1. In all these matters, overlapping issues have been raised by the respective Petitioners, for which reason, by consent, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. These matters broadly form two groups. One group pertains to land from erstwhile Central Provinces area (i.e.Nagpur, Bhandara, Gondia, Wardha and Chandrapur). The second group is in relation to lands from erstwhile Berar area (i.e.Amravati, Akola, Washim, Buldhana and Yeotmal). In most of the Petitions, it is asserted that the land in question is Nazul land. In other words, only in few matters the land in question may be a non-Nazul land. Nevertheless, the issue that needs to be addressed in all these matters is common. The term Nazul land as observed by the Apex Court in Narain Prasad Aggarwal V. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 736 means land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated to the Government; property escheated or lapsed to State; commonly applied to any land or house property belonging to the Government either as an escheat or as having belonged to a former Government. As per Revenue Book Circular Section 4, Nazul Land is a land which has "site value" as opposed to "Agricultural Value". It further states that it is plots under building whether Government or Private encompassing grounds, parks, plots as used as building markets Symmetric, Potential building sites and lands likely to be needed for public purposes in near future. Nazul will also include the Government plots occupied by or vested in local bodies for schools, sarias, pounds, market.

3. Insofar as the matters pertaining to the Central Provinces Area, those matters can be further sub-divided into two groups. In the first group of cases, the Petitioners assert that the land in question was allotted to them and/or their predecessors pursuant to a Lease Deed executed by the competent Authority. In the second group of cases, it is asserted that no Lease Deed was either executed and/or is available.

4. In relation to matters where land in question was allotted pursuant to a Lease Deed, it is the case of the Petitioners that the lease condition provided for right to transfer or alienate and inheritance. Further, the lease condition postulates that on expiry of the lease period the Authority will renew the lease for further period on the same terms and conditions. However, on expiry of the lease period, the competent authority failed to execute the requisite renewal lease in favour of the concerned Petitioners; and instead was insisting that the Petitioners should accept new conditions to be incorporated at the time of renewal of lease, which conditions are prejudicial to the right and interest of the Petitioners. In the said set of cases, it is stated that insistence by the Authority to impose any new condition such as putting restriction on the right to alienate the land only after taking prior approval of the Competent Authority and upon payment of unearned income, was ex-facie illegal, impermissible and ultra vires. Whereas, in law, the Authority was obliged to renew the lease on the same terms and conditions which obtained in the former lease.

5. In cases where no lease is executed and/or available, the Petitioners are relying on the governing provisions of the Act and the Rules as were applicable at the relevant time in the concerned areas as well as the extant regulations governing grant of lease and the terms and conditions thereof. Even these Petitioners assert that they were enjoying right to transfer and inheritance. For that reason the Competent Authority was bound to recognise transfer of land effected by the lessee/grantee in favour of third party, irrespective of permission therefor of the Competent Authority is not obtained. For, there is no obligation to take prior permission- as the Petitioners(Grantee) had complete and unconditional freedom of alienation and inheritance of the land in