JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Plot of land measuring 02 Kanals, 03 Marlas and 28 Sft. comprising Survey Nos. 63 Min., 66 Min. and 67 Min. situated at Estate Maisuma, Srinagar (hereinafter "disputed plot") is subject matter of the writ petitions -- OWP Nos. 783 of 2012 and 160 of 2013, on hand. The two petitions because of similar/identical subject matter as also in compliance of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s) 26811/2015 dated 1st October 2015, are taken up together. Petition registered as OWP No. 160 of 2013, stands admitted to hearing on 28th February 2013. Petition registered as OWP No. 783 of 2012 is also admitted to hearing. Counsel opposite, waive post admission notice. The counsel do not propose to supplement the pleading. Pleadings are complete. Learned Additional Advocate General opposes both the petitions on identical grounds. So much about the background facts, now a closer look to petitioners' case and the grounds on which the petitions are resisted by respondents. Petitioner in OWP No. 783 of 2012, is aggrieved with the decision of the Empowered Committee, constituted under Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act, 2004, bearing No. Div. Com/LAS/Nazool/524/147 dated 24th May 2011, whereby his application registered as 12182, for vesting of ownership rights over disputed plot stands rejected for the reasons detailed in the order. He on the grounds set out in the petition seeks following relief.; (i) A writ of Certiorari quashing decision of Empowered Committee constituted under Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act, 2004 bearing No. Div. Com/LAS/Nazool/524/147, dated 24th May 2011. (ii) A writ of Mandamus commanding Empowered Committee-- Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition to accord fresh consideration to the petitioner's case uninfluenced by its decision dated 24-5-2011. 2. Petitioner in OWP No. 160 of 2013, are aggrieved with the order of Deputy Commissioner Srinagar-respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, whereby Order No. 131-33-RD/Roshni/90 dated 30th October 2012, has been withdrawn. Petitioners are also aggrieved with Communications No. 161-63/RD/Roshni-90 dated 12-12-2012, addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondents 4 and Communication No. 4105-06/M dated 18-12-2012, addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, directing them not to attest mutation in respect of subject matter of the writ petition in favour of petitioners. Petitioners are also aggrieved with Communications No. 161-63/RD/Roshni-90 dated 12-12-2012, addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondents 4 and Communication No. 4105-06/M dated 18-12-2012, addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, directing them not to attest mutation in respect of subject matter of the writ petition in favour of petitioners. They on the grounds urged in the writ petition seeks following relief: (i) A writ of certiorari, quashing letter bearing No. 161-63/RD/Roshni/90 dated 12-12-2012 addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 4, No. 4105-06/M dated 18-12-2012 addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, order bearing No. DCS/ARA/116-19/2012 dated 29-01-2013 issued by respondent No. 3 and also the letters addressed by respondent No. 3 to Advocate General. (ii) A writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 6 to attested mutation as envisaged by section 8(4) of the J & K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights to the Occupants) Act, 2001 read with amended Act 2007 in favour of petitioners without taking cognizance of any directive passed on to them by respondent No. 3. (iii) A writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 6 not to act on the directions of respondent No. 3 in determining the validity of the Government Order No. (NDK) 125 of 2010, dated 21-07-2010 or else the decision of the empowered committee held on 4-5-2011 or in the granting of proprietary rights of the land in favour of the petitioners by the said committee, in any manner whatsoever. (iv) A writ of mandamus directing not to cause any kind of interference with the ownership and possession of the petitioners over the land measuring 02 kanals, 03 marlas and 28 Sfts. Comprising Khasra Nos. 63 min, 66 min and 67 min situate in estate Maisuma near Old KDM Adda, M.A. Road, Srinagar, in any manner whatsoever. 3. Petitioner in OWP No. 783 of 2012, admits that disputed plot was initially leased out to one Jagdesh Rai Sahi on 24th August 1914, for a period of 40 years and thereafter transferred to Shri Narpath Rai Sethi, in terms of Government Order No. 18/24, dated 24th April 1949, and on his demise it devolved on respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition-- petitioners in OWP No. 160 of 2013, (respondent No. 2 represented in the writ petition OWP No. 160 of 2013 by his widow). Petitioner's case is that the respondents 3 to 5 executed a power of attorney in respect of disputed plot in his favour, whereafter he submitted application bearing No. 12182, to the respondents for conferment of ownership rights in terms of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act, 2004 over disputed plot in his favour and that the application was rejected by Empowered Committee on 24-05-2011, on the grounds that the petitioner was out of possession; that the power of attorney executed in his favour was revoked by respondents 3 and 4 (original lessee) and that petitioner at most could seek conferment of ownership in favour of his principals (respondents 3 to 5) and not in his favour. Petitioner disputes that he was not in possession of the subject matter of the writ petition on the relevant date. He to reinforce his claim refers to order dated 4th April 2001, whereby subject matter of the petition was resumed and date of revocation of power of attorney i.e. 29th October 2001. To build up the case that he was in possession of disputed plot, petitioner pleads that as Narpath Rai Sethi may not have been alive on 23rd November 2007, when subject matter of writ petitions was resumed and he with the power of attorney executed in his favour was to be taken to have been in possession on the date his application was accorded consideration. He also places reliance on Communication No. 784/TSN/OK dated 22nd July 2009, addressed by Tehsildar, North, Srinagar to Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar stating petition to be in possession of disputed plot. The Empowered Committee is said to have no material before it to conclude that petitioner was not in possession of disputed land. It is also pointed out that the petitioner earlier questioned order of resumption in writ petition being OWP No. 963 of 2010, which was dismissed and Letters Patent Appeal arising there from disposed of vide order dated 4th February 2015. 4. Petitioners' case in OWP No. 160 of 2013, is that the disputed land initially allotted to their grandfather was resumed vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK)/60 of 2001, dated 4th April 2001; that resumption order was questioned by petitioners before this court and order was ultimately rescinded vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK)/125 of 2010, dated 21st July 2010. 4. Petitioners' case in OWP No. 160 of 2013, is that the disputed land initially allotted to their grandfather was resumed vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK)/60 of 2001, dated 4th April 2001; that resumption order was questioned by petitioners before this court and order was ultimately rescinded vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK)/125 of 2010, dated 21st July 2010. The possession of disputed land is said to have been vide Order No. ADC/P-10/MISC/149-51/NAZ, dated 25th August 2010, returned to the petitioners. Petitioners claim to have approached respondents with an application for conferment of ownership rights under Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act, 2004 in their favour. The Empowered Committee is said to have accepted their application and taken a decision to confer ownership rights over the disputed land in their favour on deposit an amount of Rs. 1,54,02,717/- 25% of cost i.e., 1.60 crores per kanal and treat petitioners as Authorized Overstayed Occupants in terms of Section 13(ii) A of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act, 2004. The conferment notice in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act in this regard is said to have been issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner vide No. DC-Roshni/1156/2011, dated 26th May 2011. 5. Petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013, next plead that after they were vide order dated 26th May 2011, asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,54,02,717/- representing 25% of the cost assessed within three months and in default to deposit the enhanced amount as per the schedule given in the order, they arranged the amount and made an effort to deposit the amount with Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar; that the amount was not accepted constraining them to file writ petition being OWP No. 856/2012; that the writ court on 16th July 2012, directed Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, to receive two bank drafts amounting to Rs. 1,54,02,717; that the bank drafts were in compliance of the writ court direction received by Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, and vide Order No. 131-33/RD/Roshni/90, dated 30th October 2012, ownership rights in respect of subject matter of the writ petition conferred in terms of Section 8(3) of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership rights to occupants) Act 2001 read with amended Act of 2007, in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners claim to have, thus acquired ownership rights over disputed plot. Petitioners claim to have, thus acquired ownership rights over disputed plot. It is pleaded that Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar thereafter vide Communications dated 12-12-2012, and 18-12-2012, directed Tehsildar concerned not to attest mutation in favour of the petitioners pursuant to Order dated 30th October 2012, and finally issued order No. DCS/ARA/116-19/2012, dated 29th January 2013, withdrawing the order dated 30th October 2012, constraining them to invoke writ jurisdiction of the court, through medium of writ petition on hand. 6. Petitioners question Communication dated 12-12-2012, 18-12-2012 and Order dated 29th January 2013, on the grounds that once the decision taken by Empowered Committee to confer ownership rights on the petitioners, petitioners required to deposit requisite amount, the amount was deposited, and a formal order conferring ownership rights in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act issued, it was no more open to Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, to withdraw the Order dated 30-10-2012, nor was respondent No. 4 competent to delay attestation of mutation in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners insist that there was no provision under the Act that could be pressed into service by respondent No. 3 to withdraw order dated 30-10-2012. It is next pleaded that even the reasons spelt out in the impugned Communications also order dated 29th January 2013, would not constitute valid ground for withdrawal of the order. Respondent No. 3, it is insisted lacks jurisdiction to examine the order dated 21st July 2010, whereby the subject matter of the writ petition was returned to the petitioners. 7. The official respondents in their reply to the writ petition plead that as the petitioners failed to withdraw writ petition being OWP No. 856/2012, respondent No. 3 acted within its powers while withdrawing Order dated 30th October 2012. It is averred that the Order dated 30th October 2012, whereby ownership rights were conferred on the petitioners was made on an assumption that writ petition being OWP No. 856/2012 with connected matters, was withdrawn by the petitioners on 20th October 2012, and that thereafter once it transpired that petitioners had not withdrawn the writ petition on 20th October 2012, respondent No. 3 was right in withdrawing the Order dated 30th October 2012. This apart, respondents seek dismissal of both writ petitions i.e. OWP Nos. This apart, respondents seek dismissal of both writ petitions i.e. OWP Nos. 783/2012 and 160/2013, on the ground that the disputed plot is "land held by Government Department" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act and in both the writ petitions ownership over the plot are not to be conferred on petitioners. It is next pleaded that Housing Department had in 1977, requested Government not to renew lease of subject matter of the writ petition, as it was required for public purpose and therefore the petitioners' claim in both the writ petitions was hit by Section 3 of the Act. The Empowered Committee is said to have failed to take cognizance of this aspect of the matter while according consideration to the petitioners' application for conferment of ownership rights in respect of disputed plot in their favour. It is stated that petitioners or anyone claiming under them in terms of Section 3 of the Act are stripped of rights in the subject matter of the writ petition. 8. I have gone through the pleadings as also record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. Petitioner in OWP No. 783/2012, does not deny that the disputed plot was way back in the year 1914, allotted, in favour of Shri Jagdish Rai Sahi for the period of 40 years and transferred to grandfather of the petitioner and thereafter devolved on the petitioners in OWP No. 160 of 2013-respondents in the petition, petitioner admitting aforesaid facts, trace the rights claimed by him over disputed plot to the power of attorney and agreement to sell executed by petitioner clothing him with the powers detailed in the power of attorney, over disputed plot. The main edifice of his case is that he was in actual and physical possession of the disputed plot, in consequence of the documents executed by petitioners in his favour, on the date matter was considered by the Empowered Committee constituted under Section 12(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir States (Vesting of ownership rights to Occupants) Act 2004, as amended by Act of 2007, held on 14-05-2011. Petitioner has not placed copy of power of attorney executed by private respondents--petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013, in his favour nor has he given date of execution of power of attorney. Petitioner has not placed copy of power of attorney executed by private respondents--petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013, in his favour nor has he given date of execution of power of attorney. The space in para 3(1) of the writ petition where date of execution of power of attorney was to recorded, is left blank. He however, admits that the power of attorney executed in his favour was revoked on 29th October 2001. 10. With the revocation of power of attorney, petitioner was stripped of the powers, rights or interests over the disputed land conferred under power of attorney qua disputed plot. Petitioner was therefore not left with any claim over disputed plot. Otherwise also the right if any, over disputed plot conferred at his instance, as attorney, was not to be conferred on him, but the Principals whom he represented before the Committee. 11. Petitioner's claim that after revocation of power of attorney on 29th October 2001, he continued to be in possession of the disputed plot and therefore on the date matter was considered by the Empowered Committee, he being in possession of the disputed plot, his right was to be considered independent of power of attorney, is bereft of merit. Petitioner admits that disputed plot was resumed and its possession taken over by competent authority vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 60 of 2001, dated 4th April 2001. Petitioner therefore could not have been in possession after disputed land was resumed by the Government and its possession taken over by concerned authority on 4th April 2001. The disputed plot was thereafter returned to the private respondents - petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013 vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 125 of 2010, dated 21st July 2010 and the Order No. Rev (NDK) 60 of 2001 dated 4th April 2001, rescinded ab initio. The possession in the wake of Government order dated 21st July 2010, therefore was not handed over to the petitioner. The possession obviously, could not be handed over to him as on resumption of the land vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 60 of 2001, dated 4th April 2001, the possession was not taken over from him and therefore could not have been restored to him once the order dated 4th April 2001, was rescinded ab initio. 12. The possession obviously, could not be handed over to him as on resumption of the land vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 60 of 2001, dated 4th April 2001, the possession was not taken over from him and therefore could not have been restored to him once the order dated 4th April 2001, was rescinded ab initio. 12. Petitioner in OWP No. 783/2012, questioned Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 125 of 2010, dated 21st July 2010, in writ petition being OWP No. 963/2010. Had the disputed plot on its restoration ordered vide Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 125 of 2010, dated 21st July 2010 been handed over to the petitioner, there was no need for him to question Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 125 of 2010, dated 21st July 2010. Be that as it may, petition did not succeed and was dismissed vide order dated 6th April 2011. The writ court while dismissing the writ petition observed: "On consideration of the matter, I could not find any ground for admission of the present petition for the reason that the present petitioner claims to be attorney holder of respondents 8 & 9. The order impugned has been passed in favour of respondents 8 & 9 i.e. Executant of attorney holder, therefore, attorney holder cannot object to any benefit given to the Principle under the order impugned." The writ court order was questioned in Letters Patent Appeal being LPA 132 of 2011. Challenge to the writ court judgment did not succeed except to the extent of the observation made regarding agreement to sell claimed by the petitioner to have been executed by private respondents--petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013, in his favour. The LPA Court did not interfere with the observation as regards right of the petitioner as attorney to question benefit conferred on his Principals. 13. Petitioner to reinforce his claim as regards possession over the disputed land, heavily relies on communication No. 784/TSN/OQ, dated 22nd July 2009, addressed by Tehsildar, North, Srinagar to Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, wherein petitioner is stated to be in possession of the disputed land as verified "from locals". The communication relied upon is not to support petitioner's claim that he was in actual and physical possession of the disputed land on the date his application under the Act was considered by the Empowered Committee. The Communication as a bare look would indicate, is dated 22nd July 2009. The communication relied upon is not to support petitioner's claim that he was in actual and physical possession of the disputed land on the date his application under the Act was considered by the Empowered Committee. The Communication as a bare look would indicate, is dated 22nd July 2009. On the aforesaid date, the disputed land continued to be in possession of the official respondents as it was resumed on 4th April 2001 and restored to the original LESSE ON 21ST JULY 2010. The Communication in the circumstances does not inspire confidence. It is important to note that Tehsildar, North, Srinagar, has not based communication or any official record or official communication but information received from "the locals". It is therefore surprising that Tehsildar, North Srinagar, by a subsequent Communication No. 2901/TSN/OQ, dated 08-03-2010, reported to Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar that on re-verification, it was found that earlier Communication of Tehsildar, North, Srinagar dated 22-07-2009, was based on false statement and that the disputed plot was in possession of the EX-LESSEES. Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar in Order No. ADC/p-10/Misc/149-51 dated 25th August 2010, clearly recorded that the disputed plot was returned to the owners. The Assistant Commissioner, Nazool, Srinagar, who on resumption took possession of the disputed plot, in his order dated 26th August 2010 stated that the keys/possession of the disputed plot was handed over to the petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013 through their attorney, Shri Ishtiyaq Ahmad Baba. 14. One more aspect of the matter that needs to be emphasized is that after impugned decision of the Empowered Committee dated 24-05-2011, a number of developments took place that were not questioned by petitioner except a belated effort to question the decision of the Empowered Committee through medium of appeal under Section 7 of the Act before Hon'ble Minister for Revenue. The appeal was dismissed on 18th October 2012. Petitioner did not question the order dated 18th October 2012, or Notice under Section 8(3) of the Act nor the order No. 131-33/RD/Roshni/90 dated 30th October 2012. 15. For the reasons discussed, the order of Empowered Commutated 14th May 2011; cannot be faulted on any of the grounds urged in the writ petition. The writ petition OWP No. 783/2012, is accordingly held to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. 16. This takes us to OWP No. 160/2013, questioning Communication Nos. 15. For the reasons discussed, the order of Empowered Commutated 14th May 2011; cannot be faulted on any of the grounds urged in the writ petition. The writ petition OWP No. 783/2012, is accordingly held to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. 16. This takes us to OWP No. 160/2013, questioning Communication Nos. 12-12-2012, 18-12-2012 and Order dated 29th January 2013, whereby earlier order dated 30th October 2012, has been withdrawn. 17. The case set up by the petitioners in OWP No. 160/2013, is admitted in all essential details by the respondents. Respondents admit that the disputed land on its resumption was handed over to the petitioners; that their claim for conferment of ownership rights in terms of Vesting of States (Vesting of Ownership rights to occupants) Act, 2004, was considered and accepted by Empowered Committee, and ownership rights in respect of disputed plot decided to be conferred on the petitioners. It is also admitted that a Notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 8(3) of the Act requiring them to deposit the assessed amount and on depositing the amount, ownership rights were conferred on petitioners. Respondents however justify Communications dated 12-12-2012 and 18-12-2012 as also order dated 23rd January 2013, impugned in the petition inter alia on the ground that petitioners did not withdraw the writ petition - OWP No. 856 of 2012. 18. It, in the first place needs to be appreciated that once petitioners offered to deposit the amount in terms of Notice dated 26-05-2011, under section 8(3) of the Act, Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar - respondent No. 3, should not have refused receipt of the amount. It was in clear violation of the decision of the Empowered Committee dated 14th May 2011, and Notice under Section 8(3) of the Act dated 26-05-2011. Petitioners were forced to resort to litigation, by respondent and in particular respondent No. 3. Writ court while directing respondent No. 3 to receive the amount obviously did not approve refusal on part of the respondent No. 3 to receive the amount. Be that as it may, the amount was received and order dated 30th October 2012, in terms of 8(3) of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2004 read with amended Act 2007, passed in favour of petitioners. Be that as it may, the amount was received and order dated 30th October 2012, in terms of 8(3) of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2004 read with amended Act 2007, passed in favour of petitioners. A closer look at order dated 30th October 2012, would reveal that the order does not indicate that the petitioners made any assurance, that the writ petition stood withdrawn on 20th October 2012. Be that as it may, once the amount was received, the writ petition lost its significance and could not have been used as excuse to withdraw the order dated 30th October 2012. 19. Non-withdrawal of the writ petition per se would not be a valid reason for withdrawal of the order dated 30th October 2012, whereby ownership rights were conferred on the petitioners. 20. This apart the record would reveal that petitioners soon after the requisite amount was received by the respondents, made an effort to withdraw the writ petition. They filed an application for withdrawal of writ petition OWP No. 856/2012, sometime before 30th October 2012. The application came up before the Court on 30th October 2012. The matter was deferred. The application was listed on 1st January 2013, and petition with all connected CMPs along with Contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 7th February 2013. However, by said date, the order dated 29th January 2013, recalling order dated 30th October 2012, had been passed by respondent No. 3. The writ court while dismissing the writ petition gave liberty to petitioners to work out the remedy against the order dated 29th January 2013, as also the earlier communication dated 12-12-2012 and 18-12-2012. Delay in withdrawal of the writ petition therefore cannot be said to have been attributable to any mala fides on part of petitioners and used as reason to withdraw the order dated 30th October, 2012. 21. The other ground urged in the reply to the writ petition is that the conferment of ownership rights on petitioners or for that matter any person claiming under them was hit by Section 3 of the Act and the order dated 29th January 2013, passed by respondent No. 3 is therefore valid, warranting no interference. The case set up in opposition to the writ petition is bereft of any merit. The case set up in opposition to the writ petition is bereft of any merit. We need to be reminded that respondent No. 3, did not pass order dated 29th January 2013, on the ground that Section 3 of the Act stood in way of petitioners and therefore order dated 30th October 2012, deserved to be withdrawn. We do not even come across a whisper in this regard in the impugned order and for that matter elsewhere in the record. The ground obviously urged is an afterthought and cannot be used to extend post facto justification to the order impugned in the petition. The impugned order, it may be stated at the cost of repetition, was passed only and only on the ground that petitioners had not withdrawn the writ petition, OWP No. 856/2012, immediately after bank drafts amounting to Rs. 1,54,02,717/- were received. This ground has been found to be without any legal justification and therefore not available to respondent No. 3 to issue impugned order dated 29th January 2013, or address communication dated 12-12-2012 to respondent No. 4 and Communication dated 18-12-2012, to respondent No. 5. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed and Order No. DCS/ARA/116-19/2012, dated 29-01-2013, and communication dated 12.12.2012 and 18.12.2012 impugned in the writ petition quashed. For the reasons discussed, writ petition OWP No. 723/2012 is dismissed and the writ petition being OWP No. 160/2013, is allowed. The Order No. DCS/ARA/116-19/2012 dated 29-01-2013, is quashed and so are communications dated 12.12.2012 and 18.12.2012 impugned in the petition. Resultantly, Order dated 131-33/RD/Roshni/90, dated 30-10-2012, is held to be binding on the respondents and respondents directed to discharge their statutory obligations, as a sequel to the order including attestation of mutation provided under section 8(4) of Jammu and Kashmir States (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act 2004, read with amended Act 2007, in favour of the petitioners and not to interfere with petitioners possession over disputed plot measuring 02 Kanals, 03 Marlas and 28 Sft. comprising Survey Nos. 63 Min., 66 Min. and 67 Min. situated at Estate Maisuma, Srinagar, as owners thereof.