JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma and Mahendra Dayal, JJ. Heard Mr. Mohd. Babar Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.K.S. Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 30.4.2012, whereby the District Magistrate, Hardoi rejected the application of the petitioner for conversion of land from leasehold to freehold. 3. Admittedly, the deponent, Aradhya Awasthi, is the authorized Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of petitioner, namely, Shri Deepak Ashish Kaul. and he is authorized to act on behalf of the petitioner in respect of plot nos.2961 to 2965 situated at Kanal Road, District Hardoi. On 5.12.1922, Smt. Tej Rani Kaul, W/o Triyugi Nath Kaul, who is the grandmother of the petitioner, was leased out the Nazool Land for a period of 90 years. Subsequently, constructions were raised upon the said land and after construction, it was rented out. In the meantime, when the State Government issued a notification for conversion of land of residential units from leasehold to freehold in the year 1994, petitioner's father, Ishwar Nath Kaul applied for conversion of Nazool land into freehold land and on 30.1.1999, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- through challan. Thereafter, Ishwar Nath Kaul died on 11.2.2000 leaving behind his son, Deepak Ashish Kaul, petitioner, as his legal heir. During his life-time, a Will was also executed by Ishwar Nath Kaul in favour of Deepak Ashish Kaul on 20.10.1999 bequeathing all his immovable properties situate at District Hardoi, including the plot nos.2961 to 2965 situate at Canal Road, Pargana Bangar, District Hardoi. When nothing has been done by the opposite parties, the petitioner preferred a wit petition No.11368 (MB) of 2011, which was disposed of finally, vide order dated 17.11.2011, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the application in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In compliance of the order dated 17.11.2011, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 30.4.2012 on the ground that some dispute with regard to the tenancy of portion of the land in question is pending disposal before the Civil Court and as such, the conversion is not possible. 4. In compliance of the order dated 17.11.2011, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 30.4.2012 on the ground that some dispute with regard to the tenancy of portion of the land in question is pending disposal before the Civil Court and as such, the conversion is not possible. 4. In the notification issued by the State Government, there was no clause, but the requisite conditions are that in case the lease rent is being paid regularly and the holder of the house in question is genuine, then the conversion of land from leasehold to freehold should be converted. In the instant case, on account of pendency of tenancy dispute before the Civil Court, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. Since such stipulation is not there in the Scheme notified by the State Government, the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Hardoi to re-consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with the Scheme, so notified by the State Government for conversion of the land from leasehold to freehold, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.