NEELABH PRAKASHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard these matters at length since 24/02/1999 on different dates. Various counsel of the petitioners have been heard. Those who addressed the Court are Messrs. Sunil Ambwani, Tarun Agarwal, Madhur Prasad and Ravi Kant; on behalf of the State respondents, learned Advocate General and the Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) The petitioners vehemently prayed that the Court grant a stay order on the Government Order dated 1-12-1998 which has been issued pendente lite the matters pending at the Supreme Court. It is contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh itself was the appellant at the Supreme Court and these Government Orders should not have been issued. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by these petitioners that in similar cases another Hon'ble Division Bench has from time to time passed ad interim orders in writ petitions as and when filed, staying the Government Orders by rendering them inapplicable against a petitioner. It is contended that if this Court may not be persuaded to pass a general order staying the Government Orders, then, it may follow the ad interim order of another Division Bench on each petition, separately, as an ad interim measure, while the matters are pending at the Supreme Court.

(3.) These matters relate to Government grants which have been made on Nazul properties. The State of Uttar Pradesh declared by Government Orders that Government grants on Nazul estates could be converted as freehold rights. This Court in a decision in re. Satya Narain Kapoor v. State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. of 1991 : Decided on 15/10/1997 held that Nazul estates on which Government grants were given could not be made free hold and that the State holds these estates in trust. The Court had declared that grants may continue to be made to progenies and if the lineage comes to an end, then, fresh grants may be made to any person whom the State so desires. This judgment of the High Court was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh at the Supreme Court. On the Special Leave Petitions of the State of U. P., the Supreme Court passed ad interim orders on different dates. In effect, the orders of the Supreme Court desire that status quo be maintained.