JUDGMENT: N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order made in OWP No. 1230/2004, dated 05.10.2016, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order of Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority-respondent No. 2, dated 04.12.2004 allotting land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas and 178 Sq. feet in favour of Jammu Club-respondent No. 3 and also to quash the communication dated 20.09.2004 issued by the 1st respondent proposing to allot the said land to respondent No. 3. The case pleaded by the appellant before the Writ Court, as per the amended writ petition, was that the appellant is managing twin temples near Tawi bridge on Vinayak Bazar side. The Shiv Parvati Maha Mandir is bigger temple when compared to smaller ancient temple known as Pipleshwar Shiv Mandir. The Pipleshwar Shiv Mandir is in existence since times immemorial and from the year 1952 it is under the control of the Mandir Management Committee. Adjoining to said temple there is one Gow-Shala, one big Hawan Kund, one Akharah and vacant land which is being used by the devotees visiting the temple or Gow-Shala. The Management Committee had been applying to the Government for ten years for regularization of the land adjacent to the temple where the Akharah, Hawan Kund and Gow-Shala is existing so as to create infrastructure including parking slot for the devotees. Adjacent to the temple the 3rd respondent-Club is being run by influential persons which is a recreation place for high and elite of the society. The Jammu Club is in existence in the land allotted by the Government on nominal charges and for having the health club for the members of the Jammu Club, they had applied for allotment of the land for which the appellant had also applied for allotment. The Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department and Tourism Department, without taking into consideration the request made by the appellant have taken steps to direct the allotment of the land to the 3rd respondent without following any procedure and pursuant thereto the Jammu Development Authority allotted the land to the Jammu Club by order dated 04.12.2004, fixing the premium of Rs. 6 lacs per kanal. 2. 6 lacs per kanal. 2. The said allotment as well as the direction issued by the Minister concerned were challenged contending that the Minister has got no power to allot the land belonging to the Jammu Development Authority and decision could be taken only by the Board of Directors of the Jammu Development Authority and even before placing the matter before the Board, allotment order was given and after allotment only confirmation was obtained from the Board. It was contended that if the land belonging to the Jammu Development Authority is to be allotted, either on lease or sale, it can be allotted by open auction and not otherwise. According to the appellant the allotment was made to the respondent No. 3 of the land which is in possession of the appellant for more than 50 years and without considering the request made by the appellant under the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of ownership to the occupants) Act, 2004. 3. In the said writ petition objections were filed by respondent No. 2 stating that appellant have sought for regularization of land in question, which was not in possession of the appellant and the land being vacant which is used by no one, which fact proves that the appellant is not in possession of the land, the request made in the year 1996 by the management of the temple for allotment of vacant land, in such eventuality the regularization request was not tenable. It is also stated in the objections that the Jammu Club is near the temple and a request being made to the Minister, who in his capacity as Chairman of Jammu Development Authority, directed allotment of the land in question subject to approval from the Board of Directors and there is no illegality in the said allotment. The Board also subsequently approved the allotment and the 3rd respondent being not a private individual, there was nothing wrong in to the allotment made. 4. The 3rd respondent-Jammu Club also filed objections stating that it being a social club; the allotment of land for establishing a health club for its members is serving a public purpose and, therefore, the allotment is valid that too for a premium and prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 5. 4. The 3rd respondent-Jammu Club also filed objections stating that it being a social club; the allotment of land for establishing a health club for its members is serving a public purpose and, therefore, the allotment is valid that too for a premium and prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 5. While hearing the writ petition initially on 04.12.2012, photocopy of the Departmental file was retained and three issues were directed to be answered by the official respondents, namely- (1) Whether any Government Order was issued for allotment of land to Jammu Club. (2) Whether Note dated 27th August, 2004 of the Commissioner/Secretary (H & UD) was approved "as submitted" or only "Note 38" was approved, by the Minister. (3) Whether any order was issued by the Government for relaxation of the provision of the Land Grants Act in terms whereof there was prohibition for allotment of State land to Non Permanent Residents of the State." 6. Reply was filed to the said queries on 18.12.2012. Thereafter by another order passed on 13.03.2013, passed during the course of hearing, it was observed that while hearing the matter it surfaced that before issuing orders for allotment of the land to Jammu Club, Jammu Development Authority has not taken steps to call for offers/bids for allotment and respondents were asked to justify the reason to allot the land to Jammu Club. For the said query raised also reply was filed on 07.05.2013. 7. The grievance of the appellant, as argued by learned senior counsel, is that while passing the final order in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on 05.10.2016, these issues were argued but not considered and answered and, therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court due to non-consideration of the said issues raised, answered by filing replies and other grounds urged at the time of arguments, particularly with regard to not following the provisions of Land Grants Act and various decisions as to how the public land can be given on lease/sale, cannot be sustained. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant made submissions on merits and submitted that the learned Single Judge having not considered the relevant issues raised, which form part of the record, the order is unsustainable and this Court may either set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration or decide the issues raised on merits. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant made submissions on merits and submitted that the learned Single Judge having not considered the relevant issues raised, which form part of the record, the order is unsustainable and this Court may either set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration or decide the issues raised on merits. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent argued to sustain the order of the Writ Court and submitted that the scope of the writ petition was enlarged beyond the prayer made in the writ petition during the hearing of the petition by the learned Single Judges in terms of orders dated 04.12.2012 and 13.03.2013 and the same was rightly ignored by the Writ Court while finally deciding the matter. Learned senior counsel further argued that unless a prayer is made and grounds raised, no argument can be advanced in the appellate stage. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. 11. It is seen from the amended writ petition that appellant has raised all the issues raised in this appeal and during the hearing of the writ petition the learned Single Judge by interim orders directed to explain the certain facts as referred to above. Replies were also filed by the respondents in answer to the said issues raised. In such circumstances the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 is not justified in contending that the issues raised in this appeal are beyond the prayer made in the writ petition. 12. It is also an admitted fact that the said issues which were raised during the course of hearing in the years 2012 and 2013 are relevant to be decided in the writ petition with regard to sustainability of the orders impugned in the writ petition as well as the relief sought for by the appellant. On perusal of the order of the Writ Court we are satisfied that the issues which were pleaded in the writ petition as per the amended prayer and those raised during the course of arguments, specifically as per orders dated 04.12.2012 and 13.03.2013 have not been answered. 13. It is well settled proposition of law that while deciding a case by a Court of law all issues raised must be answered unless specifically given up. Hence the learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that all the issues were argued. 13. It is well settled proposition of law that while deciding a case by a Court of law all issues raised must be answered unless specifically given up. Hence the learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that all the issues were argued. It is also well settled proposition of law that Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to consider the issues raised and incidental issues can also be raised during hearing. Technicalities of procedure are not available in the writ proceedings. 14. Applying the said principle to the facts of this case, we are of the view that without going to the merits and the contentions raised by the learned senior counsels appearing for the appellant and the 3rd respondent and the learned counsels appearing for the official respondents, it is appropriate to set aside the order of the Writ Court and remand the matter, leaving issues open to be raised and argued before the Writ Court for consideration. 15. As we are setting aside the order on this limited ground, we are not expressing our view on the merit of the case and all the issues are left open to raised and decided by the Writ Court. 16. The appeal is disposed of. Till a fresh decision is taken by the Writ Court, status quo, as on today, shall be maintained.