1. The Subject matter between the parties in both the writ petitions is same; accordingly, I deem it proper to decide both writ petitions by the common judgment-order. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties these petitions are taken up for final disposal. Admit. 3. Nissar Ahmad Keen, writ petitioner in OWP No. 327/2007 has prayed that official respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as an occupant in possession of land measuring 3500 SFT i.e. 14 Marlas 18SFT falling under survey Nos. 105 Min, 110 Min and 111 Min situated at Nursing Garh (Shaheed Gunj) Srinagar for vesting of ownership rights in terms of the provisions of J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 (hereinafter for short as Act) and to command respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and not to cause any interference, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that he is in possession occupant of the said land-subject matter of writ petition, which is state land, belonging to Nazool Department. The Government-Department allotted and leased out the said land in the year 1950 to Shri P. N. Koul (Talib). Petitioner came in possession of the said land in terms of the lease deed executed in his favour and registered by Sub Registrar Srinagar and continues to be in possession. Petitioner has raised construction on the said which still exists on spot. 4. In 2001 Govt. passed the Act 2001 which provides for grant of ownership rights to the persons-occupants who are in possession of the land defined in the said Act. Accordingly petitioner laid a motion before the competent authority for grant of ownership rights for the said land. The said motion was complete in all respects. Srinagar Development Authority and Municipal Corporation who are not party to the writ petition, illegally and arbitrarily tried to cause interference with his possession constraining him to file a civil suit for grant of decree of declaration, permanent injunction against State and Srinagar Development Authority and Municipal Corporation. The said suit is still pending. It is so averred that respondents have not decided the case of the petitioner in terms of the Act and have delayed the matter which has caused serious prejudice to the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. The said suit is still pending. It is so averred that respondents have not decided the case of the petitioner in terms of the Act and have delayed the matter which has caused serious prejudice to the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. In nutshell the petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to consider his case and make a decision in terms of the provi­sions of the Act. 5. The petitioner filed writ petition against respondents 1-5 i.e. Revenue Department and Nazool Department. Abdul Majid Ahanger, respondent No. 6 filed an application and came to be arrayed as party vide order dated 4th of October, 2008. 6. Respondents 1-5 have resisted the petition on the ground taken in the reply. Virtually the respondents have admitted that petitioner has laid a claim for vesting of ownership rights in terms of the Act which is still pending adjudi­cation. Further it is averred that Attor­ney Holder Shri Abdul Majid has also made a claim for said land being attor­ney holder of Sh. P. N. Koul. It is also admitted that some mutations came to be passed which came to be stayed and kept in eclipse by Divisional Commis­sioner-respondent No. 2 vide order No. 42/N-DIVK of 2008 dated 15th of April, 2008. It is apt to reproduce the relevant Para of the reply herein: - "Now at this stage the present petitioner is seeking Vesting of ownership rights under the Act claiming that he was in possession of land on the crucial date and on the other hand attorney of ex-lessees are also claiming the ownership rights over this piece of land as the strength of their power of attorney executed in their favour by the ex-lessee, claiming that this piece of land has been in the lease hold rights of their principal, who had temporarily sublet the piece of land in favour of the petitioner....." 7. Respondent No. 6 has resisted the petition on the ground that 4 Kanals and 7 Marls and 187 Sft falling under Survey No. 109 Min, 110 Min, 111 Min and 245 Min situated at Shaheed Gunj Estate Narsingh Garh was allotted and leased in favour of P. N. Koul and thereafter land measuring 4106 sft was acquired by the Govt. for road widening. for road widening. Three storied building, single story out house and a single story shopping complex with basement having three shops were also existing on the said land. The lease expired on 23rd of February, 1973. The said P. N. Koul had applied to the Govt. for extension of lease before the expiry of the said date but in the meantime due to outbreak of militancy P. N. Koul became migrant and he executed an irrevocable power of attorney dated 27th of October, 2000 in favour of respondent No. 6 Abdul Majid Ahanger who along with one Khurshid Taban Zargar S/o Mohammad Shafi R/o Bagat-i-Barzulla, Srinagar, took control of entire property as Attorney Holder. Respondent No. 6 admitted that land measuring 3500 sft - subject matter of the writ petition was leased out by the original allottee - P. N. Koul in favour of the petitioner. But the land came to be resumed by the Nazool Department and thereafter Nazool Department handed over the possession of the said land to respondent No. 6 on superdnama and is in possession as Superdar. It is apt to reproduce relevant Paras of the reply herein: - "That due to outbreak of mili­tancy in the Valley, the above named P. N. Koul (Talib) had to shift to Jammu lately in the year 1989 and since in view of his absence he could not maintain and look after the afore­said property, as such, appointed in terms of IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY dated 27.11.2000. In pursuance of this Irrevocable power of attorney, the answering respon­dent took control, along with one Khurshid Taban Zargar S/o Mohammad Shafi Zargar R/o Bagat-i-Barzulla, Srinagar, of entire property. It is submitted that 3500 sft of the aforesaid land was leased out reportedly by the original allottee in favour of the petitioner herein wherein he had been conducting his transport business. That somewhere in the year 2002-03 a process for resumption of Nazool property and State lands was initiated by the Government includ­ing of the aforesaid property and consequently, the said property was also resumed on 14.04.2003 which was under the occupation of the an­swering respondent as well as the petitioner. However, subsequently, the aforesaid property was given on Superdnama to the answering re­spondent and above named Khurshid Taban Zargar by the Gov­ernment on execution of a Superdnama including the property in question. However, subsequently, the aforesaid property was given on Superdnama to the answering re­spondent and above named Khurshid Taban Zargar by the Gov­ernment on execution of a Superdnama including the property in question. It is further submitted that ever since on handing over of the aforesaid property on Superdnama to the. answering re­spondent, the answering respondent exclusively has been in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the property including the premises which was previously under the oc­cupation of the petitioner herein." 8. Virtually respondent No. 6 has also admitted that petitioner was in possession of the subject matter of the writ petition in terms of the lease deed executed by P. N. Koul-original allottee. 9. In this writ petition No. 567/ 07, petitioner-Abdul Majid Ahanger has stated that he is in possession of the land in question because he came in possession as a Superdar and Nissar Ahmad-respondent No. 6 is not in pos­session of the same. Writ petitioner Abdul Majid Ahanger has filed civil suit on behalf of P. N. Koul on 8th of Febru­ary, 2006 and has not made any claim in the said suit. Whatever relief he has sought, has sought on behalf of P. N. Koul being his attorney holder. He has not made any claim of his own, being owner of the property. 10. He has filed this writ petition on 30th of July, 2007 just after one year of filing the civil suit and is claiming own­ership rights of his own but in the suit filed in the year 2006, he has claimed relief on behalf of original allottee, P. N. Koul being the attorney. 11. It is apt to mention here that petitioner did not disclose that he has filed civil suit on behalf of P. N. Koul which is still pending and as such, has suppressed the material fact. 12. During the pendency of the writ petition, Abdul Majid Ahanger has filed supplementary affidavit wherein he has stated that he has already filed a suit on behalf of P. N. Koul, original allottee. 12. During the pendency of the writ petition, Abdul Majid Ahanger has filed supplementary affidavit wherein he has stated that he has already filed a suit on behalf of P. N. Koul, original allottee. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the attorney herein: - a) To manage the structures exist­ing on the land; b) To receive the rent from the Transport Company and other tenants who are in possession of the shops; c) To institute appropriate legal ac­tion against any tenant who has not paid or will not pay the rent to the executant through the at­torney; d) To pursue the case in respect of the extension of the lease hold rights before the Assistant Com­missioner, Nazool, Srinagar and other authorities and also to rep­resent the executant before the said Department or any other Department in this behalf; e) To present any application to any authority in connection with the extension of lease and to sign the said application for any other document which may be required in this behalf; f) To sign or present any applica­tion to the prescribed authority for the transfer of the lease hold rights of the land and also to do any other act, deed or thing that may be necessary for transfer­ring the lease hold rights after getting the necessary permission from the State Government; g) To transfer the two storied build­ing and the shopping complex in favour of any person or to ex­ecute any document in this be­half or present the said document before any authority for registra­tion; and h) To do all acts, deeds and things which may be required under these covenants." 13. While going through the power of attorney one comes to inescapable conclusion that Abdul Majid Ahanger has no personal interest and he has only to act on behalf of original allottee and cannot claim to be entitled to the Vest­ing of Ownership Rights in terms of the Act when the fact of the matter is that he has filed suit in 2006 seeking every relief on behalf of original allottee, P. N. Koul. 14. As discussed hereinabove he has also suppressed the material fact of filling the suit and thereafter trying to overcome of the consequences of said suppression has filed the supplemen­tary affidavit. 15. In the given circumstances the writ petition merits to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. 16. 14. As discussed hereinabove he has also suppressed the material fact of filling the suit and thereafter trying to overcome of the consequences of said suppression has filed the supplemen­tary affidavit. 15. In the given circumstances the writ petition merits to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. 16. Now coming back to the OWP No. 327/2007, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was in possession of the State Land measuring 3500 sft 14 Marias 18 sft covered by S. Nos. 109 min and 11 min situated at Nursing Garh, Srinagar (Shaheed Gung) and has claimed own­ership rights in terms of the Act which is still pending. Respondents 1-5 have delayed the matter and have not con­sidered the case of the petitioner. It was for the respondents to accept it or to reject it. But its pendency has caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. 17. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition with the direction to official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Act and make a decision thereof within three months from the date copy of the order is served upon them. Writ petition No. 327/2007 along with all CMPs is disposed of as indicated above. And writ petition No. 567/2007 is dismissed along with all CMPs.