Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are brother and sisters. There is no dispute with regard to conversion of leasehold Nazul land of the petitioners to freehold excepting two issues:

(a) Whether 20% rebate will be given to the petitioners as per the Government order dated 10th December, 2002 or 10% as per the Government order dated 21st October, 2008 on account of deposit of requisite amount within 90 days from the date of demand notice?

(b) What would be the appropriate circle rate applicable to the respective petitioners?

Therefore, let us discuss both the points one after another.

2. So far as first point is concerned, three separate lease-deeds were executed and registered by the authority in favour of the petitioners on 25th September, 2007 giving separate plot numbers i.e.. Plot Nos. 146-A/1, 146-A/2 and 146-A/3, Civil Station, Allahabad. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for conversion of such leasehold lands to freehold on or before 25th June, 2008 as per the Government order dated 10th December, 2002 upon deposit of 25% amount of the self assessed value. On 21st October, 2008 subsequent Government order came into force. Respective demand notices were issued to the petitioners on 13th March, 2009 claiming therein inter alia an amount of Rs. 1,05,81,236.00, Rs. 1,08,66,946.00 and Rs. 1,13,81,601.00 respectively after adjusting 25% amount deposited by the petitioners as per previous Government order of 2002. But at the time of giving rebate under selfsame notices only 10% rebate has been allowed as per new Government order of 2008 instead of 20% rebate in case of deposit within 90 days. Against such demand notices, the petitioners made their respective representations, which were rejected by the concerned District Magistrate by orders dated 18th July, 2009 by reaffirming the demand notice.

3. Challenging the aforesaid demand notices dated 13th March, 2009 as well as the orders dated 18th July, 2009 the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed. However, this Court was pleased to direct the petitioners to deposit the entire amount under protest as per the demand notice dated 13th March, 2009, which shall be subject to the final order of this Court and if such payment is made, the Collector/District Magistrate shall take appropriate steps for execution of the freehold deed/s.

4. The moot point of the petitioners is that when the applications were made by the petitioners for the purpose of conversion of land from leasehold to freehold, the Government order dated 10th December, 2002 was existing, therefore, they are entitled to get the rebate of 20% on deposit within 90 days as per the aforesaid Government order. Since the deposits are made within 90 days either from the date of notice or from the date of order of the Court, there is no question of applicability of the Government order dated 21st October, 2008 retrospectively by giving rebate of 10%. In support of their contentions, the petitioners have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. O.P. Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2009(7) ADJ 285 (DB), wherein it has been held that the benefit will be given to the petitioners as on the date of making application. The petitioners cannot be penalised for inaction on the part of the authority.

5. It is not unknown to us that some unscrupulous persons, after making applications for conversion of land, keep the same pending indefinitely with unholy nexus and connection with the persons attached to the authorities. Similarly, sometimes for unlawful gain of some of the persons attached to the authorities, conversion processes are being delayed enormously. Both are bad. Court has no sympathy towards the persons involved in such type of activities. But the cases in hand are quite different. The petitioners have deposited 25% amount of self assessment as per the Government order dated 10th December, 2002 and other deposits are also made within the aforesa