JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. The case set up by petitioners is that they are the owners of land measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas falling under Survey No. 717, situated at village Nunar Ganderbal which is recorded in their possession in equal shares. The land has been taken by the Rural Development Department without approaching the Collector Land Acquisition for getting the land notified for acquisition and without assessing and paying compensation to petitioners. It is averred in the petition that the land is being held by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 illegally and without adopting the procedure prescribed for acquisition of land for public purpose. It is further averred in the petition that the respondents have got their names recorded as tenant in revenue record which is impermissible under law as the only mode of taking private land by Government is by acquiring the same if needed for public purposes. It is further averred that respondents cannot illegally and forcibly occupy petitioners' land and deprive the petitioners of compensation payable for compulsory acquisition. Respondents have failed to get the land notified and petitioners have not been approached for execution of any agreement for acquisition of the land in question. It is further averred that the petitioners cannot be deprived by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of compensation payable at market rate. Representations of petitioners made from time to time have evoked no response from the respondents. It is further averred that earlier this plot of land was used by Sindh Power Canal Generation Division for making bricks for construction of their building and thereafter it was surrendered in favour of petitioners and since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 required the plot, they approached the petitioners for handing over possession to them which petitioners agreed to on condition that they will be paid compensation as per market value. However, nothing was done to redress the grievance of petitioners till year 1990 when petitioners migrated from the valley because of threat to their lives. Since then petitioners have been finding it difficult to approach the respondents, though they have served notices dated 12.08.2002 and 30.09.2002 to respondents but their claim has not been settled. Petitioners pray for releasing of compensation for the land occupied by respondents after following the procedure for acquisition of land in accordance with law. Since then petitioners have been finding it difficult to approach the respondents, though they have served notices dated 12.08.2002 and 30.09.2002 to respondents but their claim has not been settled. Petitioners pray for releasing of compensation for the land occupied by respondents after following the procedure for acquisition of land in accordance with law. Objections have been filed by Respondent No. 2 contesting the petition on the ground that the land in question is under physical possession of Rural Development Department Right from settlement sani. The land in question has been in possession of Rural Development Department since 1953 as having been donated by the petitioners and same continues to be in its possession without any change. A guard hut has been constructed in the land in earlier 60's and plantation has been raised on the land. It is pleaded that petitioners never applied for resumption of half of land under Big Landed Estates Abolition Act which was requisite under the Tenancy Act and Agrarian Reforms Act. It is further pleaded that the land is recorded as Abai Doum and has been transferred to Rural Development Department and continues to be in its possession since 1953 when it was donated by the petitioners. Thus, it is pleaded that question of acquisition of land does not arise at all. 2. Respondent No. 3 has filed counter pleading that the land in question is recorded in Jamabandi of year 1968-1969 in the name of petitioners in equal shares while Rural Development Department is recorded in tenancy column. In record of rights, this land is recorded as proprietary land of petitioners in possession of Aziz, Satar and Lasu-sons of Razak Gojari (4 kanals), Ali son of Rasool Bhat (2 karlal 11 marlas) and Khazir son of Aziz Bhat (4 kanal) as Gair Mustiqal tenants. The land in question is recorded in tenancy of Rural Development Department since 1968-1969 as reflected in extract of Jamabandi and Girdawari. It is further pleaded that Rural Development Department was asked to disclose the authority under which possession of land has been taken or if any indent has been placed before the Collector and whether compensation has been paid to the land owners. It is pleaded that the Rural Development Department did not respond. It is further pleaded that Rural Development Department was asked to disclose the authority under which possession of land has been taken or if any indent has been placed before the Collector and whether compensation has been paid to the land owners. It is pleaded that the Rural Development Department did not respond. However, BDO-Ganderbal has submitted report pleading therein that one plantation beat namely Dev Raz at Nunar is in possession of Block Ganderbal from last so many decades and plants of different species are existing thereon and petitioners have been objecting to such possession of Block Ganderbal on the land. It is pleaded that earlier the local inhabitants generally used to donate their land free of cost to the Panchayat or Kahcharai land was developed as plantation beats for generating income for panchayats. It would be a voluntary act on the part of local inhabitants and Rural Development Department would not acquire the land for development of a plantation beat. Such property then belongs to the Panchayat and presently it is in possession of Rural Development Department as custodian of such properties. It is further pleaded that the petitioners have raised the issue only after migration from the village. The land in question is in possession of Block Ganderbal for last so many decades with an old guard hut existing therein. No record in regard to acquisition of such land for public purpose is available with the Collector. 3. Petitioner No. 1 has filed rejoinder affidavit stating therein that petitioners admittedly being the owners of the land in question, Rural Development Department could not acquire the same in pursuance of circular dated 14.07.2009 which prohibits avoiding acquiring of migrant properties lest it upsets the process of return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandit Migrants to the valley. 4. Status report has not been filed. However, record has been produced by Rural Development Department. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is the admitted case of the parties that land measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas railing under Survey No. 717, of village Nunar Ganderbal is the proprietary land of petitioners and recorded in possession of Rural Development Department. In annual record of 1968 till date, the land recorded as -Abai Doum is shown to be in occupation of Rural Development Department on account of its transfer in favour of the Department. In annual record of 1968 till date, the land recorded as -Abai Doum is shown to be in occupation of Rural Development Department on account of its transfer in favour of the Department. The record belies the plea taken by respondents that the respondents were the tenants of land since 1953 and continued to be so in 1971. Therefore, question of resumption of such land by petitioners under Agrarian Reforms Act does not arise at all. It appears that there is no love lost inter se the respondents as regard the status of Rural Development Department qua the land in question. Two inconsistent and self contradictory pleas have been raised, one that Rural Development Department was the tenant of petitioners, second that the land had been donated by petitioners voluntarily. Apart from the inherent flaw in adopting such self contradictory and mutually exclusive pleas, be it seen that the plea of tenancy adopted by respondents is unfounded in so far as the status of Rural Development Department qua the land in question is recorded on account of transfer of such land in its favour. In view of this recorded position, status of Rural Development Department would be as a transferee at par with the petitioners which it held prior to such transfer and not as a tenant. With the plea of tenancy knocked out, in regard to the plea of being a transferee in consequence of land donation by petitioners in favour of Rural Development Department, be it seen that despite several adjournments granted in this regard the Rural Development Department failed to produce any document of gift or voluntary donation executed by petitioners in its favour. It is not disputed that no transfer inter vivos of immovable property could be affected by petitioners in favour of Rural Development Department otherwise than by execution of a registered instrument. In the instant case, respondents have failed to produce any registered gift or transfer deed to support their claim of being in possession of the subject matter as lawful transferee. Even no affidavit has been shown to have been executed by petitioners to buttress their plea that the petitioners had voluntarily parted with the possession of land in question in favour of respondents. The pleas raised by respondents are accordingly rejected. 7. The State is the repository of trust of its subjects and custodian of the rights of citizens. Even no affidavit has been shown to have been executed by petitioners to buttress their plea that the petitioners had voluntarily parted with the possession of land in question in favour of respondents. The pleas raised by respondents are accordingly rejected. 7. The State is the repository of trust of its subjects and custodian of the rights of citizens. It cannot be permitted to raise plea of possession adverse to interests of any citizen nor can it be heard to say that a citizen has been ousted by it. Such plea would partake of the State being a tyrant and a despotic autocrat. India is a constitutional democracy governed by rule of law. State is the protector and guardian of the rights of its people. It cannot deprive its citizens of their rights in immovable property and if land belonging to a citizen is required for any public purpose, compulsory acquisition can be taken recourse to by following the procedure laid down under law. In the instant case, the State is holding the land of petitioners without following the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners. The action of respondents in retaining the property of petitioners without paying compensation for the same cannot be supported. 8. In the circumstances discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to follow the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and award compensation to petitioners for compulsory acquisition of land being subject matter of the petition. Respondents shall also be bound to compensate the petitioners for user of the subject matter since 1953. It shall, however, be open to respondents to handover vacant possession of the land in question to petitioners, if the same is not needed for public purpose. All requisite steps to be taken and claim of petitioners to be satisfied within a period of three months. Disposed of along with connected MPs.