Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Since in all the writ petitions identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, all the writ petitions are being taken up and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Undisputedly, the land in question, is a nazul land owned by the State Government, however, managed by Municipality. Undisputedly, State Government as per the free hold policy, issued an advertisement on 9th July, 1998, annexure-3 to the writ petition, inviting tenders for selling the nazul land. As per condition No.4 of the tender notice/notification, annexure-3, 1/4 of the bid amount was required to be deposited then and there and balance 3/4 amount had to be deposited within next 15 days. Advertisement/tender inviting notice, annexure-3 to the writ petition, clearly stipulates tender may be cancelled by Additional District Collector without assigning any reason. Petitioners submitted their respective tenders. Petitioners were found highest bidders. 1/4 of the bid amount was deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated time.

3. Having submitted tender, petitioners came to know that litigation is pending pertaining to the auctioned land before the competent Civil Court. Respondent No.5 had sought permanent prohibitory injunction against the State Government as well as Municipality not to make any interference in his possession over the nazul land. Having come to know about the pendency of the litigation, petitioners did not deposit balance 3/4 amount. Undisputedly, the suit filed by the respondent No.5 was dismissed. After dismissal of the civil suit, appeal filed by the respondent No.5, was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act seeking declaration to the effect that he has matured title on the basis of adverse possession. Suit so filed is still pending disposal.

4. Meanwhile, Additional Collector Nazul issued order dated 28.09.2012/05.10.20012 informing that bids were cancelled for non deposit of balance 3/4 amount within the stipulated time and ¼ amount so deposited by the petitioners stood forfeited. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred present writ petitions.

5. Mr. Bhupender Singh and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents fairly submitted that they were never granted any lease, patta or licence to occupy the land in question (nazul land). Further contended that since nazul land was lying vacant, therefore, they entered into the possession and started cultivation thereon. Further contended that since private respondents are in long possession for last more than 30 years and their possession has never been disturbed, therefore, they have matured title by way of adverse possession. Further contended that private respondents have applied to get free hold rights in their favour and State Government has decided to execute free hold deeds in their favour.

6. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that first of all bid of the petitioners ought not to have been cancelled the way it was cancelled. Further contended that in fact respondent No.3, Additional Collector played fraud on the petitioners by not mentioning in the tender notice that litigation was pending pertaining to the land in question. Had there been such information, petitioners would not have submitted their tender. Further contended that even on the deposit of balance 3/4 of the bid money, petitioners would not have got possession. Therefore, petitioners decided not to deposit the amount till final decision comes in pending litigation between the private respondents and State / Municipality. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the petitioners for not depositing the balance 3/4 amount. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that now some of the officers of the Government are adamant to help encroachers, i.e., private respond