The transfer of leasehold rights is subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the order, and the petitioner cannot selectively accept beneficial terms and avoid unfavorable ones.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has called in question order No. 217 of 2013 dated 15-02-2013 (impugned order), passed by respondent No.2 to the extent it provides for payment of premium of Rs. 1.28 crore by the petitioner.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the impugned order, he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1.28 crore in 03 installments within 12 months and the lease has been sanctioned only for remaining period of lease of erstwhile lessee – Sh. Farooq Ahmad Rather (lessee for short).

3. with a view to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner and the grounds of challenge urged, it is necessary to notice the material facts leading to the filing of this petition.

4. A big chunk of evacuee land, measuring 24 kanals, falling under several survey numbers, situated at Suthoo, Kuthar Bagh, Tehsil Chadoora of District Badgam, was leased out by the Evacuee Department in favour of lessee for a period of 40 years for industrial purposes. The lease agreement was accordingly executed on 13-03-1998, laying down the terms and conditions of the lease. The lessee aforesaid was also allowed by the Custodian, Kashmir, to raise construction on the said land. On the ground that the lessee had violated terms and conditions of the lease and had illegally felled down trees and raised multi storeyed building unauthorizedly, the lease was cancelled. The lessee, it is alleged, had also failed to pay the rent. The cancellation order was asssailed by the lessee before the J&K Special Tribunal at Srinagar [“the Tribunal”) by way of a Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Tribunal and the cancellation order passed by the Custodian, Kashmir, was upheld. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the lessee challenged the same before this Court in OWP 655/2006, which was disposed of by this Court vide order and judgement dated 19-05-2010. The order passed by the Tribunal in Revision Petition was set aside and as a result, the cancellation order passed by the Custodian, Kashmir, was quashed. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, Kashmir, was directed to issue formal notice to the lessee in respect of alleged violations committed by him and provide him a reasonable opportunity to submit his objections and then proceed in the matter in accordance with the rules.

5. It appears that the Custodian, Kashmir, reconsidered the matter in the light of the directions passed by this Court and submitted the case to the respondent No.2 for fixation of premium u/s 10-A of the J&K State Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act Samvat 2006 ("Act of 2006" for short). The lessee showed his reluctance to pay the premium on the ground that the lease in his favour was granted prior to issuance of SRO 149 of 1985 dated 15-04-1985 and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the premium. While this was going on, the lessee submitted an affidavit to the Department stating therein that he intended to transfer the leased land in favour of the petitioner herein and had also given him full authority for dealing with the Department of Evacuee Property on all matters connected with the leased land. It, thus, clearly transpires that with a view to avoid paying the premium demanded by the respondents, the lessee sold the leased property to the petitioner and executed certain documents, authorizing the petitioner to apply, process and get appropriate orders from the competent authority. On the request of the lessee, made through the petitioner, the case for transfer of lease from the lessee to the petitioner was processed in the office of respondent No.2. The premium payable was negotiated through Custodian, Kashmir. Having regard to the circumstances, vis-à-vis the unbecoming conduct of the lessee, the Custodian General, Kashmir, transferred the leasehold rights in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner subject to various terms and conditions which, inter alia, include condition No.1, which reads thus :

“I. That the lessee shall pay p