JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of Order No. VC/615-21/PS dated 04.12.2004 passed by the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, respondent No.2 herein, whereby land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas and 178 sq. ft. came to be allotted in favour of Jammu Club, respondent No.3 herein, for a premium amount of Rs. 2.4,96,600/-. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of Communication No. UD-113/2004-JDA dated 20.09.2004 issued by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, respondent No.1 herein, whereby the said land has been sought to be allotted to respondent No.3 herein. 2. The facts-in-brief, as is revealed from the petition, are that petitioner-Inderjeet Khajuria happens to be the President of Pipleshwar Shiv Mandir, which is in existence since time immemorial. It is averred that adjoining to the Mandir there was one Gow Shala, one big Hawan Kund, one Akharah and vacant land, which was being used by the devotees, who were coming to the temple. It is averred that the Management Committee of the temple had been applying to the Government for the last about ten years for regularization of the said land so that the same could be used for various activities of the temple. It is further averred that instead of allotting the said land in favour of the temple, the then Minister for Housing & Urban Development and Tourism Department directed for allotting the said land in favour of Jammu Club. Accordingly, respondent. No.1 issued Communication No. UD-113/2004-JDA dated 20.09.2004, whereby the said land has been sought to be allotted to Jammu Club. Subsequently, vide Order No,VC/615-21/PS dated 04.12.2004 issued by respondent No.2, the Sand-in-question measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas and 178 sq. ft. came to be allotted to Jammu Club for a premium amount of Rs. 24,96,600/-. Hence, the present petition. 3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the Minister had no power to accord approval for allotment of the land-in-question in favour of Jammu Club, as the said decision rests with the Board of Directors of Jammu Development Authority. The next contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner had already applied for regularization of the land-in-question in favour of management of the temple, which was otherwise in their possession for the last more than 50 years. The next contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner had already applied for regularization of the land-in-question in favour of management of the temple, which was otherwise in their possession for the last more than 50 years. Thus, it is contended that it was incumbent upon respondents 1 & 2. to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of the land-in-question under the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (vesting of Ownership of Occupants) Act, 2004. Further, it is contended that adjoining to the temple land, there is a Mosque and 4 kanals of land adjoining to the Mosque has been allotted to it by adopting different criteria than the what has been adopted in the present case. 4. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. In the objections filed on behalf of Jammu Development Authority, it is averred that the petitioner was not entitled to get regularization of the land-in-question under any act or law. Further, it is averred that the management of the temple in its representation dated 10.08.1996 had itself admitted that the land-in-question was a vacant land which was not being used by anyone, rather the same had become a dumping place for garbage. Thus, it is averred that the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership of the Occupants) Act, 2004 do not apply to the case-in-hand. It is averred that the then Minister concerned was also the Chairman of Jammu Development Authority and was competent enough to pass the order for allotment of land-in-question, of course subject to approval of the Board. Further, it is averred that the Board of Directors of JDA in its 64th meeting held on 14.01.2005 confirmed the allotment of Sand in favour of Jammu Club. Thus, it is averred that there was no illegality in allotting the land-in-question in favour of respondent No.3. Further, it is averred that the land-in-question was allotted in favour of respondent No.3 and not in favour of any private individual, that too after getting the rate of land approved by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu; therefore, allotment-in-question was not faulty under any provision governing the same. 5. Further, it is averred that the land-in-question was allotted in favour of respondent No.3 and not in favour of any private individual, that too after getting the rate of land approved by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu; therefore, allotment-in-question was not faulty under any provision governing the same. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 also argued that in terms of Rule 18(2) of Development Authority Rules, in case the nazul land transferred by the Government to the authority is not required by any department of the Government, the authority can even lease the same to a private individuals/group of persons on perpetual lease basis. Thus, it was argued that respondent No.2 was very much competent to allot the land-in-question in favour of Jammu Club. 6. In the objections filed on behalf of Jammu Club, respondent No.3 herein, it is averred that the temple-in-question was constructed in the year 1996 and prior to that there did not exist any Pipleshwer Shiv Mandir. It is also averred that even there did not exist any Gowshalia or Hawan Kund adjoining to the temple, rather there was a Shed made by the P.W.D. which was removed at the time of handing over possession of the land-in-question. Further, it is averred that the land-in-question is contiguous to the Club, which was established in the year 1978, and that the Club authorities in May 2001 applied for allotment, of the said land in favour of Jammu Club for sports activities. St is also averred that Akhara activities were never going-on on the land-in-question, rather the same were and are going on within the premises of the temple in its basement, and that the temple premises is enclosed by a wall of approximately 10 feet. 7. In the objections filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is averred that the Government had approved the allotment of land-in-question in favour of Jammu Club and that the petitioner was never in possession of the said land, as such the petitioner cannot claim for allotment of the said land as a matter of right. Further, it is averred that the land-in-question was allotted in favour of Club and not for the commercial purposes which warrants open auction. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record. 9. Further, it is averred that the land-in-question was allotted in favour of Club and not for the commercial purposes which warrants open auction. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record. 9. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that there was a vacant piece of land between the temple-in-question and the Jammu Club, which was belonging to respondent No.2 before its allotment in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner claimed to be using the said land for many religious and akhara (wrestling) activities. Although, the petitioner claimed to be in possession of the said land for the last more than 50 years before its allotment in favour of Jammu Club, the fact of the matter is that the management of temple in its representation dated 10.08.1996 addressed to the Chief Secretary, J&K Government, had itself admitted that the land-in-question was not being used by anyone at the relevant time. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of representation dated 10.08.1996: ".A vacant piece of land which is used by no one and has become a dumping place for throwing garbage is situated just adjacent to the temple/shrine. We all request your good self to direct the concerned authorities to either provide a place for parking the vehicles in that area or the area which has become a garbage depot may kindly be allotted to us so that, we may convert it into a parking place to be used by the vehicles brought by yatries from different areas of the country." 10. Thus, from its own admission of the management of temple, it clearly reveals that the land-in-question was not in possession of temple authorities, rather the same was being a vacant land which was being used for dumping garbage etc. Not only this, even one Shajju Ram, Trustee of the temple, while recording his statement on 04.12.1996, had deposed that the land-in-question was a vacant piece of land. Thus, it is clear that the land-in-question was not in possession of anyone, rather the same was a vacant JDA land; therefore, the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership of the Occupants) Act, 2004 are not attracted in the present case. 11. Thus, it is clear that the land-in-question was not in possession of anyone, rather the same was a vacant JDA land; therefore, the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership of the Occupants) Act, 2004 are not attracted in the present case. 11. Further, I am not convinced with the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Minister had no power to accord approval for allotment of the land-in-question in favour of Jammu Club, for the simple reason that the Minister concerned was also the Chairman of Jammu Development Authority and was competent enough to pass the order for allotment of land-in-question, of course subject to approval and confirmation by the Board. 12. As regards the contention of petitioner that respondent No.2 had also allotted land in favour of a Mosque adjoining to the temple by adopting a separate criteria, the petitioner has failed to produce on record any such document to authenticate the same. 13. Therefore, in view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected miscellaneous petition, if any.