiry of lease has no relevance in the instant writ petition. As already stated above the opposite parties no. 9 and 10 admittedly being legal heirs of Lala Ram Raghuveer Lal, the lessee, were entitled to make nomination under the Freehold Policy, as such the nomination of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 does not suffer from any illegality. It may also be pointed out that the State Government never exercised its right of re-entry, assuming that the lease had expired, nor did it initiate any proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) act, 1971. However, since the Freehold Policy applied to expired lease also as such the aforesaid issue is of no consequence. It may also be pointed out that the State Government never exercised its right of re-entry, assuming that the lease had expired, nor did it initiate any proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) act, 1971. However, since the Freehold Policy applied to expired lease also as such the aforesaid issue is of no consequence. 28. Under the Freehold policy, the tenant under the Rent Control Act, are eligible for consideration, that too, subject to the conditions contained in the Policy. Admittedly, the petitioner is paying rent in respect of the property in question at the rate of Rs. 4628/- and in view of section 2 (1) (g) of Act No.13 of 1972, the property in question is out side the purview of the said Act. In this regard, the relevant extract of paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit of the State Government is quoted below:- "16. secondly- the petitioner is not a tenant of Rent Control as required under the relevant policy as his monthly rent is more than Rs. 2000/- per month and as such the petitioner is beyond the ambit of the provisions of Rent Control Act and in any view of the matter, he could not be treated to be a tenant of Rent Control, so the benefit of the freehold policy could not be enlarged to the petitioner." 29. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner is not entitled to get the property in question converted into free hold in its favour. As already stated above the free hold deed has already been registered in favour of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 on 23.3.2004, thereby creating vested right in their favour and the said free hold deed has not been challenged in any court of law and this writ petition itself has been filed more than two and a half years after the registration of the free hold deed, that too by concealing the said fact. 30. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that the nomination of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 has been made on 29.12.2003 whereas, the provision of nomination had been withdrawn vide Government Order dated 10.12.2002 itself is factually incorrect and misleading. The nomination of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 was made by the opposite parties no. 9 and 10 on 25.10.2002 and not on 29.12.2003. 4 to 8 has been made on 29.12.2003 whereas, the provision of nomination had been withdrawn vide Government Order dated 10.12.2002 itself is factually incorrect and misleading. The nomination of the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 was made by the opposite parties no. 9 and 10 on 25.10.2002 and not on 29.12.2003. The Government Order dated 10.12.2002 is prospective and it does not apply to the applications which had already been submitted prior to issuance of the said Government Order and this fact has been clarified by the State Government vide G.O. Dated 31.12.2002 and 10.2.2003. The petitioner who claims to have filed the writ petition after collecting necessary information and documents has concealed the Government Order dated 31.12.2002 and 10.2.2003. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in this ground alone. 31. The objections of the petitioner have been rejected by the Nazul Officer, vide order dated 19.3.2004 by giving cogent reasons and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. The opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil) referred in the order dated 19.3.2004 is annexed along with the counter affidavit of the State Government which is also relied by the opposite parties no. 4 to 10. The petitioner does not have any enforceable right in the matter and is not entitled to maintain this writ petition for the reliefs claimed. 32. The opposite parties no. 9 and 10 terminated the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the entire property situated at Nazul Plot No. 4099 M by means of notice dated 26.3.1999 for vacation of the premises after 30 days of receipt of the said notice and thereafter S.C.C. Suit No. 2/99 was filed by them for eviction of the petitioner which was decreed on 29.5.2008, wherein it was held that the property in question is outside the purview of the Rent Control Act, against which S.C.C. Revision No. 110/2008 has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, which is pending, and an undertaking on behalf of the opposite parties no. 9 and 10 for not pursuing the execution till the next date of listing is in operation. In view of the above, the alleged claim of the petitioner as tenant of the premises in question is not acceptable and the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as alleged tenant. 33. 9 and 10 for not pursuing the execution till the next date of listing is in operation. In view of the above, the alleged claim of the petitioner as tenant of the premises in question is not acceptable and the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as alleged tenant. 33. The Freehold Policy of the State Government is contained in various Government Orders which have been issued from time to time including the G.O. Dated 31.12.2002 and 10.2.2003, referred to above. Further the said policy of the State Government does not violate any provision of law or the Constitution so as to justify the interference by this Court. The petitioner has concealed the fact that vide Government Orders dated 31.12.2002 and 10.2.2003, the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 was clarified and it was provided that applications submitted prior to the said Government Orders along with deposit of the requisite money would be governed by the policy existing prior to 10.12.2002. The Government Order dated 10.12.2002 was prospective. The opposite parties no. 4 to 8 were nominated on 25.10.2002 and not 29.12.2003. On 29.12.2003, the District Magistrate merely approved the rate at which the conversion of land was to be made. The Government Order dated 10.12.2002 had no application in the instant case. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. The impugned orders dated 29.12.2003 and 19.3.2004 are in accordance with law and there is no justifiable ground for quashing the same. The Freehold policy of the State Government is contained in various Government Orders issued from time to time including the Government Order dated 31.12.2002 and 10.2.2003. None of the Government Orders has been challenged by the petitioner. There is no justifiable reason for interfering with the freehold policy of the State Government. In view of the above submissions the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We have heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Alok Sinha, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Rajan Roy for rest of the opposite parties. The land in dispute was originally crown land of which the lease was granted in favour of the lessee under the Crown Grant Act,1866 on 22.5.1876 for a period of 99 years. 1 to 3 and Shri Rajan Roy for rest of the opposite parties. The land in dispute was originally crown land of which the lease was granted in favour of the lessee under the Crown Grant Act,1866 on 22.5.1876 for a period of 99 years. After the enforcement of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the crown land vest in the State and after the commencement of the Constitution of India, the land which vest in the State, is the subject matter of entry 35 of State List of the Constitution of India and the amendment made in the said Crown Grant Act by the State Government is applicable in the State of U.P. 'Nazul land' means land which vests in the Government and hired to the regulatory by the enactment made by the State and the State Government can regulate its transfer by Government Order as the execution power is co-extensive with the legislative power. The policy for declaring a leased out Nazul land as a freehold land in favour of the lessee, whose term has expired, is governed by the Government Order. The State Government from time to time has issued Government Orders compilation of which, called as a Nazul Manual, containing the Nazul Land Freehold Policy of declaring the Nazul land as freehold, is contained as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon the Government Order containing the policy of declaring free hold land of leased out land. The right to get the Nazul land declared as Freehold land by the person is given in the following orders in the said Government policy, which is as under:- "(1) The lease holders/ their legal heirs. (2) Nominees of the lease holders (3) Person in whose favour the lease holders have executed the sale deeds. (4) Persons in whose favour lease holders have executed agreement to sale subject to certain conditions. (5) Lessees of Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika etc. (6) Unauthorized occupants since prior to 1.1.1992. (7) The rent control tenants of the lease holders subject to the conditions mentioned therein." 34. The nominees of the lease holder stands at serial no.2 in order of preference to the rent control tenant, who stands at serial no. 7 to get the free hold right declared of the leased out land. Therefore, if the persons belonging to category no. The nominees of the lease holder stands at serial no.2 in order of preference to the rent control tenant, who stands at serial no. 7 to get the free hold right declared of the leased out land. Therefore, if the persons belonging to category no. 1 to 6 do not apply only then rent control tenant may apply and get the land declared as free hold land in their favour. 35. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the opposite parties 4 to 8 in whose favour free hold right of leased out land was declared were the nominees of the lessee. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they were nominated after the withdrawal of the Freehold Policy. The policy to nominate a person to get the leased out land declared as freehold was withdrawn by the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 while the nomination in favour of opposite parties no.4 to 8 was made by opposite parties no. 9 and 10 on 25.10.2002. The Government Order dated 10.12.2002, being prospective in nature, does not apply to the applications which were already submitted prior to the enforcement of the said Government Order. This position has been clarified by subsequent Government Orders dated 21.12.2002 and 10.2.2003. Thus, the nomination of opposite party nos. 4 to 8 was within the period of enforcement of the nomination policy and nominees having preferential right for getting the land declared as freehold than that of the petitioner, therefore, the free hold rights have rightly been granted to the opposite parties no.4 to 8 by the impugned order. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the impugned orders, by which freehold right has been granted, are contrary to any Government Orders. 37. Even the petitioner does not fall in 7th category which is for the rent control tenants of the lease holder as the petitioner has himself admitted that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as amended by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 do not apply to it and that is why the petitioner has made a prayer that the word 'rent control' before the word 'tenant' in point no.14 of the Nazul Bhoomi Free Hold Neeti should be declared as ultra virus. It is settled law of interpretation that no word can be added or substituted or deleted or can be superfluous until and unless there is any ambiguity found in the impugned orders. Herein the Government Order clearly provides the facility of declaring freehold rights to the rent control tenants of the lease holder only and not to any other tenants or occupants. Thus both the petitions are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. 38. No orders as to costs. Petitions Dismissed.