ORDER
1. Soon after partition of the country in August 1947, there was influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees from West Pakistan to the Indian Part of the State of Punjab, which was then known as East Punjab, and also to the other parts of the country. To rehabilitate these refugees and also to provide them with vocations, the Legislature of the erstwhile State of East Punjab enacted the East Punjab Refugees Rehabilitation (Building and Building Sites) Act, 1948, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), to enable the State Government to acquire land for the purpose of carving it out into plots for the construction of residential house, shops, cattle sheds, garages, workshops, factories etc. The plots or the buildings constructed by the State Government thereon were to be leased out or sold to the displaced persons from West Pakistan. Under the Act, a residential colony called 'Model Town Jullundur' was planned. While some house were built by the State Government in the said colony and were sold by auction, the remaining sites for buildings were sold an the construction thereon were later on made by the vendees. Model Town Jalandhar is a well laid out colony. Besides carving out plots for residential purposes, separate market was also established. Sites were provided for establishment of religious and educational institutions besides parks etc. The petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have along with their pleadings, placed on the record copies of the plans of Model Town Jalandhar, Annexure P-3 A and Annexure R. 6/4 respectively. In the present writ petition, we are concerned with a group of house bearing Nos. 400 to 408. A look at the plans aforesaid would show that these house are located side by side in the form of a rectangle. On the outer side of this group of houses there is a road all around on which these houses open. A particular feature of this group of houses is that none of these house adjoin each other on the back side. Rather on the back of these houses, there is an open space which, as admitted by both sides, measures 7 Kanals in area. The colony is so planned that similar group of house with a road all around and an open space on the rear is across the 60 feet wide road. These house bear Nos. 190 to 197. It is further not in dispute that all these house have a door each from the backyard which opens on this open space. The open space is not completely enclosed by these house. There are two paths, 10 feet wide brick-lined, leading from the road towards this open space. The open space was apparently not brought into use for any specific purpose, although according to some official correspondence, to which reference will be made later. It was intended that a tubewell would be installed and a part would be established there, but this never materialised. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 are occupiers and owners of houses Nos. 40 IR, 405L, 402R, 407 and 404R respectively, while Dr. Gulwant Singh Parhar respondent No. 5 is the owner and occupier of House No. 403-L. All these houses are in the group, referred to above. The case of the petitioners is that when it was found that the open space was not brought into use by the Government for any specific purpose. Respondent No. 5 encroached upon about 258 square yards of the land out of this open space adjoining his house on the backyard, and later raised a pacca construction thereon, so as to make it a part of his house. Taking cue from respondent No. 5, the owners of the other houses in the group, including the petitioners also extended the territory of their respective house by encroaching upon some land out of the open space, firstly by surrounding the encroachment by barbed wire and later by raising pacca walls. However, on resentment expressed by the public these encroachments were later on demolished, but the pacca construction raised by respondent No. 5 was allowed to remain intact. Respondent No. 5 made efforts to purchase a part of the aforesaid open space. The petitioners also made applications for making a similar purchase out of the open space. The petitioners complain that while nothing has been heard about the fate of their applications, 2 Kanals 11 Marlas 155 square feet of area shown in red colour in the plain Annexure P-1 has been sold out by the State Government to Kuldip Parhar Memorial Charitable Hospital Society respondent No. 4, which society, according to the petitioners, is nothing b but a proprietary concern of respondent No. 5 and his close relations. The petitioners, through the present writ petition, have challenged the aforesaid sale of land in favour of respondent No. 4 through the letter of the letter of the State Government dated April 21, 1981 (Annexure P-22).
2. It may be mentioned here that this writ petition was earlier dismissed in limine by a Division bench of this Court. Petitioners No. 1 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was allowed, and Civil Appeal No. 3334 of 1983 (Smt. Kamal Kanta Anand v. State of Punjab) was disposed of vide judgment of the Supreme Court dated March 21, 1983. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the order, dismissing the writ petition in limine, by this Court, the Supreme Court remitted the writ petition 'for due consideration of all the points involved in it and for disposing of the matter by a considered judgment after hearing all the parties'. A direction was also contained in the judgment that the parties shall be at liberty to file additional documents before the High Court. When the writ petition was again listed for Motion hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners filed an amended writ petition, in which they incorporated various additional averments and also appended a number of documents as annexures. The petitioners made certain allegations of mala fide against Shri Beant Singh, the then Minister for Revenue and Rehabilitation, Punjab, personally, and impleaded him as respondent No. 6. when the present writ petition came up for arguments before me on November 21, 1985, it was found that respondent No. 6 had not been served and in fact according to the office note, no process-fee was filed for his service. At this, Mr. D. s. Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he did not press the allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 6 personally and that he should be given up as unnecessary, 1 accordingly passed an order on November 21, 1985, deleting the name of respondent No. 6 from the array of parties.
3. The learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments on the following tow questions which arise out of this writ petition:--
(I) Whether the State Government had the power to transfer a part of the open space in question to the Society-respondent No. 4: and
(ii) Whether the transfer of the land in favour of respondent No. 4 is arbitrary, discriminatory and damages the cause of the petitioners and other owners of residential houses Nos. 401 to 408 and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. As regards the first question, I do not find much difficulty in answering the same. In fact the matter is not res integra. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1973 Cur LJ 599. The power of disposal of the building sites, open spaces, etc. vests in the State Government vide section 4 of the Act. which before its amendment by Act No. IV of 1961 was to the following effect:--
' The provincial government may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the buildings sites, open spaces, and the sites reserved for public purposes, to refugees or to others for the benefit of refugees or build upon or otherwise manage such sites itself'.
Later on, by the amendment aforesaid the words 'reserved for public purpose to refugees or to others for the benefit of refugees' were omitted. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the open space in question was no longer on open space but had been reserved for public purpose i.e. for installing a tubewell and establishing a park. To establish his assertions he had taken me through various documents appended with the petition. The original lay out plan was not produced with the writ petition. Even the respondent, including the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3, made no attempt to produce the same. it was, however, pointed out by the counsel that the original lay out plan was available on the file of Civil Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1971 i.e. Piara Singh's case (supra). The said plan was gone through with the help of the learned counsel. It is found that in the original lay out plain, which is drawing No. 74/5-JUC/49 dated may 9, 1949, the open space is simply shown as proposed open space and has been indicated by dots. It is quite possible that at some later stage, the authorities thought of using this open space for installation of a tubewell and establishment of a park, as referenee to this effect is found is some of the documents forming part of the petition. This idea appears to have been given up later on. The net result, therefore, is that it remained an open space. Having heard at length the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken in Piara Singh's case (supra) that under S. 4, open space could be sold or leased out by the State Government and in view of section 4 of the Act, no representation could ever be made by the Government to any person that the open space would be preserved as an open space and would not be sold or leased out as a building site. The petitioners' counsel invited my attention to the letter of he Punjab Government, Department of Rehabilitation, dated February 3, 1961 (Annexure P3) and the plan Annexure P 3A and contended that since the control of open spaces, including the open space in question, was transferred to the Municipal Committee concerned on the clear understanding that these sites were properly maintained and utilised for the specific purpose for which these had been earmarked and that their character was not changed, the State Government had no right to transfer a part of the land out of this open space. The learned counsel, while referring to the plan Annexure P-3A, also brought out that the open space in question was shown in green colour and it had been transferred to the Municipal Committee. This contention was raised in Piara Singh's case (supra) also, and it was held that the letter, Annexure P3, only vested the control over the open space in the Municipal Committees the Government and proprietary rights, which were retained by the State Government. Thus, by transferring the control to the Municipal Committees the Government did not lose its right to lease out or sell the open spaces provided in S.4 of the Act. Being in full agreement with the view in Piara Singh's case (supra), I repel the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and hold that the State Government had the power to lease out or sell a part of the open space in question to respondent No. 4.
5. Before dealing with the second question, it is necessary to refer elaborately to the facts brought on the record. In spite of the fact that vide letter dated February 3, 1961, Annexure P3, the open space in question along with other open spaces marked green in the plan Annexure P3A was transferred to the Municipal Committee, Jullundur, for its proper maintenance, respondent No. 5 encroached upon 258 square yards of land out of this open space. He even raised building thereon so as to include it in his residential house No. 403L. It appears that when proceedings for eviction of respondent No. 5 under section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973, were initiated or were in contemplation, he moved an application dated November 15. 1979, Annexure P.4 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Rehabilitation, that 'an area of 258 square yards of surplus rehabilitation land has been inadvertently encroached by him in his building since 1956 or possibly earlier, that he was running a hospital known as Perhar Hospital in his building and since the same was being used for humanitarian purpose the land in question already occupied by him should be transferred to him at reserved price.' The collector observed that the area unauthorisedly occupied by Respondent No. 5 was a part of open space left for use by the residents of the locality and, therefore, his request for transfer of the said strip of land to him could not be accepted. Taking cue from respondent No. 5, some other occupants of the houses surrounding the open space in question also encroached upon the open space. They were also served with notice under section 4(I) of the Act. A copy of one such notice dated October 10, 1979, is Annexure P. 8. It appears that later on Dr. Jagdip Singh Perhar son of respondent No. 5 moved the Government for transfer of a part of the open space in question for the purpose of charitable functioning of Perhar Hospital. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, addressed letter dated April 28, 1980, to the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur (Annexure P. 10) requesting him to look into the charitable functioning of the Perhar Hospital and to report whether the institution was actually associated with Public Utility Service and whether the institution had any registered body and had the funds to make payment of the price of Government land and whether the land so purchased would be utilised for public welfare for future. This enquiry appears to have been entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jullundur, who made a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, vide letter dated June 26, 1980, (Annexure P. 12) stating that the institution by the name of Kuldip Perhar Memorial Charitable hospital Society (impleaded herein as respondent No. 4) had been registered only a couple of days before the posting of application dated February 10, 1980, and that this had obviously been done with the intention of grabbing the Government land. The institution had only Rs. 1100/- at its credit and the remaining amount appears to be nothing more than book transfer form the applicant's own private finance company to his own trust which had been established 'as recently as a fortnight back'. Obviously, before May 7., 19780, there was no charitable institution because no institution existed. It was a clever attempt to get Government land at much cheaper rate. In the last paragraph, the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) reported:
'In view of the facts mentioned above, I am not inclined to recommend the giving of land in question to the applicant'.
6. It may also be mentioned here that again taking cue form respondent No. 5 and for that matter from his son, petitioners No. 1 also moved an application dated May 10, 1980, Annexure P. 11, before the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation Department,. Jullundur, for transfer of 10 Marlas of land out of the open space in question.
7. Disagreeing with the report dated June 26, 1980. Annexure P. 12 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jullundur, the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, vide his letter dated July 25, 1980, Annexure P. 13, recommended to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, that since the society respondent No. 4 was a registered body run by its management to help the poor and the need patients by providing them free medical aid, the land adjoining house No. 403L be transferred to the Society on such payment as might be considered appropriate on the condition that the land so purchased by the Society would be utilised for public welfare only.
8. Here it is necessary to refer once again the letter dated February 3, 1961, Annexure P. 3 vide which the control of the open spaces shown green in the plan Annexure P.3A was transferred to the Municipal Committee, Jullundur. The Government in this letter recorded the following direction:
'However, if there is any exceptional bona fide demand, the case should be referred to Government after obtaining the views of the Provincial Town Planner, Punjab'.
9. This direction clearly provided for an exception that all the open spaces need not be used as parks and if there was a bona fide demand for converting the same into a building site or for some other use the matter should be referred to the Government after obtaining the views of the Provincial Town Planner. The Provincial Town Planner is now designated as the Chief Town planner. It was with this end in view that on receipt of the request of respondent No. 4 for transfer of 3 Kanals of land out of the open space in question, the Department of Rehabilitation, Punjab Government, addressed letter dated September 17, 1980, Annexure P. 14, to the Divisional Town Planner, Jullundur, to examine the land use for the specific purpose in accordance with the Government policy on the subject and advise whether the Government land could be sold for the specific purpose, i.e. establishment of hospital by respondent No. 4 by negotiation. A reply from the Divisional Town Planner is dated February 5, 1981, Annexure P. 15 where he stated that the site in question was an open space park as per the original lay out plan of the Model Town. He, however, stated that he had referred the matter to the Senior Town Planner (North), Amritsar, who had advised that is was not possible for the Department to agree to the conversion of the open space into residential plots etc. Having come to know about the processing of the application of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for transfer of land out of the open space in question, Shri Ranjit Singh Nazar, petitioner No. 5, made a representation dated February 15, 1980, Annexure P. 18, to Shri Darbara Singh, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, not to transfer land in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and to hold and enquiry about the distribution of land of the open space on the basis of physical occupation by the residents of the locality. It was also alleged that respondent No. 5 had illegally encroached upon the land. On this application, and endorsement is recorded which is signed by Shri Darshan Singh, General Secretary, Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee (1) on August 16, 1980, which is to the following facts:
'This is a case of land grabbing and misuse of official position. This needs thorough enquiry by the high officer, hence forwarded for action'.
On the direction of the Chief Minister, Punjab, an enquiry into the matter was ordered and a report was submitted by Shri P. C. Ved, Additional Settlement Officer (S) on January 21, 1981, wherein he recorded that the respondent No. 4 is a trust created by respondent No. 5 only as a means to appropriate the Government land; if the proposed big chunk of land is transferred to respondent No. 5 it would not only cause great inconvenience to the neighbors whose houses would be blocked to sun shine, but it would also spoil the beauty of the spot which can otherwise be developed into a beautiful park; since the Divisional Town Planner had already been approached to furnish a suitable plan for carving out small residential plots on the vacant site, the request of the complainant (petitioners No. 5) as well as Dr. Perhar (respondent No. 5) would be considered subsequently after having opinion of the Divisional Town Planner. On this report, the Deputy Secretary desired that the report of the Divisional Town planner should be obtained urgently. The final phase of the controversy comes whom an application dated March 6, 1981, signed by Jamiat Singh, as President of Kuldip Perhar Memorial Charitable Hospital, Annexure P. 20, was made to the Revenue Minister, Punjab. This application contains a recommendation signed by Shri Darshan Singh, General Secretary, Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee (I) and Shri Ram Lal Chitti, M. L. A., who recorded thus:
'This is a good cause for the need persons, so I recommend it '.
Evidently, the recommendation of the General Secretary of the P.P.C. (I) on the application Annexure P. 20 is in direct contradiction his earlier recommendation dated August, 16, 1980, on the application of petitioners No.5 (Annexure P. 18) where he styled the occupation of the land by respondent No. 5 as a case of land grabbing and misuse of official position Since Shri Darshan Singh has not been impleaded as a respondent and no opportunity has been given to him, it would not be proper to comment on his contradictory recommendation, Again on the application dated March 6, 1981, Annexure P. 20, Shri Beant Singh, the then Revenue Minister, directed the Financial Commissioner, Rehabilitation, to put up the case urgently and also to discuss the same with him. the application reached probably at the lowest level where an official recorded a three page not dated march 30, 1981, (Annexure P. 21) concluding as under:
'From the above, it is quite clear that the land now under occupation of Dr. Parhar and other residents of the locality which is situated in the Model Town area, is an open space/park. Since the Divisional Town Planner, after obtaining the advice from his Senior Town Planner (Nor the), Amritsar, has intimated that it would not be possible for that Department to agree to the conversion these open spaces into residential plots, the request of Dr. Parhar for the transfer of open space, measuring about 3 Kanals, by negotiation, for the establishment of Memorial Charitable Hospital cannot be acceded to and the illegal encroachment made by him and other residents are required to be removed'.
10. On this note, the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation, however, recorded his detailed views on March 30, 1981, and concluded as under:
'This case was also discussed by R. R. M. (Revenue and Rehabilitation Minister0 with me a few days back. as the site in question is required to perpetuate the memory of soldier, who laid his life for the cause of country and the case being duly covered under the extant policy, necessary sanction to the sale of land by negotiation at the rates proposed at A, on page 21 ante, be accorded. However, while taking necessary decision, the complaints made against the transfer of the land to the Society and the criticism made in the Grievances Committee 'Jullundur, be kept in view'.
11. This shows that having come to know of the views of the Minister for Revenue and Rehabilitation, the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) virtually turned non-committal. On April 8, 1981, Shri Bean Singh, the then Revenue and Rehabilitation Minister, Punjab, passed an order to the following effect:
' The land may be offered to them on concessional price. the money may be recovered in instalments '.
12. As a sequel to this order of the Minister, the impugned letter dated April 21, 1981, Annexure P. 22, addressed to the Tahsildar (S) Headquarters, conveying the decision of the Government to offer an area measuring 2 Kanals 11 marlas 155 Square Feet adjoining house No. 403L, Model Town, Jullundur, to the President of the Society respondent No. 4 at the cost of Rs. 90561/- was conveyed. The cost of the land was proposed to be realised in four half yearly equated instalments with 71/2 per cent interest per annum. A copy of this decision was also endorsed to the President of respondent No. 4 Society to deposit first instalment of Rs. 22640. 25 in the Government Treasury, Jullundur. It, appears that respondent No. 4 was in a hurry to finalise the deal having knowledge of the opposition to the transfer of the land by the neighboring residents of the locality. He, therefore, deposited the entire cost of the land on April 22, 1981. A registered sale deed was executed on April 29, 1981. The petitioners have made a reference to subsequent proceedings of the Public Grievances Committee, Jullundur, Annexure P. 22 urging the Revenue and Rehabilitation Minister to cancel the aforesaid sale and the opinion of the Rehabilitation Department on the basis of the said proceedings as also to a letter dated February 17, 1982, Annexure P. 26, of the Divisional Town Planner which was in response to building plans for construction on the land transferred to respondent No. 4 stating that the proposal was not in accordance with the lay out plan of Model Town and had been sent for rejection to the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur. It is, however, not necessary to make any elaborate reference to these subsequent events.
13. The above detailed reference to the facts makes it clear that while deciding to transfer the land measuring 2 Kanals 11 Marlas and 155 Sq. Ft. out of the open space in question to respondent No. 4, the Minister for Revenue and Rehabilitation, Punjab, and for that matter the officers working under him did not take into consideration either the opinion of the Senior Town Planner or the complaints made by the petitioners. Since the Senior Town Planner was opposing the conversion of the open space into a building site, it was necessary for the Government to apply its mind and come to the conclusion whether the said open space should be maintained as Part or should be converted into building sites. I do not dispute the right of Government to take a decision to convert the said open space into the building site, but no such decision appears to have been taken by the Government. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contended that the letter dated February 3, 1961, Annexure P.3., whereby the control of the open spaces, including the open space in question, was transferred tot he Municipal Committee, Jullundur, was no longer in force and that subsequent notification dated June 25, 1981, (Annexure R. 4/2) and another notification Annexure R. 4/3 make no mention of the open space in question. Through these notifications, open spaces in the Rehabilitation Colonies, including Model Town, Jullundur, have been transferred for management and control to the Municipal Corporations/Municipal Committees for maintenance as parks. These notifications are of no avail to the respondent for the reason that the impugned sale out of the open space in question had been made by the Government to respondent No. 5 in April, 1981, two months before the issuance of notification Annexure R. 4/2. It is, however, worth mentioning that similar open space surrounded by house Nos. 190-197 situate across 60 feet wide road has been transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur, for maintenance as a park. This makes it clear that but for impugned transfer, the open space in question would have likewise been transferred for maintenance as park to the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur.
14. As already mentioned above, the Government had the right to override the opinion of the Senior Town Planner and decide that her open space in question be converted into building site but again while taking such a decision it was necessary for the Government to secure the advice of the Chief Town Planner at least to my mind, on the following aspects of the matter:
(a) When the open space in question is surrounded on all sides by residential houses and the back doors of all these houses open on this space, would it be possible to use this open space as a building site ?
(b) Would the conversion of the open space in question into building sites not disturb the planning and symmetry of he planned colony (Model Town, Jullundur), particularly when just across the 60 feet wide road the open space surrounded by houses Nos. 190 to 197 similarly planned is being maintained as a park ?
(c) Would it be advisable to allow construction of a hospital in the interior of a residential area ?
(d) What would be the mode of approach to the hospital so established as apparently 10 feet wide road paths leading to the open space from two sides could not be sufficient for the vehicles, ambulance or other modes of transport for patients and visitors to the hospital ?
(e) If the hospital is constructed on the site shown in red colour in the plan Annexure P. 1, to what use can be rest of the open space measuring about 4 Kanals 9 Marlas with awkward dimensions be brought to If this remaining space is left by the Government unattended, would it open to all types of encroachments thereon once again?
(f) Was the request of the petitioners for transfer of parcels of open space adjoining their respective houses considered and if so how much part of the open space be transferred to each one of them while allowing respondent No. 4 to construct hospital on a part of the open space
15. The manner in which the application dated March 6, 1981, Annexure P. 20, moved by respondent No. 4 has been processed and final orders passed thereon by the Minister for Revenue and Rehabilitation, Punjab, on April 8, 1981, without adverting to any of the aspects mentioned above is, in my view, quite arbitrary. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has contended that the Minister took into consideration the charitable purpose of the hospital which was going to established in the memory of the son of respondent No 5 who was a Lieutenant in the Army and who laid down his life during the 1965 Indo-Pak war while defending the country. this, no doubt, is laudable object, but for achieving such an object the interests of the public at large, the planning of the locality, the adverse effect on the residents of the adjoining houses, on the establishment of a hospital as also the use to which the remaining land was to be put were required to be taken into consideration.
16. The activities of a democratic form of Government have a public element. They demand equality, absence of arbitrariness and discrimination. Where the Government is dealing with the public, it cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual deal in any manner it likes. Its action must be in conformity with the standard or norm which is rational. The power of the Government must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard of norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that its action was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. I find support for this proposition from Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. V. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147.
17. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that since the Government did not apply its mind to any of the aspects adverted to by me above and disregarded the earlier opinion of the Senior Divisional Town Planner, without its due consideration, the transfer of the land measuring 2 Kanals 11 Marlas 155 square feet to respondent No. 4 Society out of the open space surrounded by houses Nos. 4 Society out of the open space surrounded by houses Nos. 400 to 408 vide letter dated April 21, 1981, Annexure P. 22 is arbitrary, discriminatory and damages the cause of the petitioners and other owners and residents of houses Nos. 400 to 408 and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The sale deed executed between the Government and respondent No. 4 as a sequel to letter Annexure P. 22 is ordered to be cancelled.
18. It may, however, be made clear that this judgment may not be construed to mean that the space in question cannot be converted into a building site by the Government or that a hospital cannot be constructed thereon. All these things would be dependent on the advice of the Chief Town Planner and the decision which the Government might finally take on the advice tendered by him.
19. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure P. 22 is quashed and the sale deed executed between the Government and respondent No. 4 is cancelled. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
20. Petition allowed.