Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 168 (UTT)

Amrik Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-03-24

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2015
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. This is a batch of 21 Appeals; we are disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. An auction was held on 07.07. 1998. This was related to the sale of the free-hold rights. The writ petitioners in this case, seven in number, were the successful tenders. In terms of the conditions of the auction Notification dated 27.07.1998, they deposited 1/4th of the amount; the balance amount was to be deposited within a period of 15 days. On 08.08.1998, the writ petitioners sought time to deposit the balance amount and requested for installment facility. An order was passed on 01.09.1998 permitting the installment facility. The Officer provided two installments. In the meantime, it appears that the writ petitioners came to know of a civil suit, which was filed by one Sri Amrik Singh, who is the appellant in seven Appeals, namely, SPA Nos. 501 of 2013, 534 of 2013, 483 of 2013, 482 of 2013, 481 of 2013, 476 of 2013 and 480 of 2013 and, who was intervener in the writ proceedings. It is the case of the writ petitioners that they came to know that the property in question, in which they have bid successfully in the auction, was the subject matter of the civil suit. It is their case, therefore, that they sought deferment of the further payment. They enlisted the order of the status quo passed by the Civil Court in order to defer payment. Suffice it to say that the writ petitioners did not pay the installments as permitted by the Authority. There is reference to various communications, which we will address in greater detail. Finally, the order was passed in the year 2012. By the said order, the auction in favour of the writ petitioners came to be cancelled. The order reads as follows: (NAJOOL), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR NO. 396/25/NAJOOL/…./2002 DATE: 28.9.2012 SUB: FOR CANCELLATION OF THE AUCTION/TENDER OF THE CONERNED PLOT IN RESPECT OF WHICH DUE AMOUNT OF REST BALANCE INSTALMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY FOR THE PERMITTED PLOT IN AUCTION/TENDER OF THE NAJOOL PLOT IN THE URGAN REGION, RUDRAPUR VIDE NO. 26 DATED 24.7.1998. SH. ARUN KUMAR S/O SH. JANAK RAJ R/O SINGLA AGRO INDIA, B-7, INDUSTRIAL REGION, KICHHA BYPASS ROAD, RUDRAPUR, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RUDRAPUR (UDHAM SINGH NAGAR). 26 DATED 24.7.1998. SH. ARUN KUMAR S/O SH. JANAK RAJ R/O SINGLA AGRO INDIA, B-7, INDUSTRIAL REGION, KICHHA BYPASS ROAD, RUDRAPUR, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RUDRAPUR (UDHAM SINGH NAGAR). With reference to the above subject and letter No. 131/25/NAJOOL/F.H.A. (26)/2001 dated 6.6.2001 of this office, please be referred to your application dated 25.6.2001. In this regard, you will be familiar with the fact that the industrial Plot No. 26, area 426.00 sq. mt, situated in Revenue Village & Industrial Region, Rudrapur, Mohalla Kheda, Ward No. 14, dated 24.7.1998 for the highest bidders amount of Rs. 4,56,789.10. And in this regard, you deposited in the Treasury its 1/4th amount i.e. Rs. 1,14,289.10 vide challan No. 52 dated 28.7.1998 and the rest balance due amount of Rs. 3,42,500 to be deposited in two installments on 23.1.1999 and 23.7.1999 has not been paid in the Treasury. Consequently, due to violation of terms and conditions of the said auction, the permission for the highest bidder amount of the concerned plot in your favour, given on 24.7.1998 in the auction / tender, has been cancelled by the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of the legal opinion dated 22.9.2012 by the District Govt. Advocate (Civil), Udham Singh Nagar and the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1,42,289.10, deposited by you in the Treasury has been seized in favour of Govt. Be informed accordingly. UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Copy to: 1. Forwarded to Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Rudrapur for information and to ensure the necessary action as per rules. Sd/- ADDITIOINAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (NAJOOL) UDHAM SINGH NAGAR” 3. It is feeling aggrieved that the writ petitions came to be filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter / order dated 28-09-2012/5-10-2012 issued by the Additional District Magistrate / Collector (Nazul), Rudrapur (Annexure no. 1) and may further be pleased to quash the order passed by respondent no. 2 insofar as it pertains to canceling the petitioner’s plot (Nazul plot no. 26(area 426 sq. mts.) situate in Khasra No. 379, Khera Mohalla, Industrial Area, Rudrapur) after summoning the same from the office of respondent no. 2. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no. 2 insofar as it pertains to canceling the petitioner’s plot (Nazul plot no. 26(area 426 sq. mts.) situate in Khasra No. 379, Khera Mohalla, Industrial Area, Rudrapur) after summoning the same from the office of respondent no. 2. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no. 2 as well as not to give effect to the impugned letter / order dated 28-09-2012 /5-10-2012 issued by the Additional District Magistrate / Collector (Nazul), Rudrapur (Annexure no. 1) during the pendency of the present petition. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. (iv) Allow the writ petition with costs.” 4. Pleadings were exchanged. As already noticed, Sri Amrik Singh also came as an intervener. It was the case of Sri Amrik Singh that the property in question, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, came by his possession and when his possession was sought to be disturbed, he filed Civil Suit No. 84 of 1998. In fact, it is his case that upon knowing about the proposed auction, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2214 of 1998 was filed by him in the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court of Allahabad relegated Sri Amrik Singh to proceed before the Civil Court, wherein he could seek the very same prayer. According to him, he filed a civil suit. The trial court, according to him, though held that he is in possession of the property in question, but he was refused relief and the suit was dismissed on the ground that he has to seek declaration of title in the Revenue Court. It is his case that he carried the matter before the High Court of Uttarakhand, which affirmed his possession, but also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. It is his case that the matter is pending also in the Revenue Court in the form of a suit for declaration of title since the year 1999. Interestingly, a document was produced before the learned Single Judge, which purported to be the policy of the Government for the grant of free-hold rights. It is his case that the matter is pending also in the Revenue Court in the form of a suit for declaration of title since the year 1999. Interestingly, a document was produced before the learned Single Judge, which purported to be the policy of the Government for the grant of free-hold rights. Learned Single Judge took the view that the writ petitioners were given ample time to pay the amount and, not having deposited the balance amount as provided in the policy, the cancellation of the auction in their favour was not liable to be interfered with. After doing so, the learned Single Judge has embarked an enquiry relating to the policy of the Government, which was reflected in the documents produced before it. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to hold as follows: “As observed hereinabove, as per the tender, inviting notice / advertisement, Additional Collector Nasul was authorized to cancel the bid without assigning any reason. Petitioners, admittedly, did not deposit balance 3/4 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. 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. 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. 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. In the humble opinion of this Court, there is a vast difference between encroacher (trespasser) and unauthorized occupant. If initially entry is lawful in the capacity of licence 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). In the humble opinion of this Court, there is a vast difference between encroacher (trespasser) and unauthorized occupant. If initially entry is lawful in the capacity of licence 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 licensee but it does not stipulate that free hold right can be conferred in favour of the encroacher (trespasser). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. All the petitions thus stand disposed of accordingly.” 5. We have before us three sets of Appeals; one set of Appeals is filed by the writ petitioners feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions. The next set of Appeals are filed by Sri Amrik Singh, who feels aggrieved by various observations and directions, which are contained in the judgment, which we have extracted above; the Government of Uttarakhand is also before us in third set of Appeals feeling aggrieved by the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on the expression ‘person in unauthorized occupation” in particular and the observations otherwise. 6. We heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Amrik Singh, Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State Government. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that this is a case, where the writ petitioners were not at all at fault; they have bid at the auction; they have complied with the conditions of depositing 1/4th amount in time. As the policy so enabled, they sought permission for payment in installments; that was duly granted. Thereafter, the suit filed by Sri Amrik Singh comes into play. As the policy so enabled, they sought permission for payment in installments; that was duly granted. Thereafter, the suit filed by Sri Amrik Singh comes into play. The Civil Court passed an order of status quo. The writ petitioners did not deposit the amount. Apart from the question of violation of the order of status quo, the Government was effectively prohibited from effecting the transfer of title by way of free hold, as was promised by holding of the auction in favour of the writ petitioners. Accordingly, they wrote to the Government for deferring paying of the balance amount and, at another stage, they offered to pay the amount provided that if the Civil Suit was decided in favour of Amrik Singh, they requested that the amount which they pay will be returned with compounded interest at the rate of 20 per cent. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the Government came up with a policy in the year, 2005. It is pointed out that the suit was decided by the trial court against Sri Amrik Singh in the year, 2004 and, therefore, the interim order of status quo also stood merged with the final decree and, therefore, the matter improved and since there was no embargo, they offered to pay the amount immediately thereafter. Still, there was inaction on the part of the Government; they were engaged in communication and representations were being made. No heed was paid to the same and they have finally approached this Court. After perusal of the dates and events, it would clearly emerge that it is not the writ petitioners, who are at fault, but the Government. In this connection Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would refer us to the following communications: (i) A letter was written to the Commissioner dated 12.02.1999. He refers to the letter, by which the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,90,750/- on 23.01.1999 towards his first installment. Thereafter, he says as follows: “That the above letter was issued after passing of the letter 13.1.1999, and for this reason no action was / is possible. On this date, in addition to this, in regard of the subject plot, the purchaser / undersigned submits as under: 1. 1,90,750/- on 23.01.1999 towards his first installment. Thereafter, he says as follows: “That the above letter was issued after passing of the letter 13.1.1999, and for this reason no action was / is possible. On this date, in addition to this, in regard of the subject plot, the purchaser / undersigned submits as under: 1. That the said plot vide the invited tenders on 24.7.1998 has been permitted in favour of the applicant / purchaser on 24.7.1998 for an amount of Rs. 4,56,789.00 and after this permission, 1/4th amount of the tender i.e. Rs. 1,14,289.10 was deposited by the applicant in the treasury on 28.7.1998. 2. That when Govt. / administration invited tenders qua the above plot, then this fact was concealed from the applicants that the subject plot is disputed and it is in the ownership and possession of Amrik Singh and that a civil case between Amrik Singh and the State Govt. is pending in the court. 3. That hence the plots which were auctioned by the Govt., at the time of auction, it was clearly stated by the Govt, that very soon the possession of the plots will be handed over to the purchasers and the balance due amount will be received into installments. 4. That in this way plot Nos. 22, 23, 24, 30 and 31 which were auctioned and shown to Mamta Madan, Dheeraj Madan and Sht. Malik, but despite the full payment of the auctioned price and registration of the plots in favour of these purchasers, till date the administration could not had over the actual possession of the plots to these purchasers, since the stay order in favour of Amrik Singh on the disputed land is still continued and effective. 5. That the stay order in favour of possession holder is continued on the subject plot also, and in these circumstances, the case may be continued / tried or be pending for years. Hence the 1/4th amount of tender is deposited by the applicant and is secured with the Govt., which is being fully used by the Govt. and the continuous loss of interest on the said amount is being caused to the applicant. In these circumstances, the payment of the due installments qua the subject is not proper and justified. Hence the 1/4th amount of tender is deposited by the applicant and is secured with the Govt., which is being fully used by the Govt. and the continuous loss of interest on the said amount is being caused to the applicant. In these circumstances, the payment of the due installments qua the subject is not proper and justified. Therefore, it is prayed to permit the applicant, not to pay the installments of the plot till the disposal of the case (Amrik Singh Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is ready to pay the due amount of the said plot even today, subject to the Govt. gets the order in its favour on the disputed plot and hands over the possession of the subject plot to the applicant / purchaser. Dated: 18.2.1999 Sd/- Applicant Arun Kumar S/O SH. JANAK RAJ R/O SINGLA AGRO INDUSTRY, B-7, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KICHHA BY PASS ROAD, RUDRAPUR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR.” 8. Therefore, the request, as we notice, was to permit the writ petitioners not to pay the installments of the plot till the disposal of the suit filed by Sri Amrik Singh. It was further mentioned that the petitioner is ready to pay the due amount of the said plot even today subject to the Government getting an order in its favour on the disputed plot and handing over possession of the subject plot to the applicant / purchaser. Thereafter, a reference is made to the letter sent by the Additional Collector, Nazool, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the Officer states as follows: “MOST URGENT OFFICE OF ADDL. COLLECTOR NAJOOL RUDRAPUR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR No. 481/25-NAJOOL-FREE HOLD/2000 DATED: 23.02.2000 SUB: FOR DEPOSITING THE BALANCE DUE AMOUNT FOR THE ACCEPTED INDUSTRIALNAJOOL PLOT NO. 26 INURBAN REGION, RUDRAPURI NTHE TENDER/AUCTION INVITED ON 24.07.1998. SH. ARUN KUMAR S/O SH. JANAK RAJ R/O SINGLA AGRO INDUSTRY, B-7, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KICHHA BY PASS ROAD, RUDRAPUR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Qua the above letter said subject, please be referred to the letter dated 26/25-najool-free hold/98-99 dated 27.7.1998 and letter no. 26/25-najool-free hold/98-99 dated 1.09.1998, 18.09.1998, 12.2.1999, letter No. 26/25-najool-free hold/98-99 dated 24.02.1999. SH. ARUN KUMAR S/O SH. JANAK RAJ R/O SINGLA AGRO INDUSTRY, B-7, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KICHHA BY PASS ROAD, RUDRAPUR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Qua the above letter said subject, please be referred to the letter dated 26/25-najool-free hold/98-99 dated 27.7.1998 and letter no. 26/25-najool-free hold/98-99 dated 1.09.1998, 18.09.1998, 12.2.1999, letter No. 26/25-najool-free hold/98-99 dated 24.02.1999. In this regard it is again to inform you that qua the subject plot the balance due amount as per rules which has not been deposited by you till date, to deposit this amount immediately in Treasury, get the Treasury challan passed from office accountant and deposit the same in treasury and get ensured the action of registration of free hold deed in your favour to get the possession of the subject pot legally. First installment- Payable on 23.1.1999 Total payable amount of the Installment- Rs. 1,90,750/-. Second installment- Payable on 23.07.1999 Total payable amount of the Installment-Rs. 1,90,750/-. Sd/- ILLEGIBLE, ADDL. COLLECTOR NAJOOL RUDRAPUR, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Copy to: Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar for information and to get ensured the advance actions as per rules i.e. after the admission of appeal No. 42/98 on 19.02.2000 and cancellation of stay order dated 10.07.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Case No. 84/98 titled as Amrik Singh vs. State qua the subject plot. Sd/- ILLEGIBLE, ADDL. COLLECTOR NAJOOL RUDRAPUR, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR 9. Therefore, the installments were fixed. Thereafter, we may refer to the following communication sent by the petitioner: “Additional Collector (Najool) Udham Singh Nagar. Sub: Qua the total Balance due amount of the demanded Najool plot No. 26, situated in industrial region, Rudrapur, vide the letter No. 506/25, Najool Rud. F.H./2000 dated 26.2.2000. Sir, With reference to above letter 506/25, dated 26.2.2000, please be informed about the following:- 1. That the applicant has filed an application 3.4.99 qua the said plot No. 26 and requested to the administration / Govt. to intimate him in writing within 15 days if the administration intends and decides to permit the applicant for the use of the land with 20% compound, interest, so that the applicant may deposit the balance due amount in the treasury. Since a Civil Case No. 84/98 titled as Amrick Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, is pending. 2. to intimate him in writing within 15 days if the administration intends and decides to permit the applicant for the use of the land with 20% compound, interest, so that the applicant may deposit the balance due amount in the treasury. Since a Civil Case No. 84/98 titled as Amrick Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, is pending. 2. That despite receiving the above said application of the applicant, the administration has not responded till today either in positive or negative, but by issuing the said letter No. 506/25, the administration has demanded the rest, balance amount to be deposited in the treasury. That at the time of auction, the said Civil Case qua, the subject plot was pending in the court, knowingly the administration / government concealed the fact, invited the tenders and sold the plot vide auction to the public. The applicant is also one of the buyer among all those purchasers. But when the time arrived for handing over the possession after depositing the balance due amount, it has transpired that the subject plot is disputed in the afore said court case, and on the said plot Amrik Singh is having its plot to maintain the status quo. That it has been clarified vide the letter No. 506/25 dated 26.2.2000, that earlier passed stay order in the afore said Civil Case has been vacated on 19.2.2000. And for this reason, this demand letter has been issued to the applicant, but in this letter it has been also mentioned that said Amrik Singh may get the stay order again from, the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, the applicant may get the possession of the disputed land after paying the total balance due amount in the treasury, before the time when said Amrik Singh may get the stay order again from the Hon’ble High Court. From your above letter it is evident that the administration / government intends to receive the total due amount from the purchaser and hand over the possession of the plot during the pendency of the case the purchaser “party” in the pending case so that in future, the purchaser may pursue the case. Since the auctioned plots are not free from all encumbrances and hence are not transferable, in such a situation if the court order goes against the government, then the whole procedure of the auction, selling the plots to the purchasers etc. Since the auctioned plots are not free from all encumbrances and hence are not transferable, in such a situation if the court order goes against the government, then the whole procedure of the auction, selling the plots to the purchasers etc. by the Uttar Pradesh Government will be null and void automatically and in this way the purchasers will loss every thing completely. That if total payment is made in treasury qua the disputed plot and then any stay order is passed in the said case or the case is decided in favour of Amrik Singh in such a condition, despite paying the total amount the applicant would not get any right on the subject plot. The applicant has deposited 25% i.e. 1/4 of the depositing the total balance due amount, the applicant will not be able to use the subject plot due to pendency of the subject court case and he will have to lose the interest on the deposited amount also. That after getting the said demand letter, the applicant enquired about the said case no. 84/98 and it transpired that the stay order has been cancelled temporarily and the case has been returned to the concerned court for reconsideration and to decide it on the basis of its merit. And even after this, said Amrik Singh will have right or operation to get the stay order again from the Hon’ble Court hence if the case remains pending in the courts for several years, neither the applicant will be able to construct anything on the subject plot nor he may sale it or use it, rather he will be made party to various causing financial loss and mental pain and agony to the applicant. That if the applicant / purchaser paid the total dues amount as per this demand letter in the treasury and subsequently the case is decided in favour of Amrik Singh, then the applicant will have to file an application to U.P. Govt. even to get returned his deposited amount with interest and in case the money is not returned back, then the applicant also will have to file a case for recovery and that too with 10% court fees against the Uttar Pradesh Govt. even to get returned his deposited amount with interest and in case the money is not returned back, then the applicant also will have to file a case for recovery and that too with 10% court fees against the Uttar Pradesh Govt. Therefore, in light of the above facts and circumstances it is requested to you that if the administration / government is ready to pay the compound interest of 20% on the total deposited amount o the plot, from the date of depositing the amount till the date of decision effect, then the applicant is ready to pay the balance due amount in the treasury. The applicant will take the decision qua depositing the amount after getting your reply. Sd/- Applicant Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Janak Raj R/o Singla Agro Industries Industrial Region, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Ngar. Date: 01.03.2000” 10. It is clear that in this letter, the petitioner would express his readiness to pay the compounded interest at the rate of 20 per cent on the total deposited amount of the plot from the date of the depositing of the amount till the date of the decision effect and the petitioner is ready to pay the balance due amount in the treasury. The petitioners were awaiting the decision of the Authority. There is another letter, wherein the petitioners seek permission to deposit the balance due amount of the plots after depositing the amount and seek an order for registration of the said plots in favour of the petitioners, after depositing of the amount. As is evident from the letter, this is on the basis of the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court on 31.03.2004. Thereafter, there is communication sent dated 06.05.2006. This is a letter, which is sent by the Additional Collector. He wrote as follows: OFFICE OF ADDL. COLLECTOR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR NO. 422/25 – NAJOOL / V/06 DATE 6.5.2006 SUB: TO PROVIDE LEGAL OPINION AND TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION FOR REGISTRATION OF CONVERSION DEED FOR FREE HOLD, AND TO DEPOSIT REST FOUR INSTALLMENTS IN THE GOVT. FUND AND THE NAJOOL PLOTS NO. 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, SITUATED BETWEEN THE PLOT BEARING KHASRA NO. 379 AND 14 IN INDUSTRIAL REGION RUDRAPUR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RUDRAPUR. Executive Officer, Qua the above subject and concerned official letter No. 11266/25-najool-nv/date 23.7.2005, please be referred and concerned to your official letter No. 375/PB dated 17.8.2005. FUND AND THE NAJOOL PLOTS NO. 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, SITUATED BETWEEN THE PLOT BEARING KHASRA NO. 379 AND 14 IN INDUSTRIAL REGION RUDRAPUR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RUDRAPUR. Executive Officer, Qua the above subject and concerned official letter No. 11266/25-najool-nv/date 23.7.2005, please be referred and concerned to your official letter No. 375/PB dated 17.8.2005. As it is known to you that the tender / auction was invited on 24.7.1998 qua the najool plots No. 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27 and 28 in the land bearing Khasra No. 379, in Revenue Village Rudrapur, area of each plot-426.00 sq.mtr and plot No. 28, area -408.25 sq mtr. The tender was accepted for the highest price and the purchaser/bidder has deposited 1/4th amount in the Govt. fund and the purchaser is facilitated with the option to deposit the rest 3/4th amount in installments. Meanwhile qua the subject land, a civil case No. 84/1998 titled as Amrik Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation, Rudrapur & ors has been filed in the court of Additional District Judge I, (FTC), Nainital and the same is pending in the said court and therefore, the rest installments could not be paid, since he said civil case was disposed off vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2004, as it is evident from your letter dated 17.8.2005 that against the said order dated 31.3.2004, the municipal corporation had filed a caveat in the High Court at Nainital. But till date as it is known, no stay order in favour of Amrik Singh son of Mangal Singh has been passed by any court. But it has not been clarified that what is the status of the revenue case No. 28/1983 for the year 1999-2000 under Section 229-B, which has been filed by Amrik Singh qua the subject land. In the light of the above said facts, the purchaser / bidder of the concerned auction are requesting for permission to pay the rest installments in Govt. fund and for conversion of the said plots into free hold. Whether the conversion deed for free hold in favour of purchaser / bidder be executed or not? Please provide your legal opinion qua the complete case as soon as possible. fund and for conversion of the said plots into free hold. Whether the conversion deed for free hold in favour of purchaser / bidder be executed or not? Please provide your legal opinion qua the complete case as soon as possible. In this context, please clarify that whether the auction of aforesaid subject najool plots under the security and management of Administrative Najool land Executive council and whether presently any one has trespassed into the said auctioned najool plots. As said above, please arrange the legal view / opinion on the concerned required issues from the Municipal Corporation and ensure to provide this legal opinion along with our own well explained clarification within 15 days.” 11. There is a letter sent by the Additional Collector, the translation of which reads as follows: “District Govt. Advocate (Civil), Nainital received the above said, with the request that since in the subject auctioned najool plots, payment of the amount of the rest due installments by the purchaser / bidder has been restricted due to the pending civil case No. 84/1998, then whether now as per the attached list, in the auctioned najool plots the purchaser / bidder may be permitted to deposit the accumulated single installment amount without any payable interest / penal interest in the treasury or not and whether the conversion deed for free hold in favour of purchaser / bidder be registered for all auctioned najool plots or not. Please submit your legal opinion on all the issue as soon as possible. Annexures: As mentioned above. Sd/- ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR UDHAM SINGH NAGAR” 12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners also drew our attention to the communication sent by the District Government Advocate (Civil), Nainital, which reads as follows: “Sir, In this regard, you have informed that the payment of rest due part of the tender amount and act of free hold have been stopped due to the pendency of the civil case No. 84/1998 in the court of Hon’ble Additional District Judge, Nainital and that after passing of final judgment dated 31.3.2004 in the above said case, the purchaser / bidder has been continuously requesting for permission for payment of the due amount and execution / registration of the conversion deed for free hold. Therefore, in the said circumstances, in my opinion the due auction / free hold amount be permitted to be deposited without interest / penal interest. Therefore, in the said circumstances, in my opinion the due auction / free hold amount be permitted to be deposited without interest / penal interest. Civil case No. 84/98 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court as an appeal related to this case has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court and the revenue case No. 22/83 for the year 1999-2000 is also pending. Since the revision petition qua this case is pending before the Hon’ble Commissioner, Kumaun. Therefore, it is evident that the act of free hold is possible only after the disposal / decision of the aforesaid appeal / revision petition and revenue case. Date: 19.11.2006 Sd/- DISTRICT GOVT. ADVOCATE (CIVIL), NAINITAL” 13. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners also sought considerable support on the following communication sent by the Secretary, Uttaranchal Government in the year 2005: “No. --/V-3HO-2005-10 (N.L.)/2005 ADM/ST (N) FROM:- P.C. Sharma: Secretary, Uttaranchal Government To:- 1. All Commissioners, Uttaranchal 2. All Collectors, Uttaranchal 3. Deputy Chairman, Development Authority / Dehradun/ Haridwar. 4. Chairman, Special Region Development Authority, Nainital / Dehradun/ Gangotri Department-Dehradun Date: 3rd September, 2005 Subject:- Clarification qua management & disposal of the Najool Land situated in Uttaranchal. Sir, I have been directed to submit qua the above subject that Uttaranchal government has passed the order dated 01 August, 2005 qua the management & disposal of the Najool Land situated in Uttaranchal vide the order No:- 1003/V—2005-187 / O1T.C. -1. Subsequent to passing of the above order; the districts are referring the guidance to the government qua the above order that in the cases in which Najool Land has been disposed of vide auction, but for any reason the execution of Lease has not been completed in the favour of bidder then how such cases be disposed of. Subsequent to passing of the above order; the districts are referring the guidance to the government qua the above order that in the cases in which Najool Land has been disposed of vide auction, but for any reason the execution of Lease has not been completed in the favour of bidder then how such cases be disposed of. Following has been decided qua the above issue by the administration, after proper and adequate consideration of the issue:- “As per the procedure provided vide the government orders on various occasions by the pre-existing State Uttar Pradesh qua the management & disposal of the Najool Land, if it is done vide auction and the bidders have quoted the amounts and according to rule; the bidder has deposited the one fourth amount of the auction in time and according to the concerned collector the procedure followed in the auction was proper and as per rule and there was no dispute in it, but for any reason without any fault of the bidder, the act of execution of the Lease in the favour of bidder is being delayed by the collector or government or by any the source, then in such cases, the act of making the Land free-hold be assured by assuming the concerned bidder as valid Lease-holder of the concerned Land”. The Land of such Lease-holder will be made free-hold as the provisions mentioned in para 3(NG) of the government order dated 04-08-2005 and on effective circle rate of the land on the date on which application for making this Land free-hold, is filed. While transforming such Land as free-hold, the compliance of the provisions mentioned in ‘para’9(K), (KH) & (GH) of government-order dated 04-08-200t5 will be ensured”. 2. Rest all terms / conditions mentioned in government order dated 04-08-2005 will be applicable in accordance with wordings mentioned therein”. Sd/- “Yours” (P.C. Sharma Secretary) No/818/v/---2005 – 10 (N.L.A.)/2005 Copy forwarded to the following persons / organisation for information & essential action:- 1. All Local Institution / Organisation/Authority 2. Finance Department-Uttaranchal 3. Gopan (Council of Ministers), Sector-1, Government of Uttaranchal. 4. Guard File By the order of Sd/- (G.B. Oli) Joint Secretary” 14. Sd/- “Yours” (P.C. Sharma Secretary) No/818/v/---2005 – 10 (N.L.A.)/2005 Copy forwarded to the following persons / organisation for information & essential action:- 1. All Local Institution / Organisation/Authority 2. Finance Department-Uttaranchal 3. Gopan (Council of Ministers), Sector-1, Government of Uttaranchal. 4. Guard File By the order of Sd/- (G.B. Oli) Joint Secretary” 14. With reference to the same, learned counsel for the writ petitioners Sri D.S. Patni would point out that the said communication makes it clear that, in respect of auctions, which had been held for the sale of free-hold rights, if the auction could not be carried to its logical conclusion and if there is no fault of the auction purchaser then the act of making the land free hold must be assured. Accordingly, he would submit that in this case, the facts as narrated above, as evident from the communication, would show that as there is no fault attributable to the writ petitioners; free-hold rights should be ensured to them. Also a reference was made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners to the communication issued by the Government, which purports to be the English translation of the Nazool policy addressed to the Commissioner of the State of Uttar Pradesh, of which the State of Uttarakhand was a part, which, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, is applicable even in the State of Uttarakhand. Therein, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners sought to draw upon the following portion: “In the payments according to the above calculation, compound interest @ 15% per annum will be charged. If the concerned lessee pays the due amount infixed time, then he will get a one time rebate of 10% on the total amount for free hold conversion, but this rebate will be adjusted in the last installment. On failure of payment of two consecutive installments, the permission / order for free hold conversion will stand cancelled automatically and the deposited amount will be seized necessarily. In case, the payment of the amount of the installments is not made in the fixed time, the 2. Under the current trend or provision for the conversion of the said Najool land through auction / tender, 1/4th amount of the highest bidder has to be deposited immediately and 3/4th amount is deposited within 15 days after the final acceptance / permission of the auction /tender. Under the current trend or provision for the conversion of the said Najool land through auction / tender, 1/4th amount of the highest bidder has to be deposited immediately and 3/4th amount is deposited within 15 days after the final acceptance / permission of the auction /tender. To simplify the above procedure, it has been decided that the amount calculated/decided through auction/tender be contracted. The person who intends to pay the due amount in installments, will e charged 15% compound interest. Rebate will be payable/adjustable in the last installment. The amount of installments be paid regularly. 20% compound interest will be charged on the balance due amount.” 15. We notice that the last sentence in Page-8 remain incomplete and it is not carried forward in the next page as the next page is not a continuation of the last sentence of Page-8. 16. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners would also submit that many others have been given free-hold rights in terms of the G.O. dated 03.09.2005. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners also drew our attention to the following communication dated 04.08.2005: “Qua the above subject, I have been directed to submit that the following provisions are implemented with immediate effect in regard of management & disposal of Najool Land situated in Uttaranchal according to the decision taken after adequate consideration and detailed discussion on the provisions mentioned in government order and previous Najool policies, and also after considering the geographical condition of the state for the management and disposal of the Najool Land situated in Uttaranchal in light of the government order No. 726/…/….03-/87…./2001 T.C. -1 dated 10-03-2003 and in reference with the government order passed by the pre-existing state, before the constitution of the state “Uttaranchal”:- 1. … 2. … 3. The amount for free-hold will be assessed according to the effective provisions, mentioned in the afore-said government order. … 2. … 3. The amount for free-hold will be assessed according to the effective provisions, mentioned in the afore-said government order. (k) Those Najool plot holders who have deposited 25% self assessed amount, computed according to the provision of Government order dated 01-12-1998 of Uttar Pradesh State (as defined in advance para No. 20), in the treasury and have applied for free-hold in the permitted format along with the treasury challan on or before 30-06-1999, but for any reason procedure for free-hold could out be completed, the facility for free-hold (to those Najool plot holders) with terms and conditions mentioned in government order dated 01-12-1998, on the circle-rate of the dated 30-11-1991, will be permissible. (CHH) Those najool land which is uninterruptedly vacant and which has not been allotted or rent out to any one. For such land act of tendering or public auction will be ensured after deciding the reserved price and on the basis of area: 15. Disputed property and plots i.e. in regard of which any case is pending in different courts, will not be converted into free hold till the final disposal of the case.” 17. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that it is without considering various developments, which took place namely the institution of civil suit filed by Sri Amrik Singh and the interim order passed therein; inability of the Government to convey the title for which the auction was held disregarding the request made by the petitioner for depositing the amount after dismissal of the suit, the time granted for payment of installments, the effort made by the writ petitioners to make the deposit under certain conditions, no doubt, that the impugned order has been passed. In other words, the impugned order does not reflect the legal manner, in which the action should have been taken in these matters, and thereby the rights of the writ petitioners have been jeopardized. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would, in fact, submit that they are, in fact, ready to pay the amount at circle rate prevalent today, at which rate, the Government has also conveyed title to others. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would, in fact, submit that they are, in fact, ready to pay the amount at circle rate prevalent today, at which rate, the Government has also conveyed title to others. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would also submit that even if the amount of installments is calculated with interest at the rate of 20 per cent compounded interest, it will be more than the circle rate and that the writ petitioners are prepared to pay. 18. It is also submitted that there is discrimination in respect of others being beneficiaries; whereas the writ petitioners have been singled out. 19. Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for Sri Amrik Singh, on the other hand, would point out that the holding of the auction was itself illegal. He referred to the tender condition and points out that it contemplated the auction of those plots, which were not the subject matter of any controversy or dispute; whereas the ground reality was that the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petitions, was the subject matter of the civil suit in view of the possession of Sri Amrik Singh over the property in question. He took us through the findings of the trial Court to point out that the Civil Court has held that Sri Amrik Singh was in possession of the property in question and he was non-suited only for the reason that being agricultural land, he had to claim declaratory rights, which could be availed of only from the Revenue Court. He also pointed out that he had approached the Allahabad High Court in the year 1998 stating that the auction was about to be held and he had sought relief against holding of the auction, but he was relegated to approach the other Authority. Accordingly, in the year 1999, he instituted a suit in the Revenue Court and he also filed the present Civil Suit. He would submit that the learned Single Judge has, after dismissing the writ petitions for achieving which result only Sri Amrik Singh came forward as intervener, proceeded to make various observations and issued directions, which are beyond the scope of the writ petition. He would submit that the learned Single Judge has, after dismissing the writ petitions for achieving which result only Sri Amrik Singh came forward as intervener, proceeded to make various observations and issued directions, which are beyond the scope of the writ petition. He would submit that the understanding of the learned Single Judge of the expression ‘unauthorized occupant’ is completely without any basis as the perusal of the expression ‘persons under unauthorised occupation’, takes in a person, who gets into the possession of the Government property without any authority meaning only a trespasser. Therefore, if he has trespassed, he would be a person in unauthorized occupation. He would submit that Government came out with a policy to grant free-hold rights to persons, who have been in possession for a long time. He reminded us that Sri Amrik Singh is a person, who laboured hard on the land in question for long time against all odds and now when the Government also evinces its policy decision to confer free-hold rights, the observations and direction of the learned Single Judge after dismissal of the writ petitions has come in the way of the case of Sri Amrik Singh, being considered. He would point out that the learned Single Judge has even proceeded to hold that the suit of Sri Amrik Singh is not maintainable when the suit is pending consideration before the Revenue Court and, what is more, going by the final directions, action has been ordered to be taken against the persons, who are under unauthorized occupation and he would submit that if the Government were to take action under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, his clients will face the action as per law. Merely on the basis of the direction in the impugned judgment, his right may not be curtailed, he contends. 19. Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for Sri Amrik Singh would point out that in communication dated 18.02.1999 the writ petitioners themselves admitted the possession of Sri Amrik Singh. That is objected by Sri D.S. Patni by pointing out that it was stated so during the pendency of the civil suit and it cannot be treated to be an admission and that is only the case of Sri Amrik Singh. 20. Learned Chief Standing Counsel would essentially submit as follows: The Government has issued Nazool policy from time to time. 20. Learned Chief Standing Counsel would essentially submit as follows: The Government has issued Nazool policy from time to time. The policy is of the year 1996. The relevant Clause (2), which is produced by the writ petitioners, is misleading and even the translation of the same is misleading. He would refer the relevant clause, which, inter alia, reads as follows: “As per the prevalent system with regard to the auction / tender of vacant Nazul land the highest bidder has to deposit 1/4th amount immediately and 3/4 amount is to be deposited within 75 days from the final sanction of the auction/tender. Now simplifying the aforesaid system it is decided that ¼ amount of the highest bid of the auction / tender of the disposed land should be deposited immediately and agreement to sale is done. Any person who does not want to deposit 3/4 amount at one go and want to deposit the said amount in installment would be given the facility to deposit the said amount in six equal half yearly installments by taking 15 annual compound interest. Such person who after providing the estimate of the installment does not deposit two installments continuously in their case the auction / tender process would be deemed to be cancelled and the amount deposited shall be forfeited. In case of regular payment 5% discount would be provided on the entire due amount but the said discount would be adjusted in the last installment. In case of non payment of installment on regular basis an amount of 20 % compounding interest would be levied on the due amount.” 21. Therefore, in short, he would submit that the moment there is any default on the part of the auction purchaser in depositing the balance amount, the policy provides for automatic cancellation of the auction. He, therefore, submits that all that has happened subsequently on the basis of the action of the Officers, who are duty bound to implement the policy as such, namely, in the form of granting time to pay installment facility and further communications must fade into insignificance as it were and the Court must hold the writ petitioners to the terms of the policy decision, which indeed they cannot extricate themselves from. 22. 22. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would reiterate his contention and also express their willingness to pay the amount, as already mentioned namely double the circle rate, if it is calculated in terms of the circle rate. 23. We have noticed the prayers of the writ petitioners. We may, at this juncture, say that the writ petitioners have not sought any further prayer and they only seek to quash the communication issued by the Officer. The first thing, which we must consider is what is law on the point. The law on the point in this case is contained in the policy decision as the matter is not governed by any statute. A perusal of the relevant clause in the policy of 1996, which is binding on all the Authorities of the Government, would show that the 1/4th of the amount is to be deposited immediately on settling of the rights by the declaration of the auction result. The balance amount has to be deposited within 15 days. The policy is unambiguous. If the balance amount is not paid within a period of 15 days, the Author of the policy declares that the auction will stand cancelled. It is important that the policy decisions taken are followed so that it will avoid arbitrariness and it will also result in elimination of the policy of pick and choose. The matter should have ended there, but in this case, we notice that the writ petitioners rely on the pendency of the civil suit and the interim order passed. They even otherwise sought to pay the amount in installments. The writ petitioners were given the facility to pay the amount in two installments. There is no dispute that these installments were not paid. There is the dimension of the civil suit instituted by Sri Amrik Singh and its impact on the rights of the auction purchaser. Sri Amrik Singh, it is to be noted, had filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court upon knowing about the move to auction properties, which according to him, were in his possession. The Allahabad High Court relegated Sri Amrik Singh to challenge the auction in another forum. 24. Sri Amrik Singh, it is to be noted, had filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court upon knowing about the move to auction properties, which according to him, were in his possession. The Allahabad High Court relegated Sri Amrik Singh to challenge the auction in another forum. 24. The civil suit was one for injunction simplicitor, therefore, legally it may not be open to Sri Amrik Singh to contend that the holding of the auction was illegal by merely joining as a respondent in the writ petitions without specifically putting the auction in issue in properly constituted proceedings as contemplated by the Allahabad High Court. 25. Sri D.S. Patni argued that in the Civil Suit, Khasra Number, which is relevant for the purpose of the auction purchaser is 379 and there is no finding in favour of Sri Amrik Singh that he is in possession over that Khasra. 26. Whatever that be, the fact remains that, according to Sri Amrik Singh, the Court has made observations and findings tending to show that he is in possession of the property. This finding has received approval at the hands of the High Court though the dismissal of the suit is confirmed, he contends. 27. We notice that the trial Court has made the following findings: “The evidence, which are available on record, it is clear from perusal of that the disputed land is still in possession of the plaintiff but only file one document to show the possession cannot be considered by the court to prove possession but the court should arrived on the conclusion on the basis of considering all the evidence and other material available in the file. The circumstances speak themselves. The plotting has been done by the defendant No. 2 in the disputed Plot No. 376 only, in the other two Plot No. 135, 154 plotting is postponed due to dispute. From this it is clear that the disputed plots are still in possession of the plaintiff. It is also correct that defendant No. 2 has stated himself the owner of the plot No. 376 and being the owner plot No. 22, 23, 30 and 31 from this have been sold to defendant No. 3 to 6 and sale deed of which is also present in the file and the defendant No. 1 and 2 were entitled to this legally.” 28. In the judgment of the Appellate Court, as pointed out by Sri D.S. Patni, however, we notice the following: “23. In view of the aforesaid, in case the plaintiff is still in possession, he shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. However, so far as the claim for title is concerned, it will be open for the plaintiff to file the suit in the competent court for declaration of his title. 24. Subject to the observations made above, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.” 29. If we go by the policy, ignoring the developments, which took place after refusal / inability of the writ petitioners to deposit the balance amount in terms of the Nazool policy of 1996, then the writ petitioners would have absolutely no case as we would have to proceed on the basis that the auction stood cancelled. The terms of the policy, which are projected, inasmuch as it is unambiguous, there cannot be any scope for any grant of installments or for elongating the time. There could only have been a re-auction, if there was no other reason for not holding the re-auction. 30. Further, we may also notice that the writ petitioners, when they approached this Court, have given a version about the 1996 policy, which does not accurately produce Clause (2), inasmuch as both the Hindi version and the English version do not show that on non-payment of the balance amount, the auction will stand cancelled, but very curiously and interestingly, it is not the writ petitioners alone, who are at fault and the respondents also have shared the completely mistaken version. It is only at the appellate stage that the Chief Standing Counsel would bring to our notice the policy, which leaves us in no doubt that the relevant clause provides for automatic cancellation of auction. No doubt, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners Sri D.S. Patni would submit that the Court may not accuse the petitioners of any deliberate wrong doing or attempt at misleading the court. Whatever that be, the fact remains as mentioned, the policy contemplates bringing down of the curtains in case the auction purchaser fails to pay the balance amount within the time stipulated. 31. We, however, will proceed to examine the case of the writ petitioners on the basis of the conduct of the official respondents. Official respondents proceeded to give installments facility. 31. We, however, will proceed to examine the case of the writ petitioners on the basis of the conduct of the official respondents. Official respondents proceeded to give installments facility. According to the writ petitioners that is contemplated and the official respondents acted in terms of their understanding. We must notice that even the benefit of installment was not availed of by the writ petitioners. In short, the amounts were not paid even in installments. It is, therefore, as we notice, the question of civil suit emerges. Undoubtedly, there was an order of status quo. Writ petitioners did not want to pay the installments. They also wrote, however, that they are prepared to pay the amount with 20% compounded interest, provided that if the suit is decided against the Government, the amount which is paid should be returned to them. We may, at once, notice that it was not an unconditional acceptance, but it would appear to be a counter offer, may be inspired by the civil suit and the interim order. This is not a case, where the writ petitioners paid the amount and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were not in any manner guilty of being in default. This observation of ours becomes apposite and assumes significance in the context of the reliance placed on the communication dated 3rd September, 2005 relied on by the writ petitioners. That communication would come to rescue of those persons, who have not at all been guilty in any manner and who had made the deposits, but on account of any inaction or wrong on the part of the officials, the transfer of free-hold rights was not achieved. We have narrated the facts, which would show that it could not be said that the writ petitioners have paid the amount within 15 days or within the time extended by the Government by way of installment facility. May be petitioners may have their own reasons in the form of dispute pending in the civil court, but at any rate, we can safely conclude that the writ petitioners have continuously not complied with the conditions. Instead they have raised conditions for deposit of the amount. May be petitioners may have their own reasons in the form of dispute pending in the civil court, but at any rate, we can safely conclude that the writ petitioners have continuously not complied with the conditions. Instead they have raised conditions for deposit of the amount. Another area, which engaged our attention, is the argument of Sri D.S. Patni based on the benefit of 20% compounded interest, being levied on defaulted payments and that therefore the right to pay the same and secure the free-hold rights based on the same. The contention of the Chief Standing Counsel is to reconcile the clauses, which provides for automatic cancellation on non-payment of two installments consecutively and the facility of payment of installments with 20% interest is as follows: 32. It may be that an auction purchaser given installment facility may refuse or may be unable to pay two consecutive installments. In that event, the policy contemplates automatic cancellation. It may be on the other hand that an auction purchaser pays one installment thereafter he defaults in the payment of the next installment and thereafter, he pays, however, the third installment. In such a contingency he would submit that the question may arise of allowing payment with 20% compounded interest and this is how the policy must be read. The learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that it is otherwise impossible to predicate as to when installments will be paid by an auction purchaser as he can claim that he has a right to desist from paying installments and whenever he chooses to pay, he will pay with 20% compounded interest. This position appears to reconcile the provision for peremptory cancellation of the auction on default of two consecutive installments with the provision for payment of interest at compounded rate. No doubt, the writ petitioners claim to have been writing letters. Sri Bhupendra Singh would, in fact, submit that the writ petitioners, in fact, have not communicated their readiness. Whatever that be, the fact remains that the petitioners, even after the dismissal of the suit in the year 2004 and vacating of the interim order, did not choose to come to the Court to ventilate their grievances. Sri Bhupendra Singh would, in fact, submit that the writ petitioners, in fact, have not communicated their readiness. Whatever that be, the fact remains that the petitioners, even after the dismissal of the suit in the year 2004 and vacating of the interim order, did not choose to come to the Court to ventilate their grievances. No doubt, the impugned order does not refer to the 1996 Policy and say that the auction stood cancelled, but instead it is stated that the auction is being cancelled as if an act is required on the part of the official to cancel when the policy provides that it will stand cancelled without any act to be done. 33. There is one aspect of which, we are not oblivious of. There is no statutory provision involved. It is an executive order in the form of a policy decision. It can be argued that the officials of the State, by their action, have held out a promise and they have the authority and they cannot act contrary to the promise. This would be a case of promissory estoppel. But this is not a case, which is argued by Sri D.S. Patni at all and, therefore, we are not called upon to consider the same. There is no pleading also as such about the case of promissory estoppel. In other words, it could be said that as there are no statutory constraints, it is open to the officials to relax the requirement of the policy. This could lead to pick and choose and arbitrary exercise also as we have noted in the very beginning and it is bounden duty of the officials to follow the policy as enunciated by the Government, but we would think that we must non-suit the writ petitioners at any rate on the basis that even if we were to set aside the impugned order, apart from the fact that no further relief is sought and we can permit the writ petitioners to fall back on the residuary relief, which is already sought and which it may be open for the Court to give in an appropriate case, what is the direction, which we can possibly give? We are called upon to consider after more than a decade when the writ petitioners had bargained for the property at a particular price after a good 14 years, at what price the property is to be settled in favour of the petitioners. Certainly the petitioners cannot expect to get an order from the writ court that the property be settled in their favour at the price at which, they had bid 14 years ago. There is not much dispute that the value of the property has hiked phenomenally. Today, the property involved in the petitions is allegedly worth a few crores as stated by the learned counsel for the Local Body. Apparently, in fact, Sri D.S. Patni offers to pay with compounded interest, which according to him, is worth double the circle rate, which assumes that the value of the property has undergone a hike. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would in fact submit that they are prepared to pay on the basis of the rate reflected in the sale deed executed by the Government. Therefore, this is an area, which would certainly generate dispute. On the one hand, there is a claim of the writ petitioners and on the other hand, there is public interest and at last, there is also a third dimension projected by the claim of Sri Amrik Singh, who, according to him, is in possession for last fifty years. Incidentally, we may also notice that Sri Patni brings to our notice that the Application of Sri Amrik Singh for free-hold rights has been rejected. However, Sri Bhupendra Singh would point out that it is in violation of the orders passed by this Court. Also already, an Application has been moved for revocation of the same., it is pointed out. Further contention raised by Sri D.S. Patni is that the suit filed by Sri Amrik Singh before the Revenue Court has been dismissed for default; to the same, response is that an Application has been filed within time seeking restoration of the suit and that is pending. 34. Having noted the hurdles in the path of the writ petitioners, it is now time to pass on to the observations made by the learned Single Judge after dismissal of the suit. 35. 34. Having noted the hurdles in the path of the writ petitioners, it is now time to pass on to the observations made by the learned Single Judge after dismissal of the suit. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the Court must confine normally to the reliefs as are claimed in the writ petition. It is not open to the writ court to overshoot the limits set for it by the litigants in the form of pleadings, which is primarily generated by the pleadings of the writ petitioners in the form of the reliefs sought. In this case, the learned Single Judge was considering the writ petitions filed seeking to quash the orders of the Authority canceling the auction. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to find that the writ petitions were merit-less and, in fact, dismissed the same. It is, thereafter, that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to consider the meaning of expression ‘unauthorised occupants’ and the learned Single Judge has expressed his view that a trespasser will not be brought within the said expression as distinct from a person, who came in possession lawfully but who is continuing in possession unlawfully. What is more, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to take a view that there cannot be a conferment of free-hold rights on a person, who had come by possession as a trespasser. The policy of the Government, which apparently came to be produced as an Exhibit, was not in issue before the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioners had not amended the writ petitions and challenged the said policy. The learned Single Judge was not expected to express his views on the same. However, we notice that the learned Single Judge proceeded to do so, may be on the invitation of Sri Amrik Singh, who might have placed his side of the picture, which, according to Sri Bhupendra Singh, was an attempt to get the writ petitions dismissed. But we would think that after having dismissed the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge should not have proceeded to make various observations, which the learned Single Judge has made. We notice that the learned Single Judge even proceeded to note that the suit is not maintainable. But we would think that after having dismissed the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge should not have proceeded to make various observations, which the learned Single Judge has made. We notice that the learned Single Judge even proceeded to note that the suit is not maintainable. Maintainability of the suit is a matter, which is decided by a competent Court and it was not an issue at all before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has also erred in holding that no protection can be granted in favour of the private respondents. Sri Bhupendra Singh would submit that no protection was claimed before the learned Single Judge and there was no occasion before the learned Single Judge to decide either way. We may also notice that the learned Single Judge has made observation with regard to possession of the private respondent, namely, the appellant, namely, Sri Amrik Singh. 36. Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the Local Body would submit that the Appeals filed by Sri Amrik Singh are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Application for free-hold stands dismissed and he has not challenged the same. It is the case of the learned counsel for the Nagar Palika that Nagar Palika is in possession. The finding of the High Court in the Appeal filed by Sri Amrik Singh is relied on to contend that the findings as to possession in the judgment of the trial court has merged in the judgment of the Appellate Court. 37. It is found that the land is in Municipal area and is recorded as Banjar, which means a barren land. It is also found that there is no record that the private respondent was cultivating the same. According to the learned counsel for Sri Amrik Singh, the judgment of the trial Court as also the Appellate Court was produced, which show that Sri Amrik Singh was in possession. We do not intend to say so either way, i.e. to say as to who is in possession. The writ Court does not normally enter findings of fact. Disputed questions of fact are rarely decided by the writ court. But as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is always open to the writ court to decide the disputed questions of fact also. Importantly, writ court can even take oral evidence in a rare case. The writ Court does not normally enter findings of fact. Disputed questions of fact are rarely decided by the writ court. But as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is always open to the writ court to decide the disputed questions of fact also. Importantly, writ court can even take oral evidence in a rare case. But the dispute must be such that can be decided on the basis of the documentary evidence and on perusal of affidavits ordinarily. The writ court may decide a question of fact on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as they emerge during the progress of the case, but cases, where oral evidence is required, to resolve the disputed questions of fact will not be decided by the writ court. Possession is a matter, which is to be decided on the basis of the evidence; both of witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the learned Single Judge should not have made any of the observations relating to possession of the party. Learned Single Judge, in our view, has erred in making observations relating to the ambit of the policy relating to free-hold rights. In other words, taking the view that the policy does not stipulate that free-hold rights can be conferred in favour of the encroacher we would think that the issue should not have been considered by the learned Single Judge at all after having taken the decision to dismiss the writ petitions; the matter should have been left there. Therefore, we would think that the Appeals filed by both the State and also Sri Amrik Singh are liable to be allowed and the observations, which have been made by the learned Single Judge after entering the findings and dismissing the writ petition on the basis of said finding are liable to be vacated. 38. We are of the view that having regard to the circumstances unfolded before us at this distance of time, it may not be an appropriate exercise our discretionary and extra-ordinary jurisdiction to grant relief to the writ petitioners. 39. We make it clear that we are not venturing to find, who is in possession. We are also not expressing any view regarding the free-hold policy of the Government. 40. 39. We make it clear that we are not venturing to find, who is in possession. We are also not expressing any view regarding the free-hold policy of the Government. 40. The result of the above discussion is that, the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeals filed by the writ petitioners / appellants are liable to be dismissed. We, accordingly, dismiss Special Appeal Nos. 488 of 2013, 489 of 2013, 490 of 2013, 486 of 2013, 487 of 2013, 491 of 2013 and 26 of 2014. There will be no order as to costs. 41. The Appeals filed by the Government i.e. Special Appeal Nos. 457 of 2014, 458 of 2014, 459 of 2014, 460 of 2014, 461 of 2014, 462 of 2014 and 463 of 2014; and the Appeals filed by the private respondent, i.e. Special Appeal Nos. 501 of 2013, 534 of 2013, 483 of 2013, 482 of 2013, 481 of 2013, 476 of 2013 and 480 of 2013 will stand allowed and the observations and direction in the judgment after dismissal of the writ petitions will stand set aside. 42. As already mentioned, we make it clear that we have not made any observation relating to the possession of the property in question. We also make it clear that we are not making any expression or any view relating to the Nazool policy. 43. All the pending Applications stand disposed of.