JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Since in all the writ petitions identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, all the writ petitions are being taken up and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Undisputedly, the land in question, is a nazul land owned by the State Government, however, managed by Municipality. Undisputedly, State Government as per the free hold policy, issued an advertisement on 9th July, 1998, annexure-3 to the writ petition, inviting tenders for selling the nazul land. As per condition No.4 of the tender notice/notification, annexure-3, 1/4 of the bid amount was required to be deposited then and there and balance 3/4 amount had to be deposited within next 15 days. Advertisement/tender inviting notice, annexure-3 to the writ petition, clearly stipulates tender may be cancelled by Additional District Collector without assigning any reason. Petitioners submitted their respective tenders. Petitioners were found highest bidders. 1/4 of the bid amount was deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated time. 3. Having submitted tender, petitioners came to know that litigation is pending pertaining to the auctioned land before the competent Civil Court. Respondent No.5 had sought permanent prohibitory injunction against the State Government as well as Municipality not to make any interference in his possession over the nazul land. Having come to know about the pendency of the litigation, petitioners did not deposit balance 3/4 amount. Undisputedly, the suit filed by the respondent No.5 was dismissed. After dismissal of the civil suit, appeal filed by the respondent No.5, was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act seeking declaration to the effect that he has matured title on the basis of adverse possession. Suit so filed is still pending disposal. 4. Meanwhile, Additional Collector Nazul issued order dated 28.09.2012/05.10.20012 informing that bids were cancelled for non deposit of balance 3/4 amount within the stipulated time and ¼ amount so deposited by the petitioners stood forfeited. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred present writ petitions. 5. Mr. Bhupender Singh and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents fairly submitted that they were never granted any lease, patta or licence to occupy the land in question (nazul land). Further contended that since nazul land was lying vacant, therefore, they entered into the possession and started cultivation thereon. 5. Mr. Bhupender Singh and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents fairly submitted that they were never granted any lease, patta or licence to occupy the land in question (nazul land). Further contended that since nazul land was lying vacant, therefore, they entered into the possession and started cultivation thereon. Further contended that since private respondents are in long possession for last more than 30 years and their possession has never been disturbed, therefore, they have matured title by way of adverse possession. Further contended that private respondents have applied to get free hold rights in their favour and State Government has decided to execute free hold deeds in their favour. 6. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that first of all bid of the petitioners ought not to have been cancelled the way it was cancelled. Further contended that in fact respondent No.3, Additional Collector played fraud on the petitioners by not mentioning in the tender notice that litigation was pending pertaining to the land in question. Had there been such information, petitioners would not have submitted their tender. Further contended that even on the deposit of balance 3/4 of the bid money, petitioners would not have got possession. Therefore, petitioners decided not to deposit the amount till final decision comes in pending litigation between the private respondents and State / Municipality. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the petitioners for not depositing the balance 3/4 amount. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that now some of the officers of the Government are adamant to help encroachers, i.e., private respondents by executing free hold deeds in their favour on the throughway prices while petitioners have given bid for handsome amount. 7. As observed hereinabove, as per the tender, inviting notice / advertisement, Additional Collector Nasul was authorised to cancel the bid without assigning any reason. Petitioners, admittedly, did not deposit balance ¾ amount within the stipulated time as mentioned in the tender inviting notice/ advertisement. Moreover, tenders were submitted in the year 1998 while balance ¾ amount was not deposited till the year 2012 when this impugned order of cancellation was passed. Therefore, cancellation order seems to be totally justified. Moreover, cost of the land has increased many fold after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, asking the State Govt. Moreover, tenders were submitted in the year 1998 while balance ¾ amount was not deposited till the year 2012 when this impugned order of cancellation was passed. Therefore, cancellation order seems to be totally justified. Moreover, cost of the land has increased many fold after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, asking the State Govt. to execute free hold deed on the price prevailing in the year 1998, in the year 2013 would cause great financial loss to the State Govt. 8. Now, very important question has arisen for consideration by this Court as to whether State Government can execute free hold deed in favour of the encroachers / private respondents. 9. Free hold nazul land policy is available on the record as annexure-15. As per the free hold nazul land policy, lessee of the nazul land or his legal heirs or transferee from the lessee may apply for free hold rights. Nazul policy further stipulates that free hold rights can be conferred on the unauthorized occupants too. 10. In the humble opinion of this Court, there is a vast difference between encroacher (trespasser) and unauthorized occupant. If initial entry is lawful in the capacity of licencee or lessee, then of course after expiry of period of lease or licence, possession becomes unauthorized. However, if entry itself is per se illegal, then occupant shall be encroacher (trespasser). As per the policy, free hold rights may be conferred in favour of unauthorized occupant i.e. who has occupied nazul land as a lessee or licencee but it does not stipulate that free hold right can be conferred in favour of the encroacher (trespasser). 11. There is another aspect of the matter, if argument of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Addl. C.S.C. or learned counsel for the private respondents are accepted that free hold right may also be conferred in favour of the encroacher, it would amount to giving licence. First of all, to encroach upon the Government land and thereafter to have free hold rights. It would be against the fair public policy. Therefore, grant of free hold rights in favour of the encroacher cannot be accepted. 12. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate appearing for the Municipality has submitted that property in question is open land and same is in the possession and management of the Municipality. Further contended that private respondents are not in possession. 13. Although Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Mr. Therefore, grant of free hold rights in favour of the encroacher cannot be accepted. 12. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate appearing for the Municipality has submitted that property in question is open land and same is in the possession and management of the Municipality. Further contended that private respondents are not in possession. 13. Although Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondents, are claiming their respective possession, however, they admit that property in question is recorded as Banjar land and is open land. In the considered opinion of this Court, possession over open land would be deemed to be of its owner unless proved otherwise. There is no document to prove possession of the private respondents. Moreover, land is in Municipal area and is recorded as Banzar. There is no record to prove that private respondents were cultivating the same. 14. As per Section 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, ‘Land’ means land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry. 15. Since, property in question is admittedly Nazul land and is situated within Municipal area and is not being used connected with agriculture and horticulture, therefore, provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are not applicable. It seems private respondents have filed suit for declaration under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act wrongly with ulterior motive with the collusion of some government or Municipal officials to grab Nazul land. 16. Suit itself is not maintainable. Therefore, no protection can be granted in favour of private respondents. If State and Municipality are willing to dispose of Nazul land, same can only be permitted by way of open auction so that appropriate cost thereof may be received. No private negotiation would be permissible. Petitioners and private respondents, in that event, shall be at liberty to participate in tender process/auction. State Government and Municipality are expected to protect and save Nazul land. If some part of the Nazul land has been encroached upon, Collector Udham Singh Nagar shall take appropriate steps to remove encroachment within 90 days from today. 17. All the petitions thus stand disposed of accordingly.