JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners herein through the medium of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following relief:- A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners enabling them to approach Building Operations Controlling Authority having jurisdiction over the area for grant of permission to raise construction on the subject land in accordance with the plans approved and sanctioned by the Authority. 2. The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the record appended thereto being relevant to the controversy involved in the instant petition would reveal that a notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Town Planning and Improvement Act by respondent 1 herein was published in the Government Gazette dated 26 Sawan 1996 (10.08.1939) signifying the intention of the Government to frame a Scheme for the extension, development and improvement of certain areas mentioned in the notification including the Pahalgam Town Area. Subsequently, the said notification was directed to be as one issued under Section 8 of the Town Planning Act in terms of Section (1) of Jammu and Kashmir Town Planning Act SVT 1997 (1940 A.D). 3. On 30.04.1943 the respondent 1 herein took a policy decision to take over the plots of land owned by private individuals on the plateau and valley of Pahalgam in exchange at different places within Pahalgam Town treating and recording the taken over of plots of land as “Khalsa Sarkar” in the revenue records and the plots of land proposed to be given in exchange to be excluded from the forest area and to form a separate village subject to the payment of land at regular rates. 4. Out of total number of plot holders being 92, persons namely Pt. Sham Lal But Harkara, Pt. Jia LalJalali, Pran Nath Jalali, Kh. Ghulam Mohd Mir, Kh. Abdul Rehman Vaid and Raizada Jaswant Singh (Mehta Sri Chand) agreed to offer exchange of their proprietary land with that of the proposed land offered by the respondent 1 herein. 5. 4. Out of total number of plot holders being 92, persons namely Pt. Sham Lal But Harkara, Pt. Jia LalJalali, Pran Nath Jalali, Kh. Ghulam Mohd Mir, Kh. Abdul Rehman Vaid and Raizada Jaswant Singh (Mehta Sri Chand) agreed to offer exchange of their proprietary land with that of the proposed land offered by the respondent 1 herein. 5. The said proposal came to be forwarded by respondent 1 herein to the Council and upon approval, same culminated into issuance of Government order No. 60/C of 1944 dated 10.01.1944, in terms whereof besides, others the aforesaid plot holders were allotted plots bearing 26, 27, 28, 28/A and 29 situated on the new Forest Road Hospital site at Nunwan Pahalgam and the possession of the said exchange of plots came to be accepted by the said persons reflected in the said order dated 10.01.1944 itself. 6. In the year 1959 the aforesaid persons transferred their respective plots of land in favour of Dr. Karan Singh S/o Late Late Maharaja Hari Singh R/o Gupkar Road, Srinagar, which transfer came to be permitted by the Government and in terms of Government order No. 372 of 1962 dated 04.11.1962, the said plots of land were directed to be recorded in the name of Dr. Karan Singh as its owner and consequently necessary changes were effected in the revenue records vide Mutation No. 355 dated 14.07.1976 in the plots of land and Khasra No. 493, 495, 496 & 627 were allotted to the said plots of land. 7. The said Dr. Karan Singh, however, sold the land in question to the petitioners herein by virtue of sale deeds executed and registered on 11.05.2015 and 28.08.2015, as a consequence whereof, the possession of land was handed over to the petitioners and a mutation order Nos. 534, 425, 428, 529 & 530 came to be attested in the relevant revenue records. 8. The petitioners intended to raise construction over the said land and claimed to have represented before the respondents for grant of “No Objection Certificate” being a pre-requisite for applying and obtaining a building permission from the authority competent to issue the said permission under the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988. 9. 8. The petitioners intended to raise construction over the said land and claimed to have represented before the respondents for grant of “No Objection Certificate” being a pre-requisite for applying and obtaining a building permission from the authority competent to issue the said permission under the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988. 9. The land in question came to be demarcated in the month of October, 2016, by a joint team of Revenue and Forest officials headed by the Naib Tehsildar Aishmuqam and DFO Demarcation, which demarcation team found the land in question duly fenced with the chain link fencing and in possession of the petitioners and, as such, made a report bearing No. CampNunwanPgm/01/2016 dated 10.10.2016. Besides, the Tehsildar Pahalgam vide his communication No. Tpgm/OQ/15/163-66 also informed the respondents herein that land in question was recorded to be in possession of Dr. Karan Singh by virtue of a mutation No. 355 dated 14.07.1976 and recommended the issuance of No Objection Certificate in favour of owner whereafter despite the said recommendation no action came to be taken by the respondents as is claimed by the petitioner. 10. The respondents are claimed to have issued No Objection Certificate for rising construction of hotels in favour of various person(s) who too had obtained plots of land in exchange namely Mst. Aisha Begum on plot Nos. 1/A, 20 and 23 vide communication No. PCCF/Lease/NOC/1780-83 dated 16.09.2005; Dr. Javaid Ahmad Mir on plot Nos. 7 and 8 vide communication No. PCCF/L/NOC/Hotel/193-96 dated 08.02.2006; Ajaz Ahmad Chaya on plot No. 01; Abdul Gani Bhat on plot No. A/3, Masrat Jan on plot No. 05, and the construction of hotels and hutments are claimed by the petitioners stated to have been raised on all plots of land, completed and made functional. 11. Being aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents in not deciding their case for grant of No Objection Certificate and also not treating them at par with those persons in whose favour No Objection Certificate had been issued by the respondents and who had consequently raised construction of hotels and hutments, the petitioners have thus, maintained the instant petition. 12. Being aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents in not deciding their case for grant of No Objection Certificate and also not treating them at par with those persons in whose favour No Objection Certificate had been issued by the respondents and who had consequently raised construction of hotels and hutments, the petitioners have thus, maintained the instant petition. 12. This Court while entertaining the instant petition and issuing notice to the respondents, vide order dated 08.06.2017 directed the respondents to issue Provisional No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners enabling the petitioners to submit their application for grant of permission for approval of Building Plan to the Control of Building Operations Authority. The said order was made subject to the objections as also subject to the outcome of the application and in compliance to said order dated 08.06.2017, the respondent 4 herein issued a Provisional No Objection Certificate dated 26.07.2017 in favour of the petitioners on the basis of an advice of respondent 2 stating therein that the land in question falls in the demarcated forest land in compartment No. 35/L as per the records of demarcation and working Plan Maps probably being the reason the claim of the petitioners for issuance of No Objection Certificate was not being considered. It was also stated in the said Provisional No Objection Certificate that the respondent 2 had advised respondent 4 to consider the claim of the petitioners under rules subject to the outcome of the petition and that a clarification had been sought from the Government with regard to the authenticity of the Government order No. 60-C of 1994 dated 10.01.1994 as also a clarification whether the plots land of petitioners in exchange have been taken by the department way back in 1944 and its location and clarification from revenue authorities relating Khasra Nos. 493, 494, 495 & 496 (plots Nos. 26, 28-A & 29 situated at Nunwan Pahalgam). It also came to be provided in the said Provisional No Objection Certificate that the petitioners shall not raise any construction on the land in question till the matter would be finally disposed of by this Court and the clarification as sought are received from the Government in this behalf. 13. 26, 28-A & 29 situated at Nunwan Pahalgam). It also came to be provided in the said Provisional No Objection Certificate that the petitioners shall not raise any construction on the land in question till the matter would be finally disposed of by this Court and the clarification as sought are received from the Government in this behalf. 13. Aggrieved of the aforesaid conditions contained in the Provisional No Objection Certificate , the petitioners filed contempt petition being CPOWP No. 685/2017 before this Court wherein in terms of order dated 24.11.2017 this Court observed that the conditions imposed in the Provisional No Objection Certificate amounted to supplementing the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by this Court, however, facing the contempt, the respondent 3 deleted the said conditions imposed in the Provisional No Objection Certificate dated 06.12.2017. 14. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents wherein it is being stated that as per their records the land in question forms a part of demarcated forest land and as such, irrespective of its ownership, No Objection Certificate cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners. It has also been stated in the objections that the respondents have no knowledge about the issuance of Government Order No. 60-C of 1944 dated 10.01.1944 having never been presented before them for its incorporation in the Forest records as also that neither the revenue Department nor the private parties had ever got the said land de-notified as per Section 2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Conservation Act 1997. 15. Respondents in their objections have also relied upon the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Apex Court in case titled as “Godavarman Thirumulkpad V. Union of India” (Civil Writ petition No. 202 of 1996), wherein the Apex Court re-defined the meaning of forests to include forest as understood in the dictionary sense as also any area reported as forests irrespective of the ownership. 16. It is being further stated in the objections by the respondents with regard to the plea of the petitioners that No Objection Certificate have been granted by the respondents in favour of the other plot holders having plots of land adjacent to the land in question of the petitioners, the respondents herein have not denied the same, however, have stated that same is matter of record requiring its scrutiny. 17. 17. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit to the reply filed by the respondents mainly reiterating the facts pleaded in the writ petition. The petitioners have also filed an application being IA No. 02/2018 for placing on record as many as 31 documents having been obtained by the petitioners under Right to Information Act. In the said application a report of the Tehsildar Pahalgam having provided details of the plots taken by the Government in exchange of which the plots of land in question were given, as also the present position of the plots taken by the Government certifying the authenticity of the Order No. 60-C of 1944 dated 10.01.1944 based on the report of the State Archives Repository. Besides a relevant extract of Pahalgam Master Plan 2030 has also been annexed with the said IA. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18. Perusal of the record in general and in particular the report of the Tehsildar contained in page 28 of IA No. 02/2018 filed by the petitioners herein in particular manifestly certifies, authenticates the legitimacy, legality and correctness of order dated 60-C of 1994 dated 10.01.1944 being based on the report of the State Archives Repository, besides the nature, character and position of the plots taken over by the Government and those which were offered in exchange thereof to the owners of the said plots of land. 19. Perusal of the extract of Master Plan 2032 annexed with the IA No. 02/2018 supra without any doubt as well endorses authenticity of Order No. 60-C of 1944 dated 10.01.1944 besides making the construction permissible for exchanged plots except those under dense plantation on the internal page 5 of the said extract of said Master Plan 2032. Following is provided therein which being relevant and germane herein is reproduced hereunder: Understanding the gravity of the matter, the Evaluation Committee held that the settlement of the area has already been done and forwarded to the Forest Department for authentication. The matter needs to be settled with the Forest Department for proper demarcation as per latest records. However, the Committee is of the opinion that the Govt. Order No. 60-C of 1944 issued for exchange of plots among the affected families in lieu of their proprietary land acquired by the Government at Pahalgam is a genuine order never changed or revoked by the subsequent governments. However, the Committee is of the opinion that the Govt. Order No. 60-C of 1944 issued for exchange of plots among the affected families in lieu of their proprietary land acquired by the Government at Pahalgam is a genuine order never changed or revoked by the subsequent governments. The exchange of plots shown as demarcated forest is a matter of updating forest records viz-a-viz revenue records after proper settlement. The Committee recommends that without any prejudice, all exchange plots other than those under dense plantation shall be made permissible in the Master Plan-2032” Therefore, from the aforesaid documents on record the validity and veracity of which is not being disputed by the respondents, making it clear that the land in question was excluded from the forest area way back in the year 1944 and that the Master Plan for Pahalgam makes the said land in question permissible for Tourism and other developments. 20. It is pertinent and significant to note here that order No. 60-C of 1944 dated 10.01.1994 came to be issued by the Government after having been approved by the Council which in terms of Section (5) and (6) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1939 was vested with the powers of Civil Administration and the Government, ex-facie suggesting that the said Order dated 10.01.1944 has been issued by the competent authority and its legitimacy, legality or authenticity cannot be questioned by the respondents now after a considerable period of 80 years and deny the petitioners the benefit that has flown out of the said Government order in their favour more so in view of the admitted fact that the respondents have already issued No Objection Certificate(s) in favour of the plot holders adjacent to the land of the petitioners who as well had obtained the said plots in exchange in terms of order dated 10.01.1944 and on the said exchange plots, the said persons have raised and completed the construction of hotels and hutments and made them operational. The respondents thus, in this view of the matter cannot deny a similar treatment to the petitioners on any ground and for any reason whatsoever, in that, the said inaction of the respondents per-se is arbitrary and discriminatory and will not be countenanced by law. 21. The respondents thus, in this view of the matter cannot deny a similar treatment to the petitioners on any ground and for any reason whatsoever, in that, the said inaction of the respondents per-se is arbitrary and discriminatory and will not be countenanced by law. 21. It is also appropriate to mention here that the respondents in the Provisional No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners on 26.07.2017 in essence have accepted that if the three queries raised in the said No Objection Certificate are met and answered, the dispute with regard to the land in question of the petitioners shall stand settled which answer stands explicitly provided by the Revenue Department contained in the communication/documents on record of the petition as noticed in the preceding paras endorsing and authenticating the claim of the petitioners. 22. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, by issuance of a writ of Mandamus, the respondents are commanded to issue No Objection Certificate qua the land in question in favour of the petitioners as sought for enabling them to seek sanction for raising construction thereon from Control of Building Operations Authority having jurisdiction over the area for raising construction on the subject land, without any further delay, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the respondents. 23. Disposed of along with connected application(s).