Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 655 (JK)

S. K. Bhalla (Prof. ) v. State of J&K

2022-11-23

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER : Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. CM No. 6566 of 2020 On the set of facts and grounds urged, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, the instant application is allowed and leave is granted to file the application, seeking clarification. CM disposed of. CM No. 6561/2020 1. The Applicants, namely, Mohd. Rafiq Karnai, Bashir Ahmad Karnai, Manzoor Ahmed Karnai and Nazir Ahmed Karnai (hereinafter, "Applicants"), have filed the present application for clarification, CM No. 6561/2020 (hereinafter, "Application for Clarification"), claiming to be bonafide purchasers from, and successors-in-interest of, Zahida Naquishbandi and Shahida Naquishbandi. 2. It is the case of the applicants that the said Zahida Naquishbandi and Shahida Naquishbandi had acquired freehold/proprietary rights in respect of land described in detail in paragraph B.1 of the Application for Clarification, under the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001, as amended and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter, "Roshni Act/Rules"), as authorized occupants/ lessees. Thereafter, it is contended by the applicants, that they purchased the said land from the said Zahida Naquishbandi and Shahida Naquishbandi, pursuant to sale deeds, which were executed and duly registered before the appropriate Sub-Registrar, Srinagar; and they raised construction thereupon, after obtaining proper building permission from Srinagar Municipal Corporation. 3. In their Application for Clarification, the applicants seek clarification that the judgment passed by this Court on 9th October 2020, in these proceedings in PIL No. 19/2011, read with IA No. 48/2014 and CM No. 4065 and 4036/2020 (hereinafter, "Prof. S. K. Bhalla's Case"), does not apply to the Applicants. The Applicants base their claim on the analogy of earlier decisions of this Court, in the case titled Dr. V. K. Pachnanda v. State of J&K & Ors., OWP No. 283/2005, decided on 10th May 2006; the case titled State of J&K v. Dr. V. K. Pachnanda, LPA No. 57/2006, decided on 4th May 2007; and the case titled Dr. Ved Khullar v. State of J&K & Ors., OWP No. 634/1987, decided on 13th September 1990. The Applicants plead as follows in their Application for Clarification: GROUNDS "C. There are a number of similarly situation persons, as the lessees in the present case namely Zahida Naquishbandi and Shaidha Naquishbandi, who in the past from time to time were granted ownership/proprietorship right by the Government upon payment of the price fixed by it. The Applicants plead as follows in their Application for Clarification: GROUNDS "C. There are a number of similarly situation persons, as the lessees in the present case namely Zahida Naquishbandi and Shaidha Naquishbandi, who in the past from time to time were granted ownership/proprietorship right by the Government upon payment of the price fixed by it. Having denied the similar treatment, one person approached this Hon'ble Court through writ petition OWP No. 283/2005. This writ petition came to be decided on 10.05.2006 wherein direction was issued to the Government to regularize this piece of land in favour of petitioner therein. State Government preferred an appeal i.e., State of J&K v. V.K. Pachnanda, LPA (OW) No. 57/2006 which came to be dismissed on 04.05.2007 and the judgement of the learned Single Judge was found to be correct. Copy of judgement dated 04-05-2007passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble court is enclosed as Annexure A-7 herein with. Attention of this Hon'ble Court may kindly be drawn to the law land down/affirmed in this judgement when it held: "Thus what was in principle provided by the Government orders of 1981 and 1985 has now been provided in much boarded (sic) way by the Roshni Act. Roshni Act has thus not destroyed the m right of a lessee to get ownership rights but only extended it to unauthorized occupants and has provided proper machinery to 1 process and dealt with such matters." It also needs to be noticed that the Division Bench has relied upon earlier two judgements passed by this Hon'ble Court titled Dr. Ved Khullar versus State of J&K and Ors. OWP No. 634/1987 decided on 13.09.1990 and Manjeet Singh &ors versus State of J&K & Ors. OWP No. 933/1995 decided on 17.04.2000." (Emphasis reproduced) PRAYER "ii. Direct the Government to consider the application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant for extension of lease of the subject premises (or regularization of ownership in terms of V. K. Pachnanda's case (supra)) dated 02.06.1977 expeditiously." (Emphasis reproduced) 4. We have gone through the Application for Clarification filed by the Applicants, together with its annexures in detail. We have also meticulously examined the record relating to the case titled Dr. V.K. Pachnanda v. State of J&K & Ors., OWP No. 283/2005 , decided on 10th May 2006, and the case titled State of J&K v. Dr. We have gone through the Application for Clarification filed by the Applicants, together with its annexures in detail. We have also meticulously examined the record relating to the case titled Dr. V.K. Pachnanda v. State of J&K & Ors., OWP No. 283/2005 , decided on 10th May 2006, and the case titled State of J&K v. Dr. V. K. Pachnanda, LPA No. 57/2006 , decided on 4th May 2007 (hereinafter, both judgments are collectively referred to as "Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case"), and the case titled Dr. Ved Khullar v. State of J&K and Ors., OWP No. 634/1987, decided on 13th September 1990 (hereinafter, "Dr. Ved Khullar's Case"). The decisions of this Court in Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case were based upon the earlier decision in Dr. Ved Khullar's Case. Having given our thoughtful consideration to this matter, we are of the considered view that there is no similarity at all between Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case on the one hand and the case of the Applicants (or for that matter, the case of any of the actual beneficiaries of freehold/proprietary rights under the Roshni Act/Rules, to whom these proceedings under this PIL No. 19/2011 apply) on the other hand. 5. In Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case, this Court held that freehold/proprietary rights had accrued/crystallized in favour of the petitioner, under the then prevalent Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985, dated 24th September, 1985 (hereinafter, "Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985"), pursuant to which the rates had been determined by the Committee of Collectors in the year 1999; and the case had also been processed by the office of Deputy Commissioner (Jammu) and the office of Divisional Commissioner (Jammu), before the coming into force of the Roshni Act/Rules. 6. It was in these circumstances that the learned Single Judge of this Court, by the judgment dated 10th May 2006, passed in OWP No. 283/2005, directed the State/Government to grant freehold/proprietary rights to the lessee, i.e., Dr. V.K. Pachnanda, in respect of the land in question, at full market rate of Rs 10 Lacs per Kanal, as had been assessed by the Committee of Collectors on the relevant date, under the then prevalent Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985; before the Roshni Act/Rules had come into force. V.K. Pachnanda, in respect of the land in question, at full market rate of Rs 10 Lacs per Kanal, as had been assessed by the Committee of Collectors on the relevant date, under the then prevalent Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985; before the Roshni Act/Rules had come into force. In his judgment in OWP No. 283/2005, the learned Single Judge relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in Dr. Ved Khullar's Case, with whom the petitioner in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case was seeking equality of treatment. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held in the judgment, dated 10th May 2006, passed in OWP No. 283/2005, in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case, as follows: "7. ... ...In the meanwhile the Govt. introduced Roshni Scheme and relying upon the same the application of the petitioner has been rejected impliedly on the ground that it is the Roshni Scheme which has to apply to his claim and not the Govt. order of 1981. As is seen the similar opposition was registered by the respondents to the writ petition of Manjit Singh and others but was turned down by the writ court which has gone uninterfered with both before the Division Bench in LPA and the apex court in SLP, obviously the last word on the issue and answered against the State. More so, the respondents having acted upon the order of 1981 and having extended benefits to several persons, they cannot deny the benefit to the petitioner because of their inaction and introduction of Roshni Scheme will not deprive the petitioner of the benefits those have accrued to his mother during the subsistence of Govt. order of 1981." 8. ... ...Examining from any angle, the petitioner is similarly circumstanced with Dr. Khullar, therefore, there is no justification for the respondents to deny similar treatment to the petitioner. It may not be impertinent to make a mention about the judgement passed by the writ court in... ..." 10. ... ...Roshni Scheme of 2001 did not work as an impediment for the beneficiary, for, as his case was pending prior to Roshni Scheme, rightly so because that makes no difference as ruled in Manjit Singh's case... ..." 19. It may not be impertinent to make a mention about the judgement passed by the writ court in... ..." 10. ... ...Roshni Scheme of 2001 did not work as an impediment for the beneficiary, for, as his case was pending prior to Roshni Scheme, rightly so because that makes no difference as ruled in Manjit Singh's case... ..." 19. It is evident from the communication aforementioned that the Deputy Commissioner had disagreed to the entitlement of the petitioner under the said Government order and instead made a recommendation for transfer of proprietary rights under Govt. order of 1985. The recommendation dates back to 1999, obviously, from 1999 it was not only within the knowledge of the petitioner but he has been expecting transfer of proprietary rights in terms of the said recommendation which is based on the Govt. order of 1985 envisaging conversion of lease into free hold rights but on payment of full market price which stands determined by the committee of Collectors in its meeting on 20.02.1995 at the rate of rupees ten lacs per kanal. The recommendation so made by the Deputy Commissioner received approval of the Divisional Commissioner as also of the Financial Commissioner again within the knowledge of the petitioner but neither determination of the price by the committee of Collectors nor the recommendation was represented against which makes it clear that he was quite satisfied both in respect of conferment of rights in terms of Govt. order of 1985 as also settlement of price, therefore, estopped by acquiescence to turn around." 20. Considering the matter in totality of the circumstances I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by subjecting the petitioner to the price settled by committee of the Collectors constituted for the purpose. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla and 24 Sft. Situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road Jammu @ of rupees ten lac per kanal within a period of two months." (Underlining supplied) 7. Thereafter, by the judgment, dated 4th May 2007, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed LPA No. 57/2006, filed by the State/Government, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 10th May 2007, passed in OWP No. 283/2005. Thereafter, by the judgment, dated 4th May 2007, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed LPA No. 57/2006, filed by the State/Government, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 10th May 2007, passed in OWP No. 283/2005. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 57/2006 has been annexed by the Applicants as Annexure A-7, with their Application for Clarification. The Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 4th May 2007, passed in LPA No. 57/2006, inter alia, held as follows: "11. Almost a similar plea was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 933/02 titled State of J&K & Ors. v. Manjit Singh and Ors.. In that case the plea raised was that with the enforcement of Government Order No. 309 of 1985, the Govt. Order No. 248 of 1981 has lost its force. Learned Single Judge rejected the argument on the ground that since the proprietary rights were not given to the respondents (writ petitioners in that case) though they had applied in time under the Government Order dated 17.08.1981, they had no option to file writ petition. On an appeal a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in law in directing that the respondents be granted proprietary rights in terms of Govt. order dated 17.08.1981. Respondents had applied in time for the grant of proprietary rights. Other lessees similarly situated were granted proprietary rights but the application of the respondents were not decided and kept pending for the reasons best known to the appellants. The rights which had accrued to the respondents during the currency of the Govt. order dated 17.08.1981 cannot be allowed to be defeated and that too on account of the lapse on the part of the appellants in not passing order on the application filed by the respondents... " "12. Government Order No. 248 of 1981, dated 17.8.1981, which was based on two Cabinet decisions No. 280 of 22.06.1981 and No. 356 of 17.08.1981, gave right to the lease holders to ask for proprietary rights on Nazool land held by them on payment of half of the market price in the Estate. " "12. Government Order No. 248 of 1981, dated 17.8.1981, which was based on two Cabinet decisions No. 280 of 22.06.1981 and No. 356 of 17.08.1981, gave right to the lease holders to ask for proprietary rights on Nazool land held by them on payment of half of the market price in the Estate. Later by means of Government Order No. 309 of 1985, dated 24.09.1985 the price was raised to full market price and it was ordered that the lessees who are interested in converting the lease into freeholder rights, may do so after payment of full market price. Thus both the orders vested a right in the occupants of Nazool land to ask for proprietary rights over such land. As has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge, the difference between the two orders is that the former (order of 1981) provided conferment of proprietary rights on payment of half the market price, whereas the latter (order of 1985) envisages the same benefit but on full market price." "14. Thus what was in principle provided by the Government orders of 1981 and 1985 has now been provided in much broader way by the Roshni Act. Roshni Act has thus not destroyed the right of a leasee to get ownership rights but only extended it to unauthorized occupants and has provided a proper machinery to process and dealt with such matters. In such circumstances the claim of the respondent to get proprietorship rights cannot be denied only on the ground that a more elaborate law, providing the same right which was available to him under the earlier orders, has been provided.... ... ... ... ...Now with the enactment of Roshni Act the State cannot take advantage of the inaction of its own officers and cannot deny the benefit to the respondent on the ground that the matter remain pending for all these years." "17. On going through the findings arrived at by the writ court we find a due application of mind, proper appreciation of the facts and correct application of law as such we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in the present petition. We find the learned Single Judge has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error while allowing the writ petition. The result is that this appeal cannot stand and is hereby dismissed. Order accordingly. We find the learned Single Judge has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error while allowing the writ petition. The result is that this appeal cannot stand and is hereby dismissed. Order accordingly. " (Underlining supplied) 8. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 10th May 2006, passed in OWP No. 283/2005, titled Dr. V. K. Pachnanda v. State of J&K & Ors.; and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 4th May 2007, passed in LPA No. 57/2006, titled State of J&K v. Dr. V. K. Pachnanda (following the judgment of this Court in Dr.Ved Khullar's Case), lay down the correct position of law, which has been reiterated and reaffirmed by this Court in other cases subsequently as well. There cannot even be a shred of doubt that we are bound by those judgments rendered earlier by this Court in Dr. Ved. Khullar's Case and Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case. 9. The rights of the petitioner in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case did not flow from the Roshni Act/Rules but from the final and binding judgments of this Court in OWP No. 283/2005 and LPA No. 57/2006, which had upheld the petitioner's accrued/crystallized rights under Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985. Rather than being a beneficiary of any benefits/discounts/rebates under the Roshni Act/Rules, the petitioner in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case was held liable by this Court to pay full market price of the land in question, as assessed by the Committee of Collectors on the relevant date, under Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985; which was then upheld by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 283/2005, and the Division Bench in LPA No. 57/2006. 10. In fact, both the judgments of this Court in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case (i.e., in OWP No. 283/2005, dated 10th May 2006; and in LPA No. 57/2006, dated 4th May 2007) specifically rejected the plea of the State/Government regarding the applicability of the Roshni Act/Rules to that case. Consequently, both the judgments in Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case mandated that the petitioner be granted freehold/proprietary rights based on rights accrued/crystallized under the Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985, at the full market rate of Rs. 10 Lacs per Kanal. 11. Therefore, Dr. Consequently, both the judgments in Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case mandated that the petitioner be granted freehold/proprietary rights based on rights accrued/crystallized under the Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 309 of 1985, at the full market rate of Rs. 10 Lacs per Kanal. 11. Therefore, Dr. V.K. pachnanda's Case was not a case in which the conversion price had been assessed under the Roshni Act/Rules, after giving rebates/ discounts/ concessions applicable under the Roshni Act/Rules. Obviously, because two concurrent judgments of this Court (which have since attained finality) had specifically rejected the State/Government's plea regarding the applicability of Roshni Act/Rules to the petitioner in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case. 12. In fact, it is also evident from the record of this very PIL that way back on 26th October 2015, the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, J. Magray was a part, along with Justice B.S. Walia), examined this issue in detail and separated/excluded Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case from the cases of actual beneficiaries of Roshni Act/Rules, who fall within the scope of these proceedings in this PIL No. 19/2011. The judgment and order, dated 26th October 2015, passed in this very PIL No. 19/2011, inter alia, held as following: "5. Perusal of the judgment passed in OWP No. 283/05 in case Dr. V. K. Panchnanda vs. State of J&K &ors, reveals that the writ petition filed by Dr. V. K. Panchnanda has been allowed and respondents directed to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla 24 sqft situated at Ahata Kalan, Exchange Road Jammu at the rate of Rs. 10/- lacs per kanal within a period of two months. State-respondent had challenged the writ Court order in LPA no. 57 of 2006 titled State of J&K and ors v. Dr. V. K. Pachnanda and the Division Bench while upholding the judgment has dismissed the appeal, therefore, the ownership rights having been conferred in favour of the said petitioner in light of the directions passed by this court, cannot be reopened." (Underlining supplied) 13. 57 of 2006 titled State of J&K and ors v. Dr. V. K. Pachnanda and the Division Bench while upholding the judgment has dismissed the appeal, therefore, the ownership rights having been conferred in favour of the said petitioner in light of the directions passed by this court, cannot be reopened." (Underlining supplied) 13. Even recently, the matter relating to such cases/lessees came to be examined by the Division Bench of this Court (of which both of us were a part), in the judgment, dated 18th May 2021, in the case titled Mohammad Ramzan Bhat v. State of J&K & Ors., OWP No. 1294/2017, connected with State of J&K others v. Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, LPA No. 194/2019 (hereinafter, "Mohd. Ramzan's Case"). The judgment dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan Case, inter alia, held as follows: "35. We are in complete agreement with the principles declared by the judgement of the learned Single Judge in Dr. Ved Khullar's Case (supra) and the judgements of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in Dr. V.K Pachnanda Case's (supra); and we reaffirm the same." "43. We are unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondents that all pending cases of applicants under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order of the Respondents (as in the case of the Petitioner) stood automatically rejected upon coming into force of the Roshni Act/Rules. As discussed above, in case of lessees whose applications had been processed, conversion price had been fixed but there had been a wrongful denial of freehold rights by the Respondents, resulting in hostile discrimination and unequal treatment in comparison with others, the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case, reported as 2007 (2) JKJ 222 (HC), has specifically held as follows: "14. Thus what was in principle provided by the Government orders of 1981 and 1985 has now been provided in much broader way by the Roshni Act. Roshni Act has thus not destroyed the right of a leasee to get ownership rights but only extended it to unauthorized occupants and has provided a proper machinery to process and dealt with such matters. In such circumstances the claim of the respondent to get proprietorship rights cannot be denied only on the ground that a more elaborate law, providing the same right which was available to him under the earlier orders, has been provided ... ... In such circumstances the claim of the respondent to get proprietorship rights cannot be denied only on the ground that a more elaborate law, providing the same right which was available to him under the earlier orders, has been provided ... ... with the enactment of Roshni Act the State cannot take advantage of the inaction of its own officers and cannot deny the benefit to the respondent on the ground that the matter remain pending for all these years." "46. In fact, Mr. Dar would go to the extent of arguing that even if proprietary/freehold rights have been granted by the Respondents to any lessees/petitioners under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order pursuant to (and in implementation of) final and binding judgements of this Court, the grant of such proprietary/freehold rights would no longer survive after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No. 19/2011 declaring all actions under the Roshni Act/Rule as void ab initio; specifically, in those cases where the procedural formalities for implementation of such binding judgements of this Court were carried out through the mechanism provided under the Roshni Act/Rules even if (i) the rights of such lessees/petitioners had been held to have accrued under a pre-existing Scheme/Government Order by final judgements of this Court; (ii) such lessees/petitioners were granted freehold rights upon payment of conversion price fixed under the respective Scheme/Government Order, as upheld by such final and binding judgements of this Court and (iii) such lessees/petitioners have not derived the benefit of any rebates, discounts and concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules. If this argument were to be accepted, even conclusively decided and duly implemented cases under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order, such as Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case can also potentially be undone/unimplemented based on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No. 19/2011. We find this argument too far-fetched and are unable to accept it. We reject it emphatically." "47. We have examined the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No. 19/2011, which applies to beneficiaries of rebates, discounts and concessions under the specific scheme envisaged by the Roshni Act/Rules. It does not apply to the 1973 Government Order or the 1976 Government Order. We reject it emphatically." "47. We have examined the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No. 19/2011, which applies to beneficiaries of rebates, discounts and concessions under the specific scheme envisaged by the Roshni Act/Rules. It does not apply to the 1973 Government Order or the 1976 Government Order. It also does not apply to those successful lessees/petitioners in whose favour earlier judgements had been delivered by this Court enforcing their rights under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order that existed before the enactment of the Roshni Act/Roshni Rules, more so, if such judgements had attained finality and had even been implemented. The Respondents cannot take shelter under the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No.19/2011, to argue that lessees/petitioners under a pre-existing Scheme/Government Order, who had been granted freehold rights by the Respondents in implementation of judgements of this Court, based upon rights held by this Court to have accrued in their favour, would now stand deprived of their proprietary/freehold rights, notwithstanding the fact that such lessees/petitioners were not beneficiaries of any rebates, discounts and concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules at all. We find that argument completely unacceptable, more so, when the subject matter of the controversy before the Division Bench in PIL No. 19/2011 had nothing to do with any such pre-existing Scheme/Government Order. In our considered view, these cases are sui generis and cannot be clubbed with the cases of beneficiaries under the Roshni Act/Rules." "48. Even otherwise, the decision of the coordinate Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No. 19/2011 could not have overruled or overturned the earlier binding judgements of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in respect of lessees whose rights had accrued under such pre-existing Scheme/Government Order. The Supreme Court of India has held in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors. , reported as (2010) 13 SCC 336 , as follows: "18. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480 , this Court held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480 , this Court held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger bench." "49. In our view, the implementation of such earlier judgements of this Court that were decided based upon accrued rights under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order in favour of the lessees/petitioners cannot be undone in the manner now argued, without resorting to disobedience of the judgements of this Court. Not only this, such a course of action would result in unsettling long settled cases and cannot be permitted. In our considered view, the Respondents remain under a legal obligation to ensure the continued implementation of such earlier binding judgements of the Court relating to rights accrued under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order. Such concluded cases cannot be reopened. " "53. CONCLUSIONS AND RELIEF: We summarize our conclusions, in light of the analysis and discussion above, and consequently hold, direct and order as follows:" "53 (d). In any event, the earlier judgements of this Court upholding the rights of any lessees/petitioners accrued under any such pre-existing Scheme/Government Order regarding grant of proprietary/freehold rights to such lessees/petitioners, which have attained finality and have been duly implemented, remain binding and their implementation cannot be undone based on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in PIL No. 19/2011 provided: (i) such lessees/petitioners were granted proprietary/freehold rights based upon the conversion price fixed under the said Scheme/Government Order, which came to be upheld by the judgements of this Court and (ii) such lessees/petitioners were not beneficiaries of any rebates, discounts and concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules. The procedural formalities followed for the implementation of such judgements by the Respondents do not impact the binding and conclusive nature of such judgements in favour of such lessees/petitioners. Such concluded cases cannot be reopened. Therefore, this Court is not precluded from relying on such judgements as legally binding precedent in similar cases. (Underling supplied) 14. The procedural formalities followed for the implementation of such judgements by the Respondents do not impact the binding and conclusive nature of such judgements in favour of such lessees/petitioners. Such concluded cases cannot be reopened. Therefore, this Court is not precluded from relying on such judgements as legally binding precedent in similar cases. (Underling supplied) 14. The findings and observations of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan's Case (i.e., in OWP No. 1294/2017 and LPA No. 194/2019) amply clarify and explain that the judgment dated 9th October 2020, passed by this Court in this PIL No. 19/2011 in Prof S.K. Bhalla 's Case, does not apply to that class of cases of lessees: (a) whose rights had accrued/crystallized under any pre-existing rule, regulation, scheme or Government Order relating to the grant of freehold/proprietary rights that was in existence prior to coming into force of the Roshni Act/Rules (hereinafter, "pre-existing Scheme/Government Order"), and were accordingly upheld by binding decisions of this Court, which have long attained finality; AND (b) who were granted such freehold/proprietary rights for implementation of such binding decisions of this Court, such as Dr.Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case, in which (i) the conversion price charged had been fixed under the said pre-existing Scheme/Government Order before the coming into force of Roshni Act/Rules and (ii) no rebates/discounts/concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules had been given to such lessees. 15. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ramzan's Case further clarifies and explains that such cases are sui generis and are not to be mixed up with (rather, they are to be segregated/excluded from) the actual beneficiaries of Roshni Act/Rules covered by the judgment of this Court, dated 9th October 2020, in this PIL No. 19/2011. 16. In fact, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ramzan's Case also clarifies and explains that the nature of the procedural formalities followed by the State/Government for implementation of such earlier judgments of this Court does not impact the binding and conclusive nature of such judgments, nor would such procedural formalities impact their implementation, already done by the State/ Government 10-15 years ago. Ramzan's Case also clarifies and explains that the nature of the procedural formalities followed by the State/Government for implementation of such earlier judgments of this Court does not impact the binding and conclusive nature of such judgments, nor would such procedural formalities impact their implementation, already done by the State/ Government 10-15 years ago. Therefore, it makes no difference even if the procedure of Roshni Act/Rules had been resorted to by the State/Government for completing the procedural formalities of grant of freehold/proprietary rights in favour of such lessees/petitioners, based on rights accrued/crystallized (and conversion rates fixed) under such pre-existing Scheme/Government Order, as upheld by such binding decisions of this Court; specifically, because procedural formalities were undertaken only to implement the binding judgments of this Court in letter and spirit. The official-Respondents cannot now turn around after 10-15 years and attempt to "undo the implementation" of such binding judicial decisions of this Court, which have attained finality and have already been implemented in the past; particularly, by taking the misleading and specious excuse of the judgment dated 9th October 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011 in Prof. S. K. Bhalla's Case. Such a course of action would be completely perverse and contrary to settled legal principles. We reject it emphatically. 17. In any event, the doctrine of stare decisis would apply to the cases of such lessees/petitioners. Even the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply to such cases, because the State/Government accepted the conversion price fixed under the said pre-existing Scheme/Government Order, as upheld by binding decisions of this Court, more than 10-15 years ago, for the purpose of granting (and in fact granted) freehold/proprietary rights to such lessees/petitioners, who have altered their position. Following Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P., (1979) 2 SCC 409 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in [10]Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 766 as follows: "36. ... ...The ministerial act of non-issue of the notification cannot possibly stand in the way of the appellants getting relief under the said doctrine [of promissory estoppel] for it would unconscionable on the part of the Government to get away without fulfilling promise.... ..." (Underlining supplied) 18. Additionally, it is also a settled legal principle that actus curiae neminemgravabit i.e., an act of court shall not harm anybody. ..." (Underlining supplied) 18. Additionally, it is also a settled legal principle that actus curiae neminemgravabit i.e., an act of court shall not harm anybody. In paragraphs 62 and 63 of the case titled Margret Almedia & Ors. v. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 642 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed with approval the following extract of its earlier decision in the case titled South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M. P., (2003) 8 SCC 648 , as follows: "27. That no one shall suffer by an act of the court is not a rule confined to an erroneous act of the court; the 'act of the court' embraces within its sweep all such acts as to which the court may form an opinion in any legal proceedings that the court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law. The factor attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of the court being wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the court; the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the Court and the act of such party." (Underling supplied) 19. We, therefore, reiterate the principles and the directions laid down in the above-extracted paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ramzan's Case (in OWP No. 1294/2017 and LPA No. 194/2019), dated 18th May 2021, including particularly its paragraphs 46 and 53(d); based upon the elaborate analysis and reasoning given therein. 20. Accordingly, we direct that the above-extracted findings and observations of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan's Case, shall be read as clarifying (and forming part and parcel of) the judgment of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011, in Prof. S.K. Bhalla's Case. The Registry will place a certified copy of the judgment dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan's Case, shall be read as clarifying (and forming part and parcel of) the judgment of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011, in Prof. S.K. Bhalla's Case. The Registry will place a certified copy of the judgment dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan 's Case, on the record of this PIL No. 19/2011, which shall form a part of the record of this PIL also. 21. During the course of the proceedings and review of the record, it has come to light that the official Respondents do not appear to have made any distinction between two separate classes/categories of: (i) beneficiaries of freehold/proprietary rights that were granted pursuant to rights accrued/crystallized under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order, that existed prior to coming into force of the Roshni Act/Rules, as upheld by earlier binding judicial judgments of this Court, and identified in the above-extracted paragraphs of judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan's Case AND (ii) the actual beneficiaries of Roshni Act/Rules, who received discounts/rebates/concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules. We notice that even the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ramzan's Case (i.e., Mohammad Ramzan Bhat v. State of J&K and others, OWP No. 1294/2017, connected with LPA No. 194/2019, dated 18th May 2021), has been completely disregarded and ignored by the official-Respondents. The beneficiaries of freehold/proprietary rights as distinguished in paragraph 53(d) of the judgment dated 18th May 2021 in Mohd. Ramzan's Case have not been separated/excluded from the actual beneficiaries of the Roshni Act/Rules, disregarding the distinction between two, which was explained by this Court in Mohd. Ramzan's Case. We notice that even Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case is wrongly included in the list of beneficiaries of the Roshni Act/Rules posted on the website of Divisional Commissioner (Jammu), in complete disregard of (1) the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case titled Dr. V.K. Pachnanda v. State of J&K & Ors., OWP No. 283/2005, decided on 10th May 2006; (2) the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case titled State of J&K v. Dr. V. K. Pachnanda, LPA No. 57/2006, decided on 4th May 2007; and (3) the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court in this very PIL No. 19/2011, dated 26th October 2015. 22. V. K. Pachnanda, LPA No. 57/2006, decided on 4th May 2007; and (3) the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court in this very PIL No. 19/2011, dated 26th October 2015. 22. We, however, make it clear that this order only governs the sui generis class of petitioners/lessees discussed above, who are beneficiaries of freehold/proprietary rights pursuant to rights accrued/crystallized under any pre-existing Scheme/ Government Order, that existed prior to coming into force of the Roshni Act/Rules AND who were granted such freehold/proprietary rights by the State/ Government pursuant to binding judicial decisions of this Court, as explained in detail in the preceding paragraphs of this order (such as Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case). While we clarify that such cases are excluded from the scope of the judgment, dated 9th October 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011; we also clarify that this order issued today will not apply to any other/actual beneficiaries of the Roshni Act/Rules, who received rebates/discounts/concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules. 23. We are conscious that several review/recall petitions are pending before this Court, which have been filed by other occupants (authorized or unauthorized) who are actual beneficiaries of the Roshni Act/Rules, which seek review/recall of the judgment, dated 9th October 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011, on various grounds. We express no view regarding those pending review/recall petitions, which shall be decided on their own merit. The findings and observations in this order are restricted to the sui generis and specific class of cases covered by this order, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 24. This brings us to the case of the Applicants. In their Application for Clarification, the Applicants have neither pleaded nor placed any document on record to demonstrate that their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Zahida Naquishbandi and Shahida Naquishbandi, had ever applied for freehold/proprietary rights under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order, prior to coming into force of the Roshni Act/Rules. There is also no pleading or document placed on record to demonstrate that any such application seeking freehold/proprietary rights under any pre-existing Scheme or Government Order (if any made at all) was ever acted upon or processed by any of the official-Respondents, in any manner. 25. The Applicants, at the highest, claim that their predecessors-in-interest had made applications for renewal of leasehold rights, which was not the situation dealt with in Dr. 25. The Applicants, at the highest, claim that their predecessors-in-interest had made applications for renewal of leasehold rights, which was not the situation dealt with in Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case. It is clear from item no. 8 and 9 of the Record Note of the meeting of the relevant Committee under the Roshni Act/Rules, dated 11th September, 2007 (Annexure A-4 to the Application for Clarification filed by the Applicants) that in the case of the predecessors-in-interest of the Applicants, the conversion price was fixed by actually giving rebates/discounts/concessions under Roshni Act/Rules. For this reason, we hold that there is no similarity between the facts of the case set up by the Applicants and the facts of Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case (Annexure A-7), which have been incorrectly relied upon by them for seeking parity. Accordingly, the Applicants are not entitled to any relief based on any alleged parity with Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case. 26. Suffice it to say that the Applicant's claim for renewal of lease, as pleaded in the alternative in their Application for Clarification (as extracted above), can be adequately addressed by the relevant official Respondents on the analogy of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Rafiq Zargar v. State of J&K and Ors., in PIL No. 14/2012 and connected IA No. 4/2018, dated 2nd December 2021, which are reproduced below (and which were reiterate and affirm): "6. Admittedly, hotel owners have entered possession of the land on the strength of lease deeds and are not unauthorised occupants. They are running hotels after raising the super structures which requires repairs with the passage of time and for improvement of hotel facilities. Therefore, they cannot be denied such repairs as it would tantamount to interfering with their right to business." "8. At the same time, we direct the UT authorities to take a conscious decision with regard to the renewal of lease deeds which have already expired in accordance with the Policy which was in vogue when the leases were granted and we expect that such a decision is taken by the UT Government most expeditiously, preferably within three months and the order of this Court dated 15.1.2020 will not come in way of the above decision." (Underling supplied) 27. CONCLUSIONS AND RELIEF: In light of the detailed analysis and discussion above we summarize our directions and consequently hold, clarify, direct and order as follows: (a) The above-extracted paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan's Case, including particularly its paragraphs 46 and 53(d), shall be read as clarifying (and forming part and parcel of) the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in this PIL No. 19/2011. The Registry will place a certified copy of the judgment dated 18th May 2021, in Mohd. Ramzan's Case, on the record of this PIL No. 19/2011, which shall form a part of its record also. (b) The earlier judgments of this Court upholding the rights of any lessees/petitioners that had accrued/crystallized under any pre-existing Scheme/Government Order regarding grant of proprietary/freehold rights to such lessees/petitioners, such as Dr. Ved Khullar's Case and Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case, which have attained finality and have been duly implemented, remain binding and their implementation cannot be undone by the Government of J&K or official Respondents, based on the incorrect reading of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 9th October, 2020, in this PIL No. 19/2011 provided: (i) such lessees/petitioners were granted proprietary/freehold rights based upon the conversion price fixed under the said preexisting Scheme/Government Order, which came to be upheld by the judgments of this Court; (ii) such lessees/petitioners were not beneficiaries of any further rebates/ discounts/concessions under the Roshni Act/Rules; as explained in the preceding paragraphs of this order. (c) Consequently, the procedural formalities followed for the implementation of such judgments by the official-Respondents do not impact the binding and conclusive nature of such judgments in favour of such lessees/petitioners. Even if the procedure of Roshni Act/Rules had been resorted to by the State/Government or the official-Respondents for complying with the formalities of grant of freehold/proprietary rights in favour of any such lessees/petitioners, (such as in Dr. Ved Khullar's Case and Dr. Even if the procedure of Roshni Act/Rules had been resorted to by the State/Government or the official-Respondents for complying with the formalities of grant of freehold/proprietary rights in favour of any such lessees/petitioners, (such as in Dr. Ved Khullar's Case and Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case), based upon the rights accrued/crystallized under a pre-existing Scheme/ Government Order, as upheld by binding judgments of this Court; it is not open for the official-Respondents and the Government of J&K to now turn around and use the specious and legally untenable excuse of the judgment dated 9th October 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011 for "undoing the implementation" of such binding judicial decisions of this Court that have already been implemented in the past. Such concluded cases cannot be reopened. (d) The Government of J&K and the official-Respondents remain under a continuing legal obligation to ensure the continued implementation of such earlier binding judgments of the Court relating to rights accrued/crystallized under such respective pre-existing Scheme/ Government Order, such as Dr. Ved Khullar's Case and Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case, in letter and spirit; as explained in the preceding paragraphs of this order. (e) As a result, any failure to comply with the above directions will equally invite application of paragraph 119 (V) of the judgment dated 9th October 2020, passed in this PIL No. 19/2011, with full rigour. (f) The findings, observations and directions above are restricted to the sui generis and specific class of cases covered by this order, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. (g) There is no similarity between the facts of the case set up by the Applicants on the one hand and Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V.K. Pachnanda's Case (Annexure A-7) on the other hand, which have been incorrectly relied upon by them in their Application for Clarification to seek parity. Accordingly, the Applicants are not entitled to any relief based on any alleged parity with Dr. Ved Khullar's Case or Dr. V. K. Pachnanda's Case. 28. The Application for Clarification filed by the Applicants, CM No. 6561/2020, is disposed of in the above terms. Ordered, accordingly. CM No. 6563/2020 Since the application seeking clarification is decided, therefore, the instant application seeking interim order, shall be governed by the said order. CM disposed of.