JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Saroj Yadav and Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocates on behalf of the writ petitioners, Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1. Nobody is present on behalf of respondent No. 2 nor anybody is present on behalf of respondent No. 3 despite counter-affidavit having been filed on their behalf. 2. This public interest litigation has been filed by 5 persons, resident of different areas in the district of Bulandshahr and some of whom are stated to be residing within the territorial limit of Nagar Palika Parishad Anoopshahr, District-Bulandshahr. 3. Petitioners claim to be public spirited persons. By means of the present writ petition they seek quashing of the lease deed dated 26th June, 2009 executed by the Municipal Board, Anoopshahr, Bulandshahr in favour of respondent No. 4, namely, Jai Prakash Sewa Sansthan, having its registered Head Office at J.A. House 63, Basant Lok, Basant Vihar, New Delhi and the corrigendum issued in that regard dated 22.2.2010. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the Government Order dated 29th May, 2009 after summoning the same. 4. The petitioner before this Court contends that 40 acres of land under the control and management of the Nagar Palika Parishad Anoopshahr within the territories of National Capital Region, close to Delhi, has been leased out in favour of respondent No. 4 i.e. M/s. Jai Prakash Sewa Sansthan an associate of J.P. Industries under the impugned lease deed only because of political connections with the party in power in the State at the relevant time. It has been stated that this 40 acres of land has been given on lease for 90 years on a paltry sum of Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The purpose disclosed in the lease deed, for the use of the land, is for setting up of an educational institution. The Nagar Palika Parishad is stated to have obtained an approval from the State Government through Principal Secretary (Nagar Vikas Vibhag) dated 28/29th May, 2009 for transfer of such 40 acres land. 5. Petitioners contend that despite best efforts the permission granted by the State Government has not been made available to them. An application under Right to Information Act (Paragraph 6 of the writ petition) was also filed. 5. Petitioners contend that despite best efforts the permission granted by the State Government has not been made available to them. An application under Right to Information Act (Paragraph 6 of the writ petition) was also filed. Relevant portion of the resolution made by the Nagar Palika Parishad for the lease being executed in favour of respondent No. 4 has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the present writ petition. In paragraph 4 it has been mentioned that respondent No. 4 is a public trust having its head office at J.A. House 63, Basant Lok, Basant Vihar, New Delhi. 6. According to the petitioners such lease has been granted without any advertisement and without any public auction being held for the purpose of settling the premium/rent for the grant of lease rights. It is explained to the Court that no public participation was invited in the matter of grant of such huge chunk of land to a private trust. The entire transaction is a sham hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further stated in paragraph 20 that the circle rate applicable in respect of the agricultural holding in the area was Rs. 37 lacs per acre, while the market value would work out to Rs. 1 crore per acre, yet for a very nominal sum of money the Nagar Palika Parishad has transferred the land under its management and control to respondent No. 4 causing loss not only to the municipal board but ultimately to the public at large. 8. The Writ Court while entertaining the present writ petition issued notices to the respondents vide order dated 20.4.2010. In response thereto counter-affidavit has been filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Anoopshahr and respondent No. 4. The State has chosen to keep silent and has not responded to the writ proceedings. The Gaon Sabha has taken a similar stand as that which has been taken by the Nagar Palika Parishad. 9. Nagar Palika Parishad in its counter-affidavit has mentioned that it had power under Section 124 of the Municipalities Act to transfer, sell or lease out the properties within its control and management. The Gaon Sabha has taken a similar stand as that which has been taken by the Nagar Palika Parishad. 9. Nagar Palika Parishad in its counter-affidavit has mentioned that it had power under Section 124 of the Municipalities Act to transfer, sell or lease out the properties within its control and management. For the purpose of transfer of the property under the control and management of the Municipality under Section 124 and Section 127 read with Section 296 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, statutory rules have been framed, known as “Transfer of Property vested in the Board Rules, 1973” (herein after referred to as ‘Rules, 1973’), which had been published in the official gazette on 18th October, 1973. 10. It is stated that under the amended Rule 3 of the said Rules 1973 the Municipal Board has a power to lease out its property without premium and without any auction, the only rider being that it must obtain prior approval from the State Government. In the facts of the case such prior approval had been obtained and therefore there is no illegality in the resolution of the Nagar Palika Parishad dated 30.6.2009 for transferring the land by way of lease in favour of respondent No. 4. Copy of the resolution No. 10 dated 30th June, 2009 has been enclosed as Annexure ‘CA-7’ to the said counter-affidavit. 11. Nagar Palika Parishad has also referred to the Government Order dated 24.2.2001 issued for the purpose that land for educational institutions could be granted on annual rent, which may be 50% of the market rate of the land at the relevant time. 12. It is in this background that the Nagar Palika would submit that there has been compliance of the statutory provisions applicable. Invitation of tender or auction is not mandatory and therefore this Court may not interfere with the lease executed in favour of respondent No. 4. 13. Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4, while defending the lease, points out that respondent No. 4 had made an application as early as in the year 2001 for land being allotted to it for establishing an educational institution. This application was processed and resolution was made in the year 2002 by the Nagar Palika Parishad but was not acted upon. This application was processed and resolution was made in the year 2002 by the Nagar Palika Parishad but was not acted upon. On 30th June, 2009, after obtaining permission from the State Government as required under the statutory Rules, 1973, a fresh resolution was passed for lease of 40 acres of land being executed in favour of respondent No. 4 on a rent of Rs. 40,000/- per annum with the further condition that the rent would enhance by 10% after each 5 years. 14. According to Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate it is in terms of the said resolution that the lease deed has been executed. Initially an Engineering College was constructed but now the institution is a Private University, in the name and style of ‘J.P. University, Anoopshahr, Bulandshahr. He further submits that respondent No. 4 had approached the Nagar Palika Parishad with clean hands. He claims that now since the university has been established and the students are obtaining education therein, it would not be in the interest of public at large to dispossess the respondent No. 4 from the land or to take any adverse action against the University, even if any, illegality had been committed by the Nagar Palika Parishad. 15. He further submits that having regard to the Rules of 1973 read with Notification of 2001, as disclosed by the Nagar Palika Parishad in its counter-affidavit, invitation of tender or auction is not mandatory. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in NATURAL RESOURCES ALLOCATION, IN RE, SPECIAL REFERENCE No. 1 OF 2012; reported in 2012 (10) SCC 1 (paragraph 106 onward) for the proposition that normally public properties are to be let out or sold by way of publication or by participation of public at large but such normal rule admits of exception as detailed in the said judgment. The case of respondent No. 4 falls within the four corners of the said exceptions. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by Its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Ward No. 4, Palace Bar, Poonch, Jammu and others v. State of Jannu and Kashmir and another, (1980) 4 SCC 1 . 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records. 17. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records. 17. From the records, as they stand before us, following facts stand admitted to the parties : (a) Lease deed has been executed by the Nagar Palika Parishad under its resolution dated 30th June, 2009 without any publication of notice and without participation of public at large. (b) The land has been allotted to a private trust merely on making of an application. 18. In the aforesaid admitted factual position, we proceed to examine the statutory provisions which regulate the grant of lease by Nagar Palika Parishads, in the facts of the case Nagar Palika Parishad Anoopshahr, under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the rules framed thereunder and the Government Orders applicable thereto. 19. Section 124 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 confers a power upon the Nagar Palika Parishad to transfer its property subject to the restrictions imposed by or under the Act. Section 124 reads as under : “124. Power of (Municipality) to transfer property.—Subject to any restriction imposed by or under this Act. A (Municipality) may transfer by sale, mortgage, lease, gift, exchange or otherwise any property vested in the (Municipality) not being property held by it on any trust the terms of which are inconsistent with the right to so transfer. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the (Municipality) may with the sanction of the (State Government), transfer to Government, any property vested in the (Municipality) but not so as to affect any trust or public rights to which the property is subject. Provided that every transfer under sub-section (1), other than a lease for a term not exceeding one year, shall be made by instrument in writing sealed with the common seal of the municipality and otherwise complying with all conditions in respect of contracts imposed by or under this Act.” 20. Section 127 of the same Act, 1916 provides for the matters to be regulated by rules to be framed by the State Government under Section 296 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916. Section 127 of the same Act, 1916 provides for the matters to be regulated by rules to be framed by the State Government under Section 296 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916. Section 127 of the Act 1916 reads as under: “127 other matters relating to municipal fund and property.—The following matter shall be regulated and governed by rules made by the (State Government) under Section 296, namely,- (a) the authority on which money may be paid from the municipal fund : (b) the conditions on which property be acquired by the (Municipality) or on which property vested in the (Municipality) may be transferred by sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise: and (c) any other matter relating to the municipal fund or municipal property in respect of which the Act makes no provision or insufficient provision and provision in necessary.” 21. With reference to the provisions of Section 124 and 127 read with Section 296 of the Act, 1916, the State Government has notified rules called the “Transfer of Property vested in the Board Rules, 1973. There has been amendment of Rule 3 and 3-A of the said Rules by means of fourth amendment dated 14th October, 1973. The amended rules relevant for our purposes read as under : “3. Subject to the provisions of rule 3-A a lease of immovable property vested in the Board may be made by the Board without a premium on the following conditions : That a reasonable annual rent be reserved and made payable during the whole of the term of the lease and the lease or the agreement for the for the lease be not made for any term without the previous sanction of the Board at a meeting; and for any term exceeding five years and not exceeding thirty years without the previous approval of the District Magistrate, or for any term exceeding thirty years without the previous approval of the Commissioner. Provided that when it is proposed to lease out an immovable property at a rent lower than the prevailing market rate, or without holding public auction or inviting public tenders, previous approval of the State Government shall be obtained.” 3-A. The Board shall not ordinarily transfer or lease out any property vested in it except by auction or after inviting tenders. .In cases where public tenders have not been invited or an auction has not been held, the Board shall record its reasons for entertaining a private offer and the method adopted by it in fixing the rent.” 22. The State Government for regulating grant of lease to various categories of persons by the Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar Panchayats issued Government Order dated 24.2.2001. Clause 8 of the Government Order, which has been referred to us by the Senior Advocate representing respondent No. 4 and is relevant for our purposes, reads as follows : ^^8- fufgr Hkwfe ds vkcknh lhyks dk iVVk fuEukafdr focU/kuksa ,oa 'krksZ ds vèkhu uhykeh }kjk fn;k tk;sxk& ¼1½¼d½ Hkwfe dk iV~Vk 90 o"kZ ds fy, fn;k tk;sxk vkSj izR;sd 30 o"kZ ds mijkUr yxku c<k fn;k tk;sxkA ¼[k½ utjkus dh /kujkf'k cktkj ewY; ds cjkcj /kujkf'k ls de ugha gksxhA ¼2½ O;kikj o m|ksx ds fy, iz;qDr gksus okyh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; vkoklh; Hkw[k.Mksa ls vf/kd gksxk vkSj ,sls Hkw[k.M Hkh uhykeh }kjk iV~Vs ij fn;s tk;saxsA ¼3½ [kkyh Hkwfe utjkus ds fy, uhykeh dh tk;sxhA ¼4½ ekSleh njksa ij vkadfyr ewY; ds 20 xquk ls vU;wu /kujkf'k ds cjkcj èkujkf'k okf"kZd yxku ds :i esa olwy dh tk;sxhA ¼5½ 'kSf{kd] lkaLd`frd] nkusRrj] fo/kok] fodykax dY;k.k vFkok Ik;kZoj.k ds laj{kj.k ds iz;kstuksa ds fy;s lkslkbVh jftLV~zs'ku ,DV 1861 ds v/khu jftLVMZ fdlh lfefr dks iV~Vs ij Hkwfe okf"kZd fdjk;s ds vk/kkj ij 'kklu ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vkoaVu fd;k tk ldsxkA okf"kZd fdjk;s dk fu/kkZj.k rRle; ds cktkj nj dks /;ku eas j[krs gq, fd;k tk;sxk tks okf"kZd cktkj nj ds vk/ks ls de ugha gksxhAß 23. From a simple reading of the aforesaid provisions what follows is that there is a power with the Nagar Palika Parishad under Section 124 to lease, sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise transfer any property vested in the Municipality. But such right of the Municipality to transfer the property is not absolute. Section 127 provides for regulating the said right by framing of the rules by the State Government under Section 296 of the Act, 1916. 24. But such right of the Municipality to transfer the property is not absolute. Section 127 provides for regulating the said right by framing of the rules by the State Government under Section 296 of the Act, 1916. 24. The amended rules 3 and 3A of Rules 1973, as quoted above, permit the Municipal Board to lease out the property for a period over 30 years with the prior approval of the State Government at a rent lower than the prevailing market rate and without holding public auction but this Rule 3 has been made subject to the provisions of Rule 3-A. Rule 3-A, as quoted above, mandates that the Board shall not ordinarily transfer or lease out any property vested in it except by auction or after inviting tenders. In cases where public tenders have not been invited or an auction has not been held, the Board shall record its reasons for entertaining a private offer and the method adopted by it in fixing the rent. It must also obtain prior approval of the State Government in that regard. 25. It is, therefore, clear that while resorting to consideration of a private application for transfer of its property by lease, sale etc. without auction and tender notice, it is the requirement of law that the Municipal Board must record its reason for resorting to such a procedure. Reason can be said to be recorded only if they are in writing. 26. In order to examine as to whether the Nagar Palika Parishad had recorded any reason in writing for not resorting to the normal rule of auction/invitation of tender, in the facts of the case we have carefully gone through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad as well as by the respondent No. 4. 27. We are sorry to record that in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nagar Palika Parishad, reference has been made to Rule 3 of Rules, 1973 (last line of the paragraph), but surprisingly there is no mention of requirement of Rule 3-A nor it has been referred to. Relevant paragraph 10 of counter-affidavit reads as under : “10. Relevant paragraph 10 of counter-affidavit reads as under : “10. That in this connection it is further relevant to brought into the notice the Rules framed by the State Government under Section 296 read with Section 124 and 127 U.P. Municipalities Act and duly amended by the (forth Amendment) Rules 1973. These Rules are called transfer of property vested in the Board and came into force on the date of Publication in the U.P. gazette dt. Oct. 18, 1973. The relevant portion of the aforesaid amended Rules 3 provides as under :” 28. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit qua any reasons having been recorded by the Nagar Palika Parishad for deviating from the procedure of auction or invitation of tender. Even the resolution made by the Nagar Palika Parishad, which is quoted herein below, does not make mention of any reason as to why the normal practice of invitation of tender/auction is not being resorted to and as to what was so special about respondent No. 4 that normal rule was being given a bye-pass. Even the resolution made by the Nagar Palika Parishad, which is quoted herein below, does not make mention of any reason as to why the normal practice of invitation of tender/auction is not being resorted to and as to what was so special about respondent No. 4 that normal rule was being given a bye-pass. Resolution No. 10 dated 30.6.2009 reads as under : Jh lat; 'kekZ lnL; }kjk t;izdk'k lsok laLFkku ubZ fnYyh dks 40 ,dM Hkwfe miyC/k djk;s tkus lEcU/kh izLrko iwoZ esa ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk ds lanHkZ esa D;k dk;Zokgh gqbZ cksMZ dks voxr djk;k tk;sA v/;{k@vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk cksMZ dks voxr djk;k x;k fd iwoZ es ftykf/kdkjh }kjk 'kklu dks Hksts x;s i= ds tokc esa 'kklukns'k la0 2928@ukS&8&2008& 7¼2½@97 fnukad 28 ebZ 2009 tks ftykf/kdkjh cqyUn'kgj dks lEcksf/kr rFkk izfrfyfi izeq[k lfpo jktLo] e.Myk;qDr esjB] funs'kd] LFkkuh; fudk;] vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh uxj ikfydk ifj"kn vuwi'kgj dks i`"Bkafdr gS i<dj lquk;k x;k rFkk uxj ikfydk ifj"kn }kjk iwjh i=koyh Hkstdj ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk la0 465@ukS&8&07&48¼1½@94 fnukad 24 Qjojh] 2001 ds izLrj&8¼5½ esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ds rgr Hkwfe xkVk la0 1216@4 jdok 0-329 gs0] 1217@1 jdok 11-502 gs0] 1217@2 jdok 0-379 gs0] 1217@3 jdok 0-316 gs0] 1217@4 jdok 0-632 gs0] 1219 jdok 3-111 gs0 o 1220 jdok 2-422 gs0 Hkwfe esa ls 40 ,dM Hkwfe okf”kZd fdjk;s ij 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr fu.kZ; fy;k fd 'kklukns'k la0 465@ukS&8&01&48¼1½@94 fnukad 24 Qjojh] 2001 rFkk la'kksf/kr 'kklukns'k la0 541@ukS&8&09&7¼2½@97 fnukad 28 Qjojh] 2009 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ds vk/kkj ij t;izdk'k lsok laLFkku ubZ fnYyh dks fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr iznku djrk gSA 'kklukns'k ds vUrxZr Hkfo"; ds fdjk;s dks ns[krs gq, ikfydk }kjk 80]000-00 :i;s okf"kZd fdjk;s dk vk/kk ;kuh 40]000-00 :i;s esa fn;k tkuk Lohdkj djds fuEu 'krksZa ds lkFk iathd`r vuqcU/k fnukad 26 twu] 2009 dks djk;k x;k gSA dqN eq[; fcUnq%&& 1& fdjk;k izfr 5 o"kZ ckn 10 izfr'kr dh nj ls c<rk jgsxk 2& 40]000-00 :i;s izFke fdjk;k ds :i esa jlhn la0  29@166 fnukad 26@6@09 dks izkIr  gks pqdk gSA 3& ;g laLFkku uxj ikfydk }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h Hkwfe ij LFkkfir fd;k x;k gSA ;g 'kCn eq[; }kj ij fy;k tk;sxkA 4& laLFkku esa mi;qDr LFkkuh; Nk=ksa dks 5 izfr'kr dh lhek rd izos'k esa izkFkfedrk nsxkA 5& LFkkfir laLFkku esa LFkkuh; ;ksX; xjhc Nk=ksa dks f'k{kk 'kqYd bR;kfn esa laLFkku dh 'kklh fudk; dh lqfuf'pr uhfr;ksa ds vUrxZr NwV nsxkA 6& laLFkku dksbZ Hkh fuekZ.k dk;Z ikfydk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr cukus ds fy, uxj ikfydk ls Lohd`r djk;sxkA vkfn vkfnß 29. We have, therefore, no hesitation to record that there has been manifest non-compliance of the statutory rule 3-A before granting the lease in favour of respondent No. 4 in the facts of the case. 30. This takes the Court to the other objection raised by the petitioner, namely, that under the Government Order dated 24.2.2001 lease of land for educational and for other similar purpose on annual rent i.e. without premium and without auction/invitation of bids can be so granted in favour of societies duly registered under the Societies Registration Act only. Reference clause 8(5) of the Government Order dated 24.2.2001. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 4 is not a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It is only a private trust. 31. We, therefore, further come to a conclusion that respondent No. 4 was not even within the zone of consideration in the matter of allotment of land for educational institution without fixation of premium by auction in view of specific language of clause 8(5) of the Government Order of 2001, which has neither been challenged by respondent No. 4 nor is questioned before us. 32. It is the settled principle of law that if law requires something to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all. Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor; AIR 1936 PC 253 , has laid down the dictum that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated and followed the aforesaid dictum in a catena of cases. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, (2002) 1 SCC 633 , reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the same itself. 33. Now coming to the judgments, which have been relied upon by the Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate in the cases of (a) NATURAL RESOURCES ALLOCATION (supra) and (b) M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy (supra). 34. 33. Now coming to the judgments, which have been relied upon by the Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate in the cases of (a) NATURAL RESOURCES ALLOCATION (supra) and (b) M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy (supra). 34. In the case of M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy (supra) the Supreme Court has itself explained that there are two limitations imposed by law, which structure and control the discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess etc. The first is in regard to the terms on which largess may be granted and the other in regard to the persons who may be recipients of such largess. 35. So far as the first limitation is concerned, it has been explained that the action, which benefit a private party at the cost of the State, cannot be termed as reasonable and would be contrary to public interest. 36. With regard to the second limitation it has been held that the State cannot arbitrarily choose a person, like an ordinary individual, in a like such relationship. The State Government cannot discriminate the persons in similar circumstance. It must act in conformity with such norms which meet the test of reasonableness. While acting in contractual relation also Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be applicable. 37. We would also clarify that the provisions of Rule 3A of Rules, 1973 have to be read in conformity with the law laid down in the case of M/s Kasturi Lal (supra). In that circumstance, so far as the first limitation is concerned, the Municipal Board may transfer land without determining premium and rent through tender/public auction but for limited category of persons and with reference to the purpose for which the land is to be transferred. So far as the 2nd limitation i.e. selection of person to whom such land is to be transferred has to be in conformity with article 14 of the Constitution of India and there can be no discrimination amongst similarly situate persons who may be willing to be the recipients. 38. In our opinion the said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner in the facts of the case. 39. 38. In our opinion the said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner in the facts of the case. 39. Similarly, in the case of National Resource Allocation (supra), the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has gone on to hold that a man on street should know why decision has been taken in favour of a particular person, lack of transparency in decision making process would render it arbitrary. Normal public policy is auction except when deviation may be justified by compelling reasons and not just convenience. It has been explained that it has to be ensured that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity to compete so that a common good is served. 40. In our opinion the said judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner does not lay down anything contrary to what has been recorded by us herein above. 41. We may also record that by means of the rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has brought on record a letter issued by the office of District Magistrate, Bulandshahr dated 3.8.2013, which records that a total loss of Rs. 24,27,80,000/- has been caused to the Nagar Palika Parishad, ultimately to the public at large because of such illegal lease deed having been executed and that a first information report has already been directed to be registered against the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad at the relevant time. 42. We are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the amount quantified in this letter, inasmuch as copy of the same has not been provided to respondent No. 4. 43. In our opinion nothing such turn up the said letter so far as the merits of the grant of lease is concerned, but it does reflect that loss has been caused to the State Government because of such grant of lease. 44. We in the facts of the case are satisfied that a clear case has been made out for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest and to cancel the lease which has been executed by the Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of respondent No. 4 dated 26th June, 2009 alongwith the corrigendum dated 22.2.2010. The lease deeds are held to be bad, inoperative in the eyes of law. 45. The lease deeds are held to be bad, inoperative in the eyes of law. 45. We are also conscious of the fact that cancellation of the lease may ultimately result in constructions raised by respondent No. 4 being demolished and the University, which has been set up, being made non-functional, thereby jeopardizing the education of the students who have been admitted therein, which may be a national loss. 46. We, therefore, provide that if the respondent No. 4 proposes to retain the leased land, it must make payment for use and occupation of the land to be computed in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2013”), which may be calculated by the District Magistrate treating the date of this judgment as the date of notification of acquisition under the Act, 2013. We are doing so keeping in mind the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd. and others v. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 11501 of 2011 alongwith connected civil appeals decided on 30th November, 2016 wherein, after holding that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were bad, the Apex Court had permitted retention of the land by the State on payment of compensation in terms of the provisions of Act, 2013. 47. Principle for calculation of the compensation would be the same as provided for under Act, 2013. 48. This part of the direction would be applicable only if the respondent No. 4 files an affidavit before the State Government as well as before the Nagar Palika Parishad that it is ready and willing to deposit the money to be computed in terms of the Act, 2013 within a period of eight weeks from today. The amount in that regard may be quantified by the District Magistrate. If the respondent No. 4 fails to file the affidavit in the shape of undertaking before the State Government and the Nagar Palika Parishad, as indicated above, the last part of this order would cease to be operative and in that circumstance the Nagar Palika Parishad shall be free to proceed in accordance with law to take possession of the land subject-matter of the lease which in that circumstance shall stand revoked/cancelled. 49. 49. With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is allowed.