1. The land which is subject matter of the writ petition was given on lease for a period of 40 years by the Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) vide Order No. 43 — GR (UD) of 1990 dated 5th March, 1990 to Reserve Bank of India.. The subject matter of the writ petition (for short "land") was given on lease for raising construction of residential colony and for construction of offices of the Central Government. Vide Order No. SDA/VC/336 of 2011 dated 17th February, 2011 the land was resumed by the SDA and an amount of Rs. 2, 90, 38,154. 75 deposited as premium amount was ordered to be returned back to the Reserve Bank of India. 2. Master plan has been prepared in terms of Section 7and 9 of Jammu and Kashmir Development Act 1970 (for short "Act") and it is not in dispute that the Master Plan has been approved by the competent authority viz. Government and has been also notified in accordance with the mandate contained in the Act. The layout of the 'land' shows that it has been reserved for residential purposes. 3. In order to accomplish the purposes for which the 'land' has been reserved in the Master Plan, the SDA issued notification for auctioning of the same on 18th July, 2011. It is this notification which is called in question in this petition. 4. On notice issued, respondents 2 and 3 have filed objections/reply affidavit. 5. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the 'land' is being used by the petitioners, who have been permitted to file this writ petition in representative capacity, for performing religious rites viz. as Jenazgah, Eidgah and it is also being used as playground. Learned counsel submitted that respondents are duty bound to provide aforementioned facilities to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of preamble of the Constitution of India, the State is duty bound to provide aforementioned facilities to the petitioners. Learned counsel was at his pains to explain that the SDA has no authority to change the land use and it is for the Government to take such decision. This contention was raised on the premises that the land is being used for the religious purposes by the petitioners, thus, the land cannot be auctioned for construction of residential quaners/buildirigs. Learned counsel was at his pains to explain that the SDA has no authority to change the land use and it is for the Government to take such decision. This contention was raised on the premises that the land is being used for the religious purposes by the petitioners, thus, the land cannot be auctioned for construction of residential quaners/buildirigs. Learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to Master plan 2000-2021 and referred to Chapter — XI, which deals with social infrastructure. Learned counsel submitted that it is the duty of the respondents to provide facilities to the petitioners. Learned counsel also referred to proviso to Section 6 of the Act and submitted that "subject to what has been otherwise provided in the Act, nothing contained therein shall be construed as authorizing the disregard by the authority of any law for the time being in force." Learned counsel then referred to Section 57 of the Act which relates to development of housing colonies outside the local areas. The said provision casts duty on the authorities to undertake the development of housing colony in any area, other than, the local area and for that purpose, plan is to be prepared with approval of the Government for providing facilities by taking into consideration standards of population density and building density. Learned counsel referred to case tiled M.C. Mehta, v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 399 and submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court carved out a mechanism for dealing with persons who violate the law. Learned counsel also referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 2053 to show how secularism has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel also referred to judgment of this Court reported in Habib-Ullah Dar v. Chairman & ors. 2005 SLJ 757 : 2006 (1) JKJ HC-205 and submitted that since the State has not filed reply affidavit, whatever has been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition is to be accepted to be correct. 6. Mr. S.A. Vakil, learned AAG, appearing for respondent no. 1, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act and purpose for which the 'land' has been earmarked in the Master plan has not been changed. 6. Mr. S.A. Vakil, learned AAG, appearing for respondent no. 1, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act and purpose for which the 'land' has been earmarked in the Master plan has not been changed. Learned counsel also submitted that reply affidavit/objections filed by respondents 2 and 3 be treated as objections on behalf of respondent no. 1 as well. 7. Mr. Javaid Iqbal, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in the Master plan of 2000-2021, which admittedly has been approved vide Cabinet Decision No. 11/1 dated 16th January, 2003, the 'land' has been reserved for residential purposes. Learned counsel also submitted that in terms of Section 3 of the Act, the writ petition has not been filed against the appropriate authority viz. Development Authority, as such, would merit rejection. Learned counsel also referred to prayer clause of the writ petition as also pleadings of respondents 2 and 3 to indicate that the prayer as sought in the writ petition cannot be granted in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the land has been reserved for residential purposes. 8. The 'land' is covered by the Act and Master plan has been prepared and is approved and notified by the Government. In the Master plan and the layout, which has been placed on record along with objections, the land has been earmarked for residential purposes. The use of 'land' by the residents of the area or the petitioners for any other purposes, even for a long time can not confer any right on them to file the writ petition. The land as already stated has been reserved for residential purposes and this has been done in exercise of statutory power. No writ can be issued to undo that until such time either statute or exercise of power under the statute for any legaly valid ground is challenged. What is challenged in this writ petition, is the notice, whereunder land is sought to be put to auction. Since the purpose for which the land has been reserved is the construction of residential quarters/flats/buildings, the auction notice is only a step to accomplish that purpose. The notice in these circumstances can not be permitted to be challenged or annulled by the Court. Since the purpose for which the land has been reserved is the construction of residential quarters/flats/buildings, the auction notice is only a step to accomplish that purpose. The notice in these circumstances can not be permitted to be challenged or annulled by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to proviso to Section 6 of the Act only to project his claim on the basis of Section 57 of the Act. It was not disputed even by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this provision was applicable to the areas which are outside the "local area". The 'land' admittedly falls within a "local area." No benefit can be, thus, derived from Section 57 of the Act. The reliance placed on M.C. Mehta's case by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears misplaced and in fact lends support to the case of the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court besides dealing with other aspects, also wanted to ensure that the purpose for which the land was to be used is not misused. It was observed that large number of residential premises were being misused for commercial purposes. Orders were passed by the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court for enforcement of the laws, which were not being carried out. It is in that backdrop that Hon'ble Supreme Court initiated steps to identify and take appropriate action against the officers responsible for creating such state of affairs. In this case as already stated, the land has been reserved for residential purpose, thus, can not be permitted to be used for any other purpose. 9. The contention of. the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the reply affidavit filed by respondent no. 1, whatever is stated in the writ petition is to be accepted to be correct, is not countenanced by law, and if such a submission is accepted, then it will amount to create anomalous situation. Assume a situation that some body files writ petition seeking declaration that he has been appointed on a particular post, when infact he is not appointed, and for which he may not be even eligible in terms of the rules, and if State-respondent do not file reply affidavit, can such a claim be accepted, answer will be "no". Assume a situation that some body files writ petition seeking declaration that he has been appointed on a particular post, when infact he is not appointed, and for which he may not be even eligible in terms of the rules, and if State-respondent do not file reply affidavit, can such a claim be accepted, answer will be "no". The petitioner has to plead the fact in the writ petition and annex evidence to support his claim and has to succeed on the basis of the merits of his claim. For non filing of reply affidavit in all circumstances writ petition can not be allowed. 10. The respondents 2 and 3 have given details in their reply affidavit/objections in respect of facilities which have been provided in accordance with Master plan to the inhabitants of the area, where the petitioners live. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that people of this Country are living in a secular State is an admitted fact but that does not mean that people professing different faiths can claim rights neither guaranteed by the Constitution nor by any statute. 12. For the above stated reasons this petition is found to be meritless is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction shall also stand vacated.