By the Court.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra in support of the petitioner and Sri Shandilya learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel who appeared for the State authority.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the District Collector, Allahabad dated 26.4.2008 by which the application filed by the petitioners for getting the land in question freehold has been rejected.

3. At the very outset it is to be mentioned that although there were several applicants but the Court is informed that the petitioners alone have challenged the impugned order and this has been stated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit also.

4. For disposal of writ petition facts in brief will suffice.

5. Petitioners and other applicants applied for getting the land known as Nazul Land No. 129 Civil Station freehold. One Satyawati Devi was original lessee of the land and it is on her death by means of subsequent development as will be noticed shortly, the application for getting the land freehold was moved which has been rejected which is subject matter of challenge.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Satyawati Devi, who died on 3.8.1986, being original lessee executed a registered will in favour of Ram Babu Sharma, who died in the year 1996 and before his death he also executed a registered will in favour of Phool Kumari and Suresh Sharma and others and these persons nominated the petitioners on 27.6.2002 to get the land in question freehold in their favour and the possession of the same was also handed over to them after receiving the full and final consideration for which a receipt dated 11.6.2002 is there. The claim is that on the basis of the nomination, petitioners applied for freehold on 3.7.2002 and at that time the policy mentioned in the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 was in operation permitting the freehold in favour of the nominee also subject to various other conditions so provided in that policy. The application for getting free hold was decided after a long time i.e. by impugned order dated 26.4.2008 and the learned Collector applied the policy/norms so applicable in view of the Government Order dated 17.3.2008 which is clearly erroneous.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioners was required to be considered by the learned Collector in accordance with the policy so prevailing at that time when the petitioner applied for getting the land freehold. The petitioner applied for freehold on 3.7.2002. The policy dated 1.12.1998 was to be taken note. The amendment to the policy of making freehold in favour of nominee was amended vide Government Order dated 10.12.2002 which is clear from the perusal of paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 10.12.2002. In the said Government order it is clearly mentioned that the policy/provision of making freehold in favour of nominee is being withdrawn and now freehold is to be done only in favour of original lessee or legal heirs or subsequent purchasers who have taken the land by means of registered sale-deed by paying stamp duty. It is further submitted that freehold has been made in favour of a large number of other lessee whose lease stood expired already and they applied lateron. This aspect was placed during the course of argument on the basis of a reply given from the office of the Collector under Right to Information Act dated 27.6.2009 which is annexed as Annexure-SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit. The submission is that as the claim of the petitioners has not been considered on merits and has been rejected only on the basis that term of the lease stood expired and the petitioners claimed to be nominee and in view of the present/current policy freehold in their favour cannot be made, the impugned order be quashed and the Collector be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the other claimants a