JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. The instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:- (OWP No. 1358/2016) "CERTIORARI: (a) Quashing the Government Order No. 100-Rev (S) of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 issued by Respondent No. 1 granting permission to Respondent No. 5 illegally with dishonest intention and corrupt motive for utilization of land measuring 07 Kanals 06 Marias under Khasra Nos. 388 min measuring (04 Kanals and 04 Marias) and 389 min measuring (03 Kanals and 02 Marias) situated at village Dhanna Tehsil and District Kathua for Industrial Commercial purpose. MANDAMUS: (b) Directing the Respondents to confiscate the land measuring 07 Kanals and 06 Marias falling under Khasra Nos. 388 Min measuring (04 Kanals 04 Marias) and 389 Min measuring (03 Kanals and 02 Marias) situated at village Dhanna Tehsil and District Kathua and take all necessary steps to get the said land escheated back to the State as the said piece of land is being held by Respondent No. 5 and 6 in excess to the ceiling limit prescribed under the J & K Agrarian Reforms Act." (OWP No. 1104/2016) "CERTIORARI 1. Quashing the consent order No. 401 of 2016 dated 29.06.2016 issued by J & K State Pollution Control Board in favour of M/s. Rawi Stone Crusher LLP village Dhanna Tehsil and District Kathua, the establishment of which on the Agricultural i.e. Pail Nehari Land/soil and in between thickly populated area will affect the residents of Village Dhanna and village Barrah prejudicially by damaging their Agricultural Land and causing damage to attending environment' 2. Quashing the NOC's/Permissions granted in favour of M/s. Rawi Stone Crusher LLP village Dhanna Tehsil and District Kathua, for setting up the unit producing Stone Crusher material, Hot Mix Material and Cement, Bricks/Blocks/Pavers/Tiles by respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 contrary to the norms and procedures for setting up such units thereby making them patently illegal, arbitrary. MANDAMUS; 3. Directing the respondents more particularly respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 contrary to the norms and procedures for setting up such units thereby making them patently illegal, arbitrary. MANDAMUS; 3. Directing the respondents more particularly respondent Nos. 1 to 15 to ensure that M/s. Rawi Stone Crusher LLP Village Dhanna Tehsil and District Kathua being set up by respondent No. 18 (Partner) and other which is being built/installed on Agricultural i.e. pail Nehari Land/soil located near thickly populated area is not allowed to function and is shifted to some other placed so the agricultural lands and the attending environment of the area may be protected and the inhabitants of the adjoining villages continue to live a life of dignity. 4. Directing the Respondents Nos. 16 and 17 to constitute a Special Investigation Team functioning under the direct supervision of this Hon'ble Court to probe the fact of issuance of NOCs and Consent Order in favour of Respondent No. 18 i.e. the unit in violation of laws by the official Respondents in a time bound manner. PROHIBITION 5. Prohibiting and restraining the respondents more particularly Respondent No. 18 from carrying on the construction of M/s. (LLP village Dhanna Tehsil and District Kathua as the same is being built upon Agricultural lands (Pail Nehari) and has a compelling effect not only on the population of the area but also on the attending environment." The Controversy in these cases revolves around a land measuring 07 Kanals and 06 Marias situated at Village Dhanna, Tehsil and District Kathua. Admittedly, the land belongs to private respondent No. 18-Divya Suraj Partap Singh who wants to utilize this land for commercial purposes that is to say to start a Unit for manufacturing of Concrete Bricks/Hot Mix plant and Stone Crusher. In view of the fact that the land is agricultural land, private respondent approached the official respondents for conversion of the land more particularly, the Revenue Minister and consequent thereupon permission was granted for conversion of land. The private respondent No. 18 was granted the right to establish the Unit for which consent of the Pollution Control Board was also granted. 2. The private respondent No. 18 was granted the right to establish the Unit for which consent of the Pollution Control Board was also granted. 2. The villagers-adjacent owners aggrieved by the new entrant to their domain with an interest to establish a commercial activity, further apprehending that it will cause serious damage and on an allegation of encroachment of the Government Land using political and muscle power made a complaint/representation dated 29.07.2016 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua (Annexure 'A' to OWP No. 1104/2016). In the said application/representation the inhabitants of the village complained that they are suffering due to the pollution caused by a Stone Crusher Unit. That in the vicinity of the Stone Crusher there exists a village, public path, canal etc. and the activity affects the normal life of the villagers and, therefore, the permission should be revisited. In the said complaint without naming any person, it is also it is also alleged that thousands of kanals of Government Land is being encroached. In this complaint however, it has not been stated as to who the offending persons are and the person running the commercial activity. 3. Be that as it may, realizing that there is no response to the complaint from the officials respondents, petitioners filed writ petition (OWP No. 1104/2016) primarily objecting to the grant of consent by the Pollution Control Board on the ground that the Stone Crusher Unit is likely to cause damage to the thickly populated village. The further prayer is to quash all no objection Certificates/permissions granted in favour of Stone Crusher Unit by various official respondents. A mandamus is also prayed that the Unit should be asked to relocate to some other place and not to function within the vicinity of the village apprehending damage to the agricultural land of the villagers. It is also prayed that a special team should be constituted to probe into the issuance of NOCs and consent orders granted. On this plea the writ petition is canvassed. 4. In support of this plea, that there is no irregularity, illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the official respondent while granting approval reliance is placed on the various proceedings of the official respondents, namely, 1. Irrigation & Hydraulic Circle, Fishery Project Jammu; 2. Geology & Mining Department; 3. State Pollution Control Board; 4. Industries & Commerce; 5. Sarpanch Pyt. Halqa Dhanna Barni; 6. Irrigation & Hydraulic Circle, Fishery Project Jammu; 2. Geology & Mining Department; 3. State Pollution Control Board; 4. Industries & Commerce; 5. Sarpanch Pyt. Halqa Dhanna Barni; 6. Block Medical Officer, Leerian Gangyal; 7. PWD, (R & B) PHE; 8. Flood Control Division; 9. Chief Education Officer; 10. Block Development Officer Parole; and 11. Report of the Revenue Field Staff. 5. On the basis of various approvals as above and also on the basis of the Pollution Control Board's consent permission to establish the Unit has been granted and running as specified in the approvals. 6. The learned counsel pleads that all these consent orders/no objection certificates come with a rider that whatever is required under law has to be strictly followed for running the Unit. That the Pollution Control Board consent does not ipso facto give the private respondent a right to pollute. The learned counsel pleaded that the Unit has to strictly follow the terms of the consent order and regulations. 7. On consideration of rival stand it is evident that the issue of some villagers objecting to the running of the Commercial Unit, the allegation is mala fide and arbitrariness in the grant of NOCs and consequent approval. There is also allegation of nepotism in grant of approval for change of user of land by the Minister concerned. There is, therefore, an admixture of a number of disputed facts and Consequent allegation of breach of law in grant of NOC's and consent/approval for the running of the unit. The complaint (Annexure--A) however, is vague insofar as the grievance expressed by the villagers to Deputy Commissioner, Kathua. No specific detail of the nature of pollution by specific Unit is evident. The other allegation of land grabbing of over thousands kanals of land is a general statement with no particulars. 8. However, this Court showed indulgence to the petitioners and an interim order was passed on 10.11.2016. Based on that an inspection was made and report is submitted to this Court which according to the petitioners is not scientific, but respondent-State that the report puts to rest all allegations. 9. It is, therefore, evident that a disputed issue is raised by the petitioners and on the basis of this Court order a report has been filed. That report appears to be prima facie in favour of the private respondents. 10. 9. It is, therefore, evident that a disputed issue is raised by the petitioners and on the basis of this Court order a report has been filed. That report appears to be prima facie in favour of the private respondents. 10. Insofar OWP No. 1104/2016 is concerned, on the basis of various documents submitted by the competent authority consent has been granted by the Pollution Control Board. The procedure as prescribed appears to have been followed. The aforesaid Circular dated 20.06.2016 does not debar the Pollution Control Board from granting permission if the procedure prescribed under Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939-AD) read with Section 13 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is followed, because one of the condition imposed in the Circular is that the consent is subject to compliance of other laws, therefore, no fault can be found in the consent order. As a result first relief to set aside the consent of the Pollution Control Board is rejected. 11. The 2nd contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that NOCs permission granted by various Authorities should be cancelled as the same has been granted in a hurried manner and, therefore, are not valid NOCs granted by the competent authorities. This contention appears to be factually incorrect, because different authorities have given their NOC's on different parameters at different dates. The process of NOC has to follow a procedure prescribed by law. Official respondents deny the allegation of arbitrariness. Petitioner is not able to show any specific provision of law that is palpably violated while granting the NOC's. Vague allegations of nepotism, arbitrariness, high handed will not suffice. Allegations should have some foundation. Hence, the allegations of NOC's, consent order were granted arbitrarily is an allegation not supported by proven facts. The breach of the relevant law alleged has not been established. Hence, the relief sought for does not merit consideration and is declined. 12. What then remains for this Court to adjudicate is whether there is breach of law by the authorities while granting the NOC's, the consent order or the approval by the competent authority for conversion of land in terms of Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act. 13. Hence, the relief sought for does not merit consideration and is declined. 12. What then remains for this Court to adjudicate is whether there is breach of law by the authorities while granting the NOC's, the consent order or the approval by the competent authority for conversion of land in terms of Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act. 13. insofar OWP No. 1358/2016 is concerned, reply has been filed by the official respondents as well as by the private respondent stating that consent has been granted by the Pollution Control Board on the basis of consent order of the other competent authorities and, therefore, private respondent is entitled to run/operate the Unit without any hindrance from any person whatsoever. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is a Circular issued by Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J & K No. FC-LS/Misc-154/2016 dated 20.06.2016 (Annexure-'F), addressed to all Deputy Commissioners which is violated in this case. This Circular enjoins the Deputy Commissioners to ensure that in terms of Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939-AD) read with Section 13 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act, no encroachment/conversion of paddy growing land into non-agriculture activities is made without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and to initiate action against the delinquent officers/officials who have not implemented the provisions of law and allowed encroachments and conversion of paddy growing lands into non-agricultural uses. There is no dispute on this statement of the Financial Commissioner, because it is issued in terms Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939-AD) read with Section 13 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 15. Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996 (1939 A.D.) reads as under:- "No land which grows or has been growing within the proceeding two years Shali Crop, vegetables, or saffron lullis shall be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose, without permission in writing of the Revenue Minister." 16. Section 13 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 reads as under:- "13. Restriction on utilization of land. Section 13 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 reads as under:- "13. Restriction on utilization of land. (1) After the commencement of this Act no person shall hold land, otherwise than for personal cultivation (except where tenancy is permitted by this Act) or for residential purposes up to two kanals per family or, subject to the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir prohibition on Conversion of land and Alienation of Orchards Act, 1975 for horticultural purposes or with the previous permission of the revenue Minister or any officer nominated by him in this behalf for industrial or commercial purposes. Provided that land recorded as orchard, arak, kap, kah-i-krisam or of a class notified under clause (f) of section 3 shall not be put to any use other than such orchard or arak, kap, kah-i-krisam or for growing fodder or fuel, as the case may be subject to the second proviso to sub-Section (1) of section 15 in the case of orchard. Provided further that where land, not exceeding half a kanal in area, is used as a gharat or a chakki or shop, or for such other purpose relating to rural economy, no permission shall be needed. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no tenancy created or continued after the first day of May 1973 in respect of any land shall be valid. (3) Rights, title and interests in land of any person who, except for reasons beyond his control, fails to utilize the land in accordance with, or utilizes land in contravention of, the provisions of sub-section sec. (1) or lets land to a tenant in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) shall, after such enquiry, as may be prescribed, vest in the State." 17. By the aforesaid provisions, power is granted to the Revenue Minister to accord sanction. In this case, sanction has been accorded by the Revenue Minister on 04.08.2016. 18. The issue is in relation to the consent given by the Revenue Minister dated 04.08.2016. The various no objection certificates issued by the authority mentioned in the earlier paragraphs have been collated and Deputy Commissioner, Kathua vide communication dated 23.07.2016 has forwarded his recommendation to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (Page 14 to objections in OWP No. 1358/2016), the Divisional Commissioner vide communication dated 27.07.2016 has forwarded his recommendation to Financial Commissioner, J & K Govt. The various no objection certificates issued by the authority mentioned in the earlier paragraphs have been collated and Deputy Commissioner, Kathua vide communication dated 23.07.2016 has forwarded his recommendation to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (Page 14 to objections in OWP No. 1358/2016), the Divisional Commissioner vide communication dated 27.07.2016 has forwarded his recommendation to Financial Commissioner, J & K Govt. (Page 13) and thereafter the Financial Commissioner vide communication dated 02.08.2016 has forwarded the same to Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department (Page 12). This has happened on the basis of an application submitted by the private respondent No. 18. In all these three reports/recommendations what could be deduced is that the authorities have verified and found that is agricultural land, but the reason for changing the same into non-agricultural (Commercial Purpose) is on the premise that it is not an irrigated land. Each one of the officer has given his reasons in the certificates issued. On that basis a decision has been taken by the Revenue Minister signed and issued by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department vide Govt. Order No. 100-Rev(S) of 2016 dated 04.08.2016. Therefore, to say that the officers had not applied their mind cannot be countenance. The question of setting aside all those no objection certificates on the mere allegations of mala fide or irrationality is not justified. There is no material to support the said plea. The pleadings are bald and vague. 19. Consequently, the issue of shifting the Unit of Stone does not arise. However, it is to be made clear that the consent of the Pollution Control Board is only to run the Unit subject to the laws governing Air and Water Pollution and that has to be strictly followed and monitored. Therefore, if there is a case of pollution or any other breach, petitioners-villagers can always approach the Pollution Control Board for redressal of their grievance, that cannot be mitted away by anybody. 20. Further in the writ petition (OWP No. 1358/2016) petitioners have challenged the Government Order No. 100-Rev(S) of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 on a specific plea. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition the substantial legal issue raised by the petitioners is as follows:- "12. 20. Further in the writ petition (OWP No. 1358/2016) petitioners have challenged the Government Order No. 100-Rev(S) of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 on a specific plea. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition the substantial legal issue raised by the petitioners is as follows:- "12. That the Legislative intent in this regard could be gauged from the fact that a bill titled J & K Prohibition on Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural purposes Bill, 2010 which provides for complete ban on any such conversion is under deliberations in the legislature. A copy of the said bill is enclosed herewith and marked as (Annexure-'H')." 21. The Bill titled J & K Prohibition on Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural purposes Bill, 2010 has lapsed and this fact is admitted by the petitioners' counsel. Therefore, there is no prohibition for the conversion of land as such. Even otherwise Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939-AD) read with Section 13 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 provides for a procedure to be followed and the Revenue Minister has the power to grant approval for conversion, if a case is made out. That has been made out based on various reports stated supra. 22. In the present case, as has been established by the official respondents that on the basis of an application the various department at different stages have considered the merits of the application and have given their NOC's which have been collated by the Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner in various proceeding annexed in the reply of the official respondents. The case of the private respondent No. 18 was forwarded to the Govt. and that was considered and the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2016 was passed and, therefore, it cannot be said that is arbitrariness, illegality or procedural irregularity in the order of the Government. These allegations are not substantiated by the material on record. 23. The other issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on 27.07.2016 status quo order was passed by this Court in OWP No. 1104/2016 and, therefore, the order of conversion of land ought to have not been passed, therefore, there is a violation. These allegations are not substantiated by the material on record. 23. The other issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on 27.07.2016 status quo order was passed by this Court in OWP No. 1104/2016 and, therefore, the order of conversion of land ought to have not been passed, therefore, there is a violation. The order of status quo was passed in OWP No. 1104/2016, the prayer in that writ petition would speak for itself, and therefore, the question of status quo operating against the Revenue Minister does not arise. 24. The allegation of land grabbing is vague and without particulars. In any event it cannot be gone into in this writ petition, because it is not the case of the petitioners that Their lands have been grabbed by any person much less the private respondent. For the above said reasons, both writ petitions are dismissed along with connected MPs.