Nazul Lands ,freehold conversion in Uttar Pradesh

The letter in brackets following the words listed here below indicates the language it belongs to or it originates from: (A) = Arabic, (E) = English, (H) = Hindi, (P) = Persian.

1-                                                    Nazul Lands (P/E): Land vested with the public authority for developmental purpose as per the stipulations of the authority.

Baden Powell defined Nazul property as “Property escheated or lapsed to the State; commonly applied to any land or house property belonging to Government either as an escheat or as having belonged to former Governments.”

          The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between that Government and the Authority, place at the disposal of the Authority all or any developed and undeveloped lands in the development area vested in the State (known as “Nazul lands”), for the purpose of development in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

       Once any such land has been placed at the disposal of the Authority, no development of any such land shall be undertaken or carried out except by or under the control and supervision of the Authority.

       After any such Nazul land has been developed by or under the control and supervision of the Authority, it will be dealt with by the Authority in accordance  with the directions given by the State Government in that behalf.

      If any nazul land placed at the disposal of the Authority is required at any time thereafter by the State Government, the Authority shall, by notification by the Gazette, replace it at the disposal of that Government upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between that Government and the Authority.

conversion of 'nazul' (land given by municipal authorities to private persons)

2-                                                    Vikas Pradhikaran (H), Development Authority (E): Every big city (mostly of more than a million inhabitants � but again there are no strict norms) has a Development Authority which supervises various aspects of Urban Management including land, housing, services etc. They also oversee legal aspects pertaining to building bye-laws, Master Plan norms etc. and develop perspective plans for the future.

(www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~neeravv/presentations/project%20work.pdf)

(E:\11 n 2\govt ,authorities plan on land)

        U. P. URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1973

      Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised                Occupants) Act. 1972

3-                                                    Nagar Nigam (H), Nagar Palika (H), Nagar Parishad (H): Nagar Nigam refers to a Municipal Corporation and Nagar Palika or Nagar Parishad (nomenclature varies from state to state) refers to a Municipal Council. A corporation is higher than a council in the hierarchy of municipal administration. There are no strict norms for giving a municipality the status of a corporation or council � the decision is mostly political.

4-                                                    Notified Area (E): Any land area earmarked with the help of legal provisions for the purpose of future development, as stipulated in the Master Plan.

5-                                                    Patta (H): Title to land. Under the slum upgrading and resettlement schemes, land title is being given to the residents in the hope that they would make further investment to improve their own housing conditions and living standards. This is also a guarantee against future eviction.

6-                                                    Standard Rent (E): Worked out on the basis of the value of land and cost of construction when built, as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act with the objective of protecting the tenant from exorbitant rent and eviction.

7-                                                    Khasra (P): Refers to a plot of land which is numbered in the Master Plan of a city. Any developmental plan sketched on the basis of the Master Plan refers to a khasra number. If the khasras in a Master Plan are not properly numbered developmental plans gets hindered.

8-                                                    Power of Attorney (E): Supposedly a legal provision through which the right of occupancy, management, and transfer of a property is given by the owner to another person. The Law Ministry has doubts about the validity of such transfer deals ; nevertheless, a large number of properties, particularly in north Indian cities, are changing hands, using this provision.

9-                                                    Statutory town (E): A settlement having an urban local body viz. Municipality, Corporation, Town Area Committee, Notified Area Committee, Cantonment, Town Panchayat,...

http://www.unesco.org/most/p2basu.htm

Nazul-Government of U.P,Collector and Sub Registrar

Amit Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 21 May, 2003

(2003) 2 UPLBEC 1733

------------------ land in question measuring 160 acres

--------------Special Secretary, U.P. Government issued letter dated 19.1.2001 to the District Magistrates Varanasi for cancelling the free hold proceedings and accordingly, the District Magistrate Varanasi vide order dated 27.7.2001 has cancelled the same.

--------------subsequently by notice dated 21.3.2001, petitioner was informed that the land does not vest in the State of U.P., and hence the proceedings for cancellation of the deed dated 2.4.98 have been initiated and petitioner can file objection.

--------------The Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad requested the District Magistrate, Varanasi to instruct the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of such transaction in order to safeguard the interest of the Government of India in the defence land. A true copy of the letter dated 17.11.1997 has been annexed as Annexure-CA-7 to the counter-affidavit.

------------ Granting the power of management does not, in our opinion, amounts to transfer of title to the land, which, in our opinion, continues to vest in Government of India. Thus, there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.                           

Bench: M Katju, R Tripathi

Allahabad High Court

2. It is alleged in Paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner's father was the lessee of Property No. S-17/317-B, Nadesar, Varanasi. In respect of which the Municipal Board, Varanasi executed a lease deed on 17.7.1957, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This lease was granted in favour of the petitioner's father for a period of 30 years and hence it was to expire on 29th March, 1987. The petitioner's father gave an application to the Administrator Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi (Now Nagar Nigam) on 24.3.87, vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition praying for extension of the lease period for a period of 99 years. However, it is alleged that no action was taken on this application.

3. By Notification dated 23.5.1992, issued by the State Government vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the Nazul Policy of the State Government was declared.

4-------------and deposited Rs. 16,000 and a free hold deed was executed in his favour on 2.5.98 vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition.------------- In Paragraph 22 of the petition it is stated that subsequently by notice dated 21.3.2001, petitioner was informed that the land does not vest in the State of U.P., and hence the proceedings for cancellation of the deed dated 2.4.98 have been initiated and petitioner can file objection.

5-. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. It is stated in Paragraph 6 of the same that only management of the plots measuring 160 acres including the land in question was entrusted to the Municipal Board, Benaras (now known as Nagar Nigam, Varanasi). The Commissioner, Benaras Division vide letter dated 11.5.1898 addressed to the Chairman, Municipal Board. Benaras informed that the area transferred will be considered intra-municipal Nazul of which the usufruct has been transferred to the Municipality. It was stated in that letter that 3/4 of the income of such Nazul land would go to the Municipality or District Board, and 1/4 income would go to the Provincial Revenue. As such it is alleged that no title had been transferred by the Union of India in favour of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi.------------------- The Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Varanasi bringing to his notice that defence land in Nadesar area, Varanasi Cantonment is being sold and the sale transaction are being registered by the Sub-Registrar without making any reference to the Cantonment Board, Varani.si or Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad. He brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, Varanasi that no intimation about the same was received in his office. He requested the District Magistrate, Varanasi to instruct the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of such transaction in order to safeguard the interest of the Government of India in the defence land. A true copy of the letter dated 17.11.1997 has been annexed as Annexure-CA-7 to the counter-affidavit.

6. The Government Executive Officer, Varanasi sent letter dated 28.2.1998 and letter dated 21.12.1998 to the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Head Quarters, Central Command, Lucknow bringing the entire facts to his notice that the aforesaid land which was given to the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi for management and the said authority was converting the aforesaid land into free hold. The Cantonment Executive Officer, Varanasi sought guidance from the Principal Director, Defence Estate as to whether the order of the U.P. Government was binding on the Cantonment Board. By another letter dated 21.12.1998 the Cantonment Executive Officer, Varanasi brought to the notice of the Principal Director, Defence Estates that the aforesaid land measuring 160 acres was given to the Municipal Board by the Government of India in the year 1896 for management on payment of certain compensation for the loss of revenue.

7. In Paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Principal Director, Defence Estate wrote a letter to the Cantonment Executive Officer, Varanasi that the land was transferred for the management of the Beneras Cantonment to the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi on annual payment of Rs. 1657/6 vide Annexure-CA-9 to the counter-affidavit. The Cantonment Board, Varanasi then resolved that permanent transfer of the land to the Municipal Corporation be offered on payment of market value to the Defence Ministry and on unwillingness to do so to pay the transfer value, vide Annexure-CA-10 to the counter-affidavit. The Cantonment Board, Varanasi communicated about the resolution to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi vide letter dated 24.7.1999 Annexure-CA-11 to the counter-affidavit. In Paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that objection having been raised by the Cantonment Board, Varanasi and the Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad about the conversion of land to free hold, the matter was taken up with the State Government as a consequence of which the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi wrote a letter dated 3.1.2001 and another letter dated 9.1.2001 to the District Magistrate, Varanasi bringing the entire facts to the notice of the District Magistrate and requesting for cancellation of proceedings for conversion of land to free hold. True copies of the said letters are Annexure-CA-12 to the counter-affidavit.

8. In Paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in the relevant Khatauni the land in question measuring 160 acres contains entry to the effect that the ownership of the land is of the Government of India vide Annexure-CA-13 to the counter-affidavit. Since the entire matter was brought to the notice of the State Government the Special Secretary, U.P. Government issued letter dated 19.1.2001 to the District Magistrates Varanasi for cancelling the free hold proceedings and accordingly, the District Magistrate Varanasi vide order dated 27.7.2001 has cancelled the same. It is alleged in Paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit that the respondent 1 to 6 had no right at all to transfer the land or to convert the same into free hold since the ownership of the land vests in the Government of India, Defence Ministry. The Government of India is the owner of the land and hence the State Government or the District Magistrate, Varanasi has no right to sell the land or allow it to be converted into free hold. Only the management of the land was entrusted to the Municipal Board, Varanasi but the Municipal Board was no authorized to allow people to erect houses or to execute lease deed or to convert the land into free hold. The Nagar Nigam, Varanasi acted beyond its authority in passing the transfer orders or granting free hold rights. The lease deed dated 17.7.1957 confers no title or interest in favour of the petitioner.

10. A careful perusal of the report of the District Magistrate, Varanasi dated 22/24 May, 1971, Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit shows that there was some litigation about the title to the said land between the Cantonment Board and Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi and ultimately that dispute was decided by the order of the Commissioner, Varanasi by order dated 24.1.1957, by which he rejected the claim of the Nagar Mahapalika of title over the land. In the same order it has been held that no appeal was filed against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner and this proves the title of the Government of India over the said land.

11. Very relevant is the letter of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi which is Annexure-CA-12 to the counter-affidavit, admitting that the property never belonged to the State Government and hence the entire proceedings treating it to be Nazul land were illegal and without jurisdiction. In this letter the entire matter has been discussed in great detail. In the Khatauni copy of which is Annexure-CA-13 to the counter-affidavit it is stated that the property belongs to the Union of India.

13. Granting the power of management does not, in our opinion, amounts to transfer of title to the land, which, in our opinion, continues to vest in Government of India. Thus, there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.

Calculation of Stamp duty on instrument of nazul freehold in year 1999 and 2000 in the state of Uttar Pradesh

                                                         Nazul Land
'Nazul' means any land or building which, being the property of Government is not administered as a State property under the control of the Land Reforms Commissioner or the Forest or the irrigation Department, or is not under the control of the Military, Postal, Telegraph, Railway or other purely Central Government Department. It means properties i.e., land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated or lapsed to the Government. In further, in absence of appropriate heir, the appropriate State or the Government of India in an appropriate case became the owner of the land. Article 296 of the Constitution of India speaks about the property accruing by escheat or lapse or as an bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner.(Harish Tandon vs State Of U.P. And Anr.2006 (3) AWC 2829)

                               Rate of Stamp Duty


(Harish Tandon vs State Of U.P. And Anr. 2006 (3) AWC 2829 Para 18 )

As per the Government Order No. 'K.S.V.-5-5808/11-99-500 (80)/98' of Kar Evam Sansthagat Vitta Anubhag-5 dated 11th January, 1999 issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government, the stamp duty amount (registration charges) for registration of the freehold sale deed(s) is payable at the rate of 10% of the freehold charges. The U.P. Government till now has issued various Government Order(s) to continue the rebate of stamp duty amount (registration charges) for the registration of the freehold sale deed(s) without any break and the aforesaid provision for the registration of the freehold sale deed(s) at the rate of 10% of the freehold charges is applicable till date. Since the freehold sale deed(s) of the Nazul Site(s) executed by the District Maglstrate(s) and the Development Authorities particularly the District Magistrate, Allahabad and the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad have been/are presently being registered at stamp duty amount (registration charges) of 10% of the freehold charges in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order dated 11 th January, 1999 and its successive Government Order(s), the freehold sale deed(s) of the Nazul Site Nos. 32C, 139 and 139B, Civil Station, Allahabad should also be registered at the stamp duty amount (registration charges) of 10% of the freeholdcharges.

                                             classification of deeds
1-   Under the provisions of the Nazul manual, if any nazul land is transferred by way of sale or lease etc., execution of deed is required and stamp duty is chargeable as a conveyance as laid down in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (C.A.G Report year 2006-07Para 4.2.9.2)
http://www.cag.gov.in/html/cag_reports/up/rep_2007/rev_chap_4.pdf
2-   Nazul land is land held by Government in public trust, in perpetuity, the possession of which can be transferred in the form of lease or by sale. The district magistrate of the respective district is the overall incharge of the management andadministration of nazul land. In Lucknow, the work of management is entrusted to the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and in other places to the nagar nigams/nagar palika parishads. Rule 67 of Nazul Manual, read with Rule 22, prohibits granting of lease in perpetuity of nazul land. In such cases, where lease was granted in perpetuity or period of lease was not mentioned, a maximum period of 90 years can be considered for lease. If any sale deed is executed, cost of land is to be recovered on the basis of market rate and stamp duty as a conveyance is chargeable..(C.A.G. Report 2005-2006 Para 5.5
http://www.cag.gov.in/html/cag_reports/up/rep_2006/rev_chap_5.pdf)
                                         
3- Under the provisions of the IS Act, stamp duty on an instrument depends upon the substance of the transaction recorded in the instrument and not on any title, description or nomenclature given to the instrument by the executant.(C.A.G. Report 2005-2006 Para 5.3
http://www.cag.gov.in/html/cag_reports/up/rep_2006/rev_chap_5.pdf)

                                            disposal of nazul land

A-Under the provisions of the Nazul manual, nazul land can only be leased out.Under the provisions of rule 22 of Nazul manual, lease for nazul land shall not ordinarily be for a period shorter than 30 years in the first instance and shall, in all cases, provide for renewal after expiry of the first and subsequent terms upto a maximum period of 90 years. The granting of lease in perpetuity in respect of any nazul land on any term is prohibited. Rule 67 of Nazul Manual, read with Rule 22, prohibits granting of lease in perpetuity of nazul land. In such cases, where lease was granted in perpetuity or period of lease was not mentioned, a maximum period of 90 years can be considered for lease. Under the above provisions, the nazul land let out on lease for a stipulated period is required to be evacuated as and when the concerned lease terminates. On 1st December, 1998 a further Government order being No.
'2268/9-AA-4-98-704N/97' of Awas Anubhag-4 was issued by the Secretary, U.P.Government. As per such Government order, two categories of freehold charges were fixed as per the land use earmarked in the prevailing Master Plan, for'Residential' at the rate of 40% of the applicable Circle Rate of land(s) andfor 'Non-Residential' at the rate of 60% of the applicable Circle Rate of
land(s) and not as per the land usage mentioned in the lease deed or actual usage. The aforesaid Government Order dated 1st December. 1998 also states that a discount of 30% shall be given on the freehold amount where the Circle Rate of land(s) has been amended between 30th November, 1990 and 29th November, 1991 and further a discount of 20% on the freehold charges shall be allowed in case of
one time payment.With the introduction of the new Nazul Policy, 1998, nazul land can be disposed off by way of sale. If any sale deed is executed, cost of land is to be recovered on the basis of market rate and stamp duty as a conveyance on circle rate of 1991


B- Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Karnal Durai v. District Collector
Tuticorin and Anr. . it has been held that if during the pendency of an application for grant of a mining lease the rules are amended, the application is to be decided as per the amended rules.
C-Honourable H.C Allahabad in S.N. Lal vs State Of U.P. And Ors. 2007 (2) AWC 1491 held as below
    Para 7-----------further the free hold deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 5 was subject to the final decision in the case of Satya Narain Kapoor v. State of U.P. and Ors. hence it is humbly submitted that the deponent has bona fide followed the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.
   Para 19--------- The officer has acted arbitrarily. He adopted an uncalled for procedure-which reflects upon his integrity. His approach to the case has compelled the petitioner to go through the litigation agony, loss of time, and money apart from harassment.
   Para20-------We mould the relief and set aside the order titled 'Minutes of Proceedings' dated 20.12.2004 and declare that sale deed dated 21.12.2004 (between respondent Nos. 3 and 5) shall remain in abeyance/inoperative till final decision on the question of grant of the freehold in favour of the petitioner; and in case it is decided in the petitioner's favour, the respondent No. 5 shall be entitled to the refund of stamp duty on said sale deed in her favour.
     Para 23. Writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above with cost-which we quantify at Rs. 25,000 to be paid by respondent No. 1 with liberty to realise it from the officer concerned.
D- All G.O of Nazul Land was introduced during the pendency of the proceedings and sub judice as Honourable Allahabad H.C held in Harish Tandon vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 30/3/2006 ( 2006 (3) AWC 2829 D.B)
para 32 . Save and except Government order of the year 1995 no Government order is static. All the Government orders were time to time reviewed irrespective of the facturn that one of such reviewed Government order of the year 1998 was or still is subjudice before the Supreme Court or before the High Court.

Para 42. . The Government orders as reviewed time to time in the year 1998, which is under challenge, and the Government order of the year 2002, which was introduced during the pendency of the proceeding, appear to be prospective in nature.
Pendente lite

principle of pendente lite nihil innoventur (pending a litigation nothing new should be introduced) as in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

( the matters pending at the Supreme Court.)

State of Uttar Pradesh itself was the appellant at the Supreme Court :-

A- 15-10-1997 High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32605 of 1991, Satya Narain Kapoor v. State of U.P. and Ors.. The High Court held therein, apart from other points, 'nazul' land cannot be converted to freehold land. On the Special Leave Petitions of the State of U. P., the Supreme Court passed ad interim orders on different dates. In effect, the orders of the Supreme Court desire that status quo be maintained.

 B- 1-12-98 Government Orders as a policy, on general land transfers of lease lands, published in a booklet inviting applications for conversion into freehold. In the booklet, the State have made the following clause.

"In this connection, I have been directed to say that the steps be taken under the aforesaid amendment and modification being made applicable with immediate effect, and the policy should be given wide circulation and publication so that the concerned parties may understand its implied provisions and receive its benefits.

All proceedings for freehold will be subject to the orders being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 1557-59/98 filed by the State of U.P. against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, dated 15-10-1997 in Writ Petition No. 32605/91, Satya Narain Kapoor v. State Government and Ors.

This order is being issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department under its D.O. No. E-6-2286/Ten-98 Dated 28-11-1998."

C- (Harish Tandon vs State Of U.P. And Anr. 2006 (3) AWC 2829 Para 2)

Originally the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 27th January, 1999 praying inter alia for quashing the Government order dated 1st December, 1998, suitable order for conversion of land after disposal of S.L.P. No. 1157-59 of 1998 filed by the State before the Supreme Court, and orders as regards valuation, stamp duty, etc

D -26-10-2004 the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 26th October, 2004 and remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.

E - 21-03-2007 writ of Satya Narain Kapoor vs State Of U.P. And Ors. accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated

F - Utilisation of leased land for the purpose other than that set forth Under the provisions of Rule 20 of the Nazul manual, every lease or sale of nazul land at concessional rates under Rule 18 or 19 of the rules shall be subject to the condition that if the land leased or sold is not utilised within a period to be fixed by the State Government or for the purpose for which it was given, the State Government has the power to cancel the lease or sale and
resume possession thereof. C.A.G Report year 2006-07Para 4.2.9.1)
http://www.cag.gov.in/html/cag_reports/up/rep_2007/rev_chap_4.pdf

G - 28-12-2007 Government direction to File civil suit and civil suit no 330 of 2008 ,331 of 2008 is pending in the court of Civil Judge S.D.,Basti


    

फ्री होल्ड कराने का हक पट्टाधारक का होगा या उस संपत्ति पर काबिज व्यक्ति का

Jan 10,

नई दिल्ली । ऐसी नजूल संपत्ति जिसका पट्टा वर्षो पहले समाप्त हो चुका है और दोबारा उसका नवीकरण नहीं कराया गया, उसे फ्री होल्ड कराने का हक पट्टाधारक का होगा या उस संपत्ति पर काबिज व्यक्ति का, इस कानूनी मुद्दे पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट विचार करेगा। कोर्ट ने अलीगढ़ की ऐसी ही एक संपत्ति के विवाद में उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार, अलीगढ़ प्रशासन और अन्य पक्षकारों को नोटिस जारी किया है।
न्यायमूर्ति पी. सतशिवम और बी.एस. चौहान की पीठ ने अलीगढ़ के छेदालाल नामक व्यक्ति की याचिका पर उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार, अलीगढ़ के जिलाधिकारी व अपर जिलाधिकारी [नजूल] और मूल पट्टेदार के कानूनी वारिसों आदि को नोटिस जारी किया। इससे पहले छेदालाल के वकील डी.के. गर्ग ने पीठ से कहा कि उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार का 1 दिसंबर, 1998 का शासकीय आदेश ठीक नहीं है जिसमें खत्म हो चुके पंट्टे के पट्टेदार को भी नजूल संपत्ति फ्री होल्ड कराने का हक दिया गया है। हाई कोर्ट ने याचिका खारिज करते समय इस बात पर ध्यान नहीं दिया कि अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद नजूल संपत्ति [भूमि] पर पट्टेदार का अधिकार नहीं रह जाता। वास्तव में जिसके कब्जे में संपत्ति है उसे ही फ्री होल्ड कराने का हक मिलना चाहिए। कुछ हद तक उनकी दलीलों से सहमति जताते हुए पीठ ने टिप्पणी की कि नियम के मुताबिक तो पट्टा अवधि खत्म होने के बाद पट्टाधारक का संपत्ति पर कोई हक नहीं रह जाता वह भूमि तो वापस सरकार में निहित हो जाएगी। यह कहते हुए कोर्ट ने प्रतिपक्षियों को जवाब दाखिल करने के लिए नोटिस जारी कर दिए। छेदालाल ने इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट से याचिका खारिज होने के बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया है।
यह मामला सुभाष चौक, खैर, अलीगढ़ का है। 1959 में यहां नजूल संपत्ति 1785/84 का पट्टा रौती प्रसाद के हक में दिया गया। 1964 में छेदालाल ने उस जमीन पर बनी दुकान किराए पर ली। छेदालाल के मुताबिक वे तब से वहां किराएदार हैं और 1966-67 में मूल पट्टाधारी रौती प्रसाद की मृत्यु के बाद उनके वारिसों ने छेदालाल को बाहर निकालने के लिए मुकदमा डाला। लेकिन वारिस सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक से मुकदमा हार गए। इस बीच उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने नजूल संपत्ति फ्री होल्ड कराने के समय-समय पर शासनादेश जारी किए। इन आदेशों में पट्टेदार और जिनके पट्टे की अवधि समाप्त हो चुकी है दोनों ही तरह के मामलों में नजूल संपत्ति फ्री होल्ड कराने के नियम जारी किए गए। याचिकाकर्ता का कहना है कि जिनके पट्टे की अवधि समाप्त हो चुकी है या जिन्होंने पट्टे की शर्तो का उल्लंघन किया है उन्हें नजूल संपत्ति फ्री होल्ड कराने का हक नहीं मिलना चाहिए। उन संपत्तियों में यह हक उस व्यक्ति को मिलना चाहिए जिसके कब्जे में संपत्ति है। जबकि, हाईकोर्ट के फैसले में कहा गया है कि शासनादेश में पट्टेदार और खत्म हो चुके पट्टे के मामलों में कोई भेद नहीं किया गया है

Nazul land ,Nazul land of Ayodhya,Interpretation of H.C.Allahabad, Acts of excutive Officers

Definition of Nazul land –Satyanarain Kapoor vs State of U.P and Others the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, dated 15-10-1997 in Writ Petition No. 32605/91

                                          And (Harish Tandon vs State Of U.P. And Anr. 2006

                                             (3) AWC 2829)
           

Nazul Land

  Entry 18 of the second list of the seventh schedule to the Constitution,empowers the Government to legislate on land, i.e. rights over land, land tenure, collection of rents, transfer and alteration of agricultural land, land improvement, etc.
Government land is the land vested in the State Government. It includes nazul

Nazul land* estate land#, land acquired through ceiling$.

The State Government is empowered to dispose off the land in its possession by lease or sale as the case may be. The land revenue comprises receipts from land revenue/tax, rates and cesses on land and other receipts. All the receipts from Government land are deposited in the consolidated fund of the State.

* It is the land confiscated from the jamindars, nawabas, rajas etc. It was neither acquired nor was the cost thereof paid.

# Property which are under the management and administration of Board of Revenue is defined as estate land.

$.Land obtained through ceiling pertains to such land which has been acquired by the Government under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976.

The management, administration of Government land and the related activities

The management, administration of Government land and the related activitiesare governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Nazul Manual, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the Nazul Manual), Government Property Management (Amendment) Rules, 2003, Uttar Pradesh Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Government orders issued from time to time.

The Principal Secretary Avas, Uttar Pradesh is the administrative head of

Government land at the Government level. Chairman, Board of Revenue

(BOR) is the overall incharge of Government land and the district magistrate

(collector) of the respective district is responsible for the management and

administration of Government land.

disposal of nazul land

Under the provisions of the Nazul manual, nazul land can only be leased out.Under the provisions of rule 22 of Nazul manual, lease for nazul land shall not ordinarily be for a period shorter than 30 years in the first instance and shall, in all cases, provide for renewal after expiry of the first and subsequent terms upto a maximum period of 90 years. The granting of lease in perpetuity in respect of any nazul land on any term is prohibited. Rule 67 of Nazul Manual, read with Rule 22, prohibits granting of lease in perpetuity of nazul land. In such cases, where lease was granted in perpetuity or period of lease was not mentioned, a maximum period of 90 years can be considered for lease. Under the above provisions, the nazul land let out on lease for a stipulated period is required to be evacuated as and when the concerned lease terminates. With the introduction of the new Nazul Policy, 1998®, nazul land can be disposed off by way of sale. If any sale deed is executed, cost of land is to be recovered on the basis of market rate and stamp duty as a conveyance.

® The policy provides the guidelines to regularise the possession of

land in unauthorised occupation. But the time frame and procedure to

dispose off nazul land in custody of the Government have not been

prescribed in the policy or by any subsequent Government order.

SYED MOHD. JAVED HAMID,ZAIDI & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1577 of 1999
Syed Mohd. Javed Hamid Zaidi and others Versus State of U.P. and another
***
Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.
Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.
(Delivered by Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.)
Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.2.1975 and the order dated 11.11.1998 (Annexures-6 and 14 to the writ petition). The petitioners further seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide their application (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and not to convert disputed Nazul land into free hold land in pursuance of Government Order No. 1562/9-11-4-92-20 of 1990.
The facts of the writ petition in brief are these:
A lease deed (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was executed by the respondents on 20.4.1936 in favour of Abdul Aziz in relation to Nazul plot Khasra No. 1930 measuring .19 acre and .17 acre situated in Mohalla Faujpura, district Lalitpur for the purpose of construction of dwelling house. The lease deed was for a period of 90 years renewable after 30 years. Abdul Aziz real uncle of the petitioners said to have settled in Egypt. The petitioners assert that Abdul Aziz executed a Hibanama on 30.7.1947 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in favour of Abdul Hamid, father of the petitioners. The petitioners have stated that their father approached the Collector for mutation of his name in place of Abdul Aziz on the basis of Hibanama dated 30.7.1947 but he was advised to wait uptill the due date of renewal of lease. On 10.8.1971 the petitioner's father moved an application for renewal of lease and mutation of his name in place of Abdul Aziz. The petitioners' father approached the collector to take a final decision over the application dated 10.8.1971 but no action was taken. In the year 1974 a new district Lalitpur was carved out of district Jhansi. The petitioners' father approached the Collector district Lalitpur to take action on his application dated 10.8.1971. Another application dated 24.11.1975 (Annexuire-5 to the writ petition) for renewal of lease and mutation was made by the petitioners' father. In May 1981 the petitioners' father enquired from the office of the respondent no. 2 about the decision on his applications dated 10.8.1971 and 24.11.1975 and was informed that his application for renewal and mutation was rejected vide order dated 3.2.1975. The petitioners have challenged the order-dated 3.2.1975 on the ground that it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the rules provided in U.P. Nazul Manual. The petitioners' father moved an application on 22.5.1981 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 3.2.1975. Again an application was moved on 21.2.1983 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) for renewal of lease and mutation. The petitioners have alleged that the respondent no. 2 did not dispose of the applications dated 22.5.1981 and 21.2.1982 during life time of their father. On 14.12.1995 the petitioners moved an application before the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for renewal of lease and conversion of Nazul land into free hold land. The respondent no. 2 had sent a notice on 7.5.1997 to the petitioner no. 1 to deposit Rs.200/- and to make an application in the prescribed proforma for conversion of Nazul land into free hold land. The petitioners made compliance of the notice dated 7.5.1997. The application of the petitioners for conversion of Nazul land into free hold land was rejected by an order dated 11.11.1998 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). The G.O. No. 1562/9-11-4-92-29 dated 23.5.1992 having been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Narain Kapoor Versus State of U.P. the petitioners were advised to wait till the decision by the Apex Court.  The operation of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Satya Narain Kapoor having been stayed the petitioners  filed an application before the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for renewal of lease and mutation of their names over the disputed property. The contention of the petitioners is that two government orders   being under judicial review before the

Apex Court

, the respondents be restrained from converting the disputed Nazul land into free hold land.
The counter affidavit of Chandra Prakash, Tehsildar, Lalitpur has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that building for residential purpose was to be constructed within 18 months in accordance with the terms, conditions and site-plan enclosed with the lease deed. The lessee Abdul Aziz having not raised constructions and having migrated to Pakistan the land in question vested in the Assistant Custodian, Jhansi under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. After the expiry of the period of first 30 years in the year 1965, the Managing Officer/Assistant Custodian, Lucknow as well Abdul Hamid applied for renewal of the lease of the disputed Nazul plots. Both the applications were rejected vide order dated 3.2.1975. The respondents have stated that Abdul Hamid did not inform the then Collector about the execution of Hibanama during the continuation of the period of lease. The contention of the respondents is that the property in dispute having been declared as evacuee property, there was no occasion for mutation of the names of the petitioners' father. According to the respondents the petitioners' father did not submit documents in support of the application as desired vide letter dated 4.11.1972 and 2.2.1973 duly received by Abdul Hamid. According to the respondents the petitioners' father having not submitted the copies of the judgments the order dated 3.12.1975 was passed on the basis of the documents available. The contention of the respondents is that the case of the petitioners was duly considered by the then Collector, Lalitpur while passing the order dated 3.2.1975. The respondents have stated that the application of the petitioners for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights has been rejected vide order dated 11.11.1998.
The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit stating that the disputed land is part of their abadi and they are in continuous possession of he said land. According to the petitioners the order dated 22.1.1952 does not relate to the property in question nor the said property was attached under the Ordinance of 1949. The petitioners have reiterated that the order dated 3.2.1975 was passed without considering the documents relating to the title and possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have denied that the disputed land is evacuee property. The petitioners allege that the applications dated 22.5.1981 and 21.2.1983 are pending disposal before the respondent no. 2.
We have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record of the writ petition.
The dispute relates to Nazul land forming part of plot no. 1930 situated in Mohalla Faujpura district Lalitpur. Admittedly, the said land was leased out to Abdul Aziz vide lease deed dated 20.4.1936, renewable after a period of 30 years. After partition Abdul Aziz settled in Egypt. On coming into force of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, the land in question vested in the custodian. Thirty years period of lease came to an end in April 1966. The petitioners claim right, title and interest in the disputed land on the basis of Hibanama dated 30.7.1947 said to have been executed in favour of their father by Abdul Aziz. There is no document indicating the presentation of application for renewal of lease before coming into force of Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 or before the expiry of the period of lease. The petitioners' father made an application for the first time on 10.8.1971 for renewal of lease and mutation on the basis of Hibanama. The lessee Abdul Aziz having left for Pakistan, the lessee rights vested in the custodian. The lease was granted to Abdul Aziz for the construction of dwelling house but no constructions were raised by him. The petitioners' father having failed to produce evidence in support of the application dated 10.8.1971 despite repeated reminders, the said application was rejected by an order dated 3.2.1975.
The terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 20.4.1936 provided "to hold the said premises upto the lessee for the terms of thirty years from the first day of December 1935 rendering therefor during the said term the yearly rent of Rs. Three only clear of all deductions. In each year at the office of the Tehsildar, Lalitpur at such other place or such Collector may from time to time appoint in this behalf the first of such payment to be made on the 1st day of December 1935 next AND the lessee doth hereby covenant with the Secretary of State that during the said term he will pay the yearly rent hereby reserved on the days and in the manner herein before appointed and also will pay and discharge all rates taxes charges and assessment of every description which are now or may at any time hereafter  be assessed charges or imposed upon the said premises or the buildings to be erected thereon or the landlord or tenant in respect thereof and also will within Eighteen Calendar months next after the date of these presents at his expenses and to the satisfaction of the Collector for the time being of Jhansi in a good substantial and workmanlike manner erect and complete on such parts of the said premises as are marked out on the plan hereto annexed a dwelling-house and out-building according to a plan and elevation to be approved by such Collector which dwelling-house and out-buildings shall be of value of the Rs. Five hundred  at least and also that no part of the external elevation or plan of such dwelling-house and out-buildings shall at any time be altered or varied from the original elevation or plan thereof without the written consent of such Collector and no other building shall be erected on the said premises without the like consent and also will at all times repair support and keep in good and substantial conditions and repair such dwelling-house and out-buildings both externally and internally and also the boundary and other walls, sewers drains rails gates fences and fixtures of or connected with the same  and will permit  the Secretary of State and his agents once in every year in the day time after twenty four hours previous notice of his or their intention so to do to enter into  upon and view the condition.
The lessee Abdul Aziz did not construct dwelling-house and out-buildings over the leased land. There is not an iota of evidence showing payment of annual rent, taxes and charges etc. by Abdul Aziz or father of petitioners immediately before or after the coming into force of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. Under the lease deed there was consent that Secretary of State may re-enter the premises in case of breach of any of the terms and conditions. The request for renewal of lease was to be made not less than six months before the end of 30 years. The petitioners' father did not make a request for renewal six months before the expiry of period of 30 years. Such request was made five years after the expiry of period of 30 years. The original lessee having committed the breach of the terms and conditions of lease the lease stood determined and the Secretary of State re-entered into the premises and the application for renewal of lease moved by the Managing Officer and the petitioners have rightly been rejected.
Apropos to what has been stated above, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.
D/-31.3.2006

Revenue Records

                         The entire land in Ayodhya is "nazul land", that is, State land administered by local bodies which allot them to parties for a specific period after obtaining premium of the land. It is the nazul map of 1931 which has been cited in the case with the plot numbers as shown in the State land revenue records. But the government's notification of 1991 deliberately cited plot numbers from settlement maps of 1961 and 1937 - plots 159 (part), 160, 171 (part) and 172 (part). This created confusion. For instance, plot No.160 cited in the notification incorporated five plots of nazul land including plot No. 586 (as per revenue records) on which the shilanyas was held in 1989.
The mosque itself is on nazul plot no. 583 and falls in revenue plot nos. 146, 158 and 160. Nine of the 23 disputed plots of which the court is seized fall within the four revenue plots acquired by the government.
The High Court's judgment of December 11, 1992, exposed the fraud behind the lease. Justice Verma's obiter gave the VHP some hope. The terms of the lease, read with the High Court's judgment, should dispel all misconception about the so-called "undisputed" character of the adjacent land. The deed of March 20, 1992, should be formally cancelled. If the government will not, the courts should.
The grant, moreover, was part of a larger transaction which was struck down as void in a unanimous judgment of three Judges of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, delivered on December 11, 1992, on the acquisition of the land in 1991. This forgotten ruling has acquired great relevance today for its thorough exposure of the entire web of deceit. The Judges commented also on the deed of lease.
Frontline -Volume 19 - Issue 09, Apr. 27 - May 10, 2002-A.G. NOORANI

AYODHYA

A deceitful, invalid claim

The Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad claim, on the basis of a March 1992 lease deed, that they own the land adjacent to the site of the Babri Masjid. When the terms of the lease deed have been brazenly violated, the violators have no claim to its restoration. In fact, any citizen can now move the court for the cancellation of the lease.
A.G. NOORANI
THE terms and conditions of the lease deed of March 20, 1992, knock the bottom out of the case of the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas (RJN) and the VHP that they owned the land adjacent to the site of the demolished Babri mosque. The claim was based on deliberate falsehood. It had far-reaching consequences because of its uncritical acceptance. The majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, delivered by Justice J.S. Verma, said: "The interest claimed by the Muslims is only over the disputed site where the mosque stood before its demolition. The objection of the Hindus to this claim has to be adjudicated. The remaining property acquired under the Act (The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993) is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims. A large part thereof comprises of properties of Hindus of which the title is not even in dispute" (Ismail Faruqui vs. Union of India (1994) six Supreme Court Cases 360, on page 407). He spoke of the "rights of ownership of Hindu owners of the adjacent properties" and asserted: "The adjacent area in respect of which there is no dispute of title and which belongs to Hindus" (page 411).
This was pure obiter and ipse dixit. There was no occasion or need for Justice Verma to say all that. He had absolutely no material before him in its support, but, much in the government's White Paper, which he cited, to the contrary. The VHP cashed in on his remarks and mounted a campaign for the return of the adjacent land even after the crime of December 6, 1992, was perpetrated. It was based on two propositions - the adjacent land belonged to the RJN before the acquisition and its restoration to it and to the VHP, which runs the RJN, will not prejudice the litigation concerning the site. In all 67.703 acres of land was acquired under the Act. The RJN-VHP claim return of 43 acres. The lease deed exposes both propositions to be false. The 43 acres belonged to the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was given on lease to the RJN for specific purposes only. Construction of a temple was not among them; in fact, it conflicted with them. Besides, the RJN-VHP took the land on false pretences. The object in 1992 was to build a temple on the site of the mosque. That is also the object for which its return is being sought now.

A facsimile of the sketch map of the property in dispute.

BJP president Jana Krishnamurthy claims: "The actual dispute is over 80 ft by 40 ft where the structure known as Babri Masjid was located (and) the rest of the land is not in the disputed site. This land was bought (sic.) by the VHP and the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas... there is some basis for the demand" (The Indian Express, February 6, 2002). Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's statement in Parliament on March 14 belied that: "The Nyas is a permanent lessee of 42 out of 67 acres of this acquired land, adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya. It is also the owner of an additional 1 acre out of this acquired undisputed (sic.) land." Why he omitted to mention the conditions of the lease is for him to explain.
The terms of the lease blow sky-high the claim that the land is "undisputed". It was state-owned land, public property in which all citizens have an interest - Muslims included. The terms of the lease were violated, brazenly. The entire transaction was deceitful. Any citizen can move the court now for cancellation of the lease. The violators have no claim to its restoration - in order to commit further breaches.
The object of the lease was "the development as Shree Ram Katha Park for the purpose of tourism development by Government of Uttar Pradesh... The lessee has proposed to implement this project on behalf of 'Shree Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas' using its own resources. Upon which - (that is, on the basis of this representation and for this object) - it has been decided by the Government of Uttar Pradesh that the aforesaid land be given to 'Shree Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas' to implement this project of Shree Ram Katha Park..."
Clause 3 of the deed binds the lessee "to implement" that project. Clause 4 empowers the lessor, the State government, "to enter" the land for inspection - as its owner. The deed explicitly says that the land is demised under the Government Grants Act, 1895. This law was enacted to deprive lessees of state land from the protection which the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 confers on lessees. It makes grants unilateral transfers by the state terminable at will if their terms are violated. The lessee is in fact a grantee.
Deceit is written all over the transaction. The grant was given by the BJP government of Kalyan Singh. The grantee, the RJN, had no interest in the Park as such; its declared object was construction of the temple. It was not a public purpose, but a favour to one side in a litigation. It is void on this ground alone (H.M. Seervai; Constitutional Law of India; Fourth edition; Vol. I; page 933).
The grant, moreover, was part of a larger transaction which was struck down as void in a unanimous judgment of three Judges of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, delivered on December 11, 1992, on the acquisition of the land in 1991. This forgotten ruling has acquired great relevance today for its thorough exposure of the entire web of deceit. The Judges commented also on the deed of lease.
Justice S.C. Mathur's judgment recorded the basic facts. The RJN's Trust Deed was executed on December 18, 1985: "The first object of the trust is to reconstruct the temple of Sri Ram at Sri Ram Janmabhoomi and the beautification of the spot all around. Rest of the objects are connected with the reconstruction of the temple and re-installation of deities. From this it would follow that the trust is a religious one.... The association of the trustees with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh has also not been disputed."
The 1991 acquisition had a background. Some 55.674 acres of land, well beyond the Babri mosque, were acquired on January 20 and 23, 1989, and on September 27, 1989, for laying out a Ram Katha Park.
The objects of this acquisition were to use the Park "to create experience (sic.) of the cultural aspect emerging from the great epic Ramayana... The park should be integrated with the overall development of Ayodhya... in order to have wider appeal and to uphold secular ideas, the emphasis should lie on philosophic and on the unique aspect of Rama's life rather than on the ritualistic aspect."
It was designed to take the steam out of the VHP's campaign. When the BJP came to power in Uttar Pradesh on June 24, 1991, it latched on to it and perverted it to its own ends. Construction of a Ram temple was promised in the Governor's address to the State Assembly on July 31, 1991. On October 7, 1991, 2.77 acres of land around the mosque were acquired by the government dishonestly - "for the development of tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya." When this acquisition was challenged in court, the BJP government, in an affidavit dated January 3, 1992, asserted in categorical terms: "No plan for development of Ram Katha Park could be completed without Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Sthal (the site and adjacent land) being included into it, as the Ram Katha Park was designed to be built around Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. With this end in view, the State government has further acquired... 2.77 acres of land of Ram Janmabhoomi Sthal so that an integrated plan can be prepared.... A part of the land of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi will be left vacant for the renovation and reconstruction of Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman there" (the idols of Ram planted in the mosque in December 1949).
It was the lands thus acquired that were given on lease to the RJN on March 20, 1992. Justice S.C. Mathur remarked: "It is apparent that the land of Ram Katha Park and the present land are to be used for one and the same purpose. The land of Ram Katha Park has already been handed over to a trust whose aims and objects are religious and whose trust board is dominated by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad." Thus, the acquisition of land in October 1991 and the transfer by lease in March 1992 were part of the same transaction and had the same object - construction of the temple. Justice Mathur's remarks on the trust as a VHP body are significant. He held the acquisition in 1991 to be "camouflaged... in order to give advantage to Hindus in the litigation". He struck down the notification of October 7, 1991, as void. The other two Judges on the Bench fully concurred. The lease cannot survive the striking down of the acquisition.
Justice Brijesh Mathur noted that the acquisition was linked to the proposed temple and said "the only proper thing would have been to wait until the rights of the parties are settled as regards the title of the property." This advice is very relevant now.
Justice S.H.A. Raza recorded the petitioners' contention that the graveyard adjoining the mosque, and the mosque, are "inseparably attached to the religious practice of the Muslims". The Namaze Janaaza (funeral prayer) is said at the mosque before the burial in the graveyard which was waqf (trust) property. Muslims had a clear legal interest in the "adjacent land". He referred to the site-plan filed in the old case in 1885 which "shows the graves over all the four sides facing the outer boundary of the shrine".
The entire land in Ayodhya is "nazul land", that is, State land administered by local bodies which allot them to parties for a specific period after obtaining premium of the land. It is the nazul map of 1931 which has been cited in the case with the plot numbers as shown in the State land revenue records. But the government's notification of 1991 deliberately cited plot numbers from settlement maps of 1961 and 1937 - plots 159 (part), 160, 171 (part) and 172 (part). This created confusion. For instance, plot No.160 cited in the notification incorporated five plots of nazul land including plot No. 586 (as per revenue records) on which the shilanyas was held in 1989.
The mosque itself is on nazul plot no. 583 and falls in revenue plot nos. 146, 158 and 160. Nine of the 23 disputed plots of which the court is seized fall within the four revenue plots acquired by the government. More than half of the disputed area, including the shilanyas site, has been acquired. A jubilant general secretary of the VHP, Ashok Singhal, summed up the result for all to see on October 14, 1991 - only a mere 3,200 square feet near the mosque itself has been excluded. But included in the acquisition were the famous Ram Chabootra, within the compound of the mosque, the Sumitra Bhavan, the Sankat Mochan Mandir and the Sakshi Gopal Mandir. The RJN destroyed 16 temples.
The High Court's judgment of December 11, 1992, exposed the fraud behind the lease. Justice Verma's obiter gave the VHP some hope. The terms of the lease, read with the High Court's judgment, should dispel all misconception about the so-called "undisputed" character of the adjacent land. The deed of March 20, 1992, should be formally cancelled. If the government will not, the courts should.
However, the incontrovertible position is that the land now vests in the State of U.P. and the RJN-VHP claim to its return to them rests on the lease deed. That document is based on fraud. Its terms were broken, anyway. It cannot be acted on or enforced.
Even if the acquisition is denotified, the 43 acres should not revert to the RJN-VHP, for two reasons: the lease deed itself was a fraudulent one and the lessees violated it recently. Now nothing survives of the lease. It is state land to be used only for a public purpose; as citizens Muslims have a legal interest in the public purpose for which the land will be used hereafter.