JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. Petitioner, a practicing advocate claims himself to be a tenant of House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad (new number being 85) built upon Nazul land bearing Nazul Plot No. 22 AA situated at Civil Station, Allahabad. The said plot was registered under the name of Smt. Chandrakala Devi. On 16.06.2001, approval was granted for conversion of the said Nazul Land into freehold in favour of legal heirs of late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. A sale deed was executed by legal heirs of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi on 18.08.2001 in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 10. By the present petition, petitioner is praying for the quashing of a government policy decision dated 26.02.2014 whereby approval was given to revise rates for conversion of Nazul property into freeholds and change in Nazul policy. He is also challenging Clause 10 of Notification dated 04.03.2014. A prayer for quashing of deed dated 07.07.2001 whereby in pursuance of order dated 16.06.2001, a sale deed was executed by the State in favour of legal heirs of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. A prayer seeking mandamus commanding the respondents to not interfere in petitioner's possession over House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad (built on Nazul Plot No. 22AA).

3. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by Ms. Maria Fatima, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 8 to 10 questions the maintainability of present petition at Lucknow. He submits that petitioner has previously filed a writ petition bearing number Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17060 of 2002 (R.S. Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) at Allahabad praying for mandamus commanding respondents therein to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner for the same Nazul property, which was disposed of by its judgment and order dated 19.02.2009, with observation that State is not duty bound to execute a sale deed in favour of any individual. Another writ petition bearing number Writ-C No. 15798 of 2010 (Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.) is also filed by the present petitioner at Allahabad wherein he has prayed for essentially the same reliefs with regard to same property. This is the third petition filed by the petitioner now at Lucknow with regard to the same property. He submits that filing of third petition at Lucknow, after filing two earlier petitions at Allahabad amounts to forum hunting and is against the settled principle of law that once a forum has been chosen by a party he should stick with the same forum with regard to all future litigation in the said matter. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another; (2004) 6 SCC 254.

4. Counsel for the petitioner insists that cause of action in the present petition has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow as well as Allahabad and thus present petition is maintainable at Lucknow also. Petitioner had earlier filed two petitions bearing numbers Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15798 of 2010 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17060 of 2002 at Allahabad. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not know whether Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17060 of 2002 is pending or disposed of. Filing of present petition at Lucknow is only an exercise of forum conveniens. He further states that in paragraph-68 and 85 of writ petition, petitioner claims that he has already disclosed filing of earlier writ petitions. Paragraph 68 of the writ petition reads-

"68. That consequently, the petitioner along with another had filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on 29.04.2002 challenging the grant of free-hold rights which was made in illegal and fraudulent manner. This was numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.. 17060 of 2002 where in the following order was passed:-

"Hon'ble M. Katju, J.

& Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Connect with Writ Petition No. 7478 of 2000. Standing Counsel may fil