Page No.# 1/18 GAHC030004312023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/101/2023 Sh. P. Lalthlamuana s/b his legally wedded wife Smt. Lalhmingliani S/o P. Saichhunga (L) R/o Tlabung Venglai, Lunglei District, Mizoram VERSUS The Regional Manager, State Bank of India and 4 Ors. Regional Business Office, Babutlang, Aizawl 2:The Branch Manager State Bank of India 3:The Union of India R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 4:The Addl. Deputy Commissioner and CALA (NH54A and 302) Lunglei District 5:The Secretary Tourism Dept. Govt. of Mizora Advocate for the petitioner : Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii Advocate for the respondents : Mr. Zodinpuia Hnamte, for R-1 & 2; Ms. Zairemsangpuii, CGC, for R-3; Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, Govt. Adv., for R-4; Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, for R-5 Page No.# 2/18 Date on which judgment is reserved : 24.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Zodinpuia Hnamte, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent No. 3; Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 4; and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to unfreeze his personal SBI Savings Bank Account, bearing No. 33016762571, IFSC Code. SBIN0005819, Tlabung Branch, Tlabung, Lunglei District, Mizoram. Background facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “The petitioner is a legal and rightful owner of a plot of land, bearing Page No.# 3/18 Periodic Patta Allotment No. G-738/1976, located at Demagiri Chhakah BRTF Road chung leh kham ko inkar, Tlabung, Lunglei District, Mizoram, which was extended from time to time and the same was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 302, under the National Highways Act, 1956, by the respondent No. 3, vide notification dated 22.11.2021, under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, in connection with such acquisition. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4, being a Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, had acquired the petitioner's land, an area measuring 3335.60 sq.m. and assessed the assets within such acquired portion. The respondent No. 4, in his assessment report, had assessed an amount of Rs. 37,17,672/- being compensation, including 100% solatium and the same was reflected at Sl. No. 185 of 3G Estimate for land acquisition with or without structure falling within NH-306 in the stretch of land, from Km 73.476 to Km 90.3 in Lunglei District, Mizoram. The said amount was credited to the petitioner's SBI Savings Account No. 33016762571, IFSC Code: SBIN0005819, Tlabung Branch, Tlabung, Lunglei District, Mizoram by the respondent No. 4 on 14.02.2023. Thereafter, on 23.06.2023, the petitioner came to know that his SBI account unexpectedly became inoperative and therefore, he enquired about the same in the office of the respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 23.06.2023, as to why his account could not be operated. Then, the respondent No. 2 had replied, vide letter dated 23.06.2023, stating that the petitioner's account had already been frozen on 24.05.2023, as per Page No.# 4/18 the letter of the respondent No. 4, dated 22.05.2023. Perusal of the said letter dated 22.05.2023, indicates that an amount of Rs. 37,17,672/- was mistakenly credited to the SBI account of the petitioner and the same should be apportioned between the petitioner and Tourism Department. However, on scrutiny of the assessment report, the petitioner's SBI savings bank account number, address and IFSC Code were taken on record, and it was also found that the estimated 3G award was made in the name of the petitioner by the respondent No. 4, and besides, there is no indication about the involvement of Tourism Department in the above stated document. It is the case of the petitioner that he has only one account, in which he used to keep his money, and on account of the same being frozen by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has been suffering from severe hardship and has no money for medical treatment as he is suffering from DM-II, Lower GI bleed, S. Typhus and HTN, and as such, he is under mental agony and his life is somehow in danger. The petitioner had also filed one Advocate notice to the respondents, for unfreezing his personal bank account on 27.06.2023. But, the same failed to evoke any response. Further, an amount of Rs. 37,17,672/- was sanctioned and released in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of Tourism Department, but the respondents had wilfully and illegally frozen the petitioner's one and only personal account, by alleging that the said amount was mistakenly credited to the petitioner's account, and the same is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, before freezing the bank account of the petitioner, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, which violates the principles of Page No.# 5/18 natural justice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.” Stand of the respondents: 4. The respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not the rightful owner of the land covered under Periodic Patta No. G-738/1976, and he already sold his land, covered under Periodic Patta No. G-738/1976, to the respondent No. 5, for construction of tourist destination for a consideration of Rs 10 lakhs, for development of tourist destination under Central Project. It is also stated that the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India on 08.09.2011, had sanctioned Rs. 484.63 lakhs for development of tourist destination at Tlabung to the respondent No. 5, and a sum of Rs. 222.61 lakhs was earmarked for construction of Tourist Lodge from the said project; and that the respondent No. 5 had approached the petitioner for sale of his land for a consideration of Rs 10 lakhs, to which he gladly agreed and sold in the name of donation. It is also stated that as agreed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 for construction of Tourist Lodge, upon the land of the petitioner, which he sold for development of tourist destination at Tlabung, the respondent No. 5 had initiated the project work and a work order was issued to Lushai Engineers Pvt. Ltd. on 03.09.2013, for construction of the building, and without any obstruction and without any disturbance, the Tourist Lodge was constructed and the petitioner did not have any claim of title, ownership and interest upon the land at any point of time, and that the respondent No. 5 occupied the building and developed the land for tourist Page No.# 6/18 destination at Tlabung, as sanctioned by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. 4.1. 4.1. It is also stated that the respondent No. 5 took steps for mutation of the land in favour of the Department of Tourism, but the petitioner started having objection as he already knew that the land was needed for widening of National Highway No. 302, and he objected for land survey for mutation in favour of the Tourism Department when the surveyor from Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Lunglei, VC Member and the petitioner and his wife were present at the site on 02.03.2022, and he stated that the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs he received was not for sale consideration, it was for the site development. Further, the Tourist Officer, on 05.03.2022, reported about the objection to her superior officer i.e. Director, Tourism Department and as a matter of fact, periodic patta does not confer title to its holder, as per the law of the land, and that some portion of the land covered under Periodic Patta No. G- 738/1976, was acquired for the purpose of widening National Highway No. 302, under the National Highways Act, 1956, by the respondent No. 3, and over the said portion of land, structures of the Tourist Lodge, such as tanky, column, fencing and pavement were constructed by respondent No. 5. It is also stated that it was no longer the petitioner's land, which was acquired, as he had already sold the same to the respondent No. 5 for construction of Tourist Lodge and the same was constructed and utilised till date without any objection from him, and that the RCC tanky, RCC column (fencing), fencing and RCC pavement, were all constructed and owned by the respondent No. 5, which were assessed for payment of compensation and the compensation amount for such structures was transferred to the account of the petitioner by mistake, as admitted by the respondent No. 4, in its letter, dated 22.05.2023. It is further stated that the Page No.# 7/18 whole amount of Rs 37,17,672/- was not for the petitioner alone and the same had to be apportioned between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, and that the assessment for tanky, column, fencing & pavement amounting to Rs. 7,09,715/- with 100% solatium and interest, amounted to Rs. 14,19,432/-, and the same is entitled to by the respondent No. 5, but the same was transferred to the account of the petitioner by mistake, and that the crop damage was assessed from the land of the petitioner amounting to Rs 11,49,120/- with 100% solatium, which becomes Rs 22,98,240/-. 4.2. It is also stated that a meeting was held on 17.11.2022, in the chamber of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner/CALA Lunglei, and as agreed by the petitioner, who was a member of the said meeting, an estimate for land acquisition of the petitioner as well as the Tourism Department was made in the name of the petitioner and accordingly, the compensation amount in respect of the said Periodic Patta No. 738 of 1976, amounting to Rs. 37,17,672/-, was duly deposited and disbursed into the State Bank of India Account No. 33016762571, belonging to the petitioner on 14.02.2023, by the respondent No. 5. Further, the petitioner had accepted and put his signature to the minutes of the meeting, held on 17.11.2022. It is also stated that the respondent No. 4 has rightly and promptly sent request to freeze the account of the petitioner as the compensation to be given to the respondent No. 5, amounting Rs. 14,19,432/-, was also deposited in the said account and the said amount is lawfully entitled to, by the respondent No. 5, and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. The respondent No. 4 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that the land of the petitioner was bought by the Tourism Department, Government of Mizoram before the year 2017, for construction of Page No.# 8/18 new building of Tourist lodge at Tlabung, for which the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, and that the Tourism Department had requested the Settlement Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Lunglei District for issuance of Departmental Land Pass (DPL), and at the time when demarcation was supposed to be done on 02.03.2022, the surveyor, member of the Village Council and the petitioner, along with his wife were present. However, due to widening of the National Highway No. 302 in and around at Tlabung area, the petitioner had connivingly claimed that the amount, so received by him, was for site development and that he never sold his portion of land and that he did not allow partitioning of his pass even though the construction of the said Tourist lodge was completed in the year 2017. Then, the said matter was reported to the Director, Tourism Department, vide letter dated 05.03.2022. It is also stated that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 302, under the National Highways Act, 1956, by the respondent No. 3, vide notification dated 22.11.2021, and being the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, his predecessor was pleased to make an assessment and said assessment included the building of the Tourism Department, which was valued at Rs. 18,58,836/-, and the said fact was never disputed by the petitioner at any point of time. 5.1. It is also stated that a meeting was held in the Chamber of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner on 17.11.2022, wherein the petitioner was present and he was a signatory to the meeting, wherein a resolution was adopted to the effect that the compensation from Periodic Patta No. 738 of 1976, to be provided to the Tourism Department, would include payment for the structures (Fencing, RCC Tanky and RCC pavement) and the remainder of the payment would be handed to the landowner, namely, Mr. P. Lalthlamuana, and given that the Page No.# 9/18 matter was between a private individual and the Government, an affidavit was not required, and the minutes of the meeting would serve as the agreement. It is also stated that though the full amount of award was disbursed to the petitioner in his SBI account No. 33016762571, it is clear that the assets mentioned in the award belong to the Tourism Department, which was valued at Rs 18,58,836/-, and the petitioner is estopped from claiming that the assets do not belong to the Tourism Department and the said amount is liable to be apportioned between the petitioner and the Tourism Department. It is also stated that the petitioner, later on had refused to apportion the compensation amount to the Tourism Department, for which the Chief Manager, Tlabung Branch was requested to freeze the petitioner's account. 6. The respondent No. 4 has also filed an additional affidavit, wherein it is stated that for the tanky, column, fencing and pavement, an assessment was made amounting to Rs 7,09,715/-, with 100% solatium and interest, which amounts to Rs 14,19,432/-, and that the crop damage of the petitioner was assessed to Rs 11,49,120/- with 100% solatium, which amounts to Rs 22,98,240/-. It is also stated that that the Tourism Department, Government of Mizoram had bought a portion of land of the petitioner, covered under Periodic Patta No. 738 of 1976, for a consideration of Rs 10 lakhs without formal sale deed as mandated, and on the said land, RCC Building, Tourist Lodge Tlabung was constructed by the Department, which was completed in the year 2017, and that partition and mutation of the land could not be completed in the year 2021, when notification for acquisition of affected land by the NH 302 construction project was notified on 22.11.2021. It is further stated that the petitioner was present in the meeting convened in the chamber of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, and also an amount of Rs. 37,17,672/- was deposited Page No.# 10/18 and disbursed into the State Bank of India Account No. 33016762571, belonging to the petitioner on 14.02.2023, by the respondent No. 4. 7. The petitioner has filed his reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, denying the statements and averments made in the said affidavits. Submissions:- 8. Ms. Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier order dated 22.03.2024, passed by this Court, and submits that vide the said order, the bank account of the petitioner was unfrozen, and that the prayer made in this petition has already been satisfied with and now the petition becomes infructuous, and therefore, the petitioner is not willing to pursue the petition and therefore, she has contended that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the same. 8.1. Further, on merits, by referring to Annexure-1 of the petition, she submits that the land bearing Periodic Patta No. G-738/1976, was allotted in the name of the petitioner and he paid the land revenue for the same. By referring to Annexure-2 of the petition, i.e. the Notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 22.11.2021, she submits that at Sl. No. 185, the land bearing Periodic Patta No. 738/1976, is shown in the name of the petitioner and the said Notification was published in the Official Gazette. Also, by referring to Annexure-3 of the petition, i.e. the survey report, she submits that the same also reflects the name of the petitioner and the area of land acquired is shown as 3335.60 sq.m. 8.2. Further, by referring to Annexure-4 of the petition, she submits that on 14.02.2023, a sum of Rs. 37,17,672/-, was credited to the account of the Page No.# 11/18 petitioner by the CALA, and thereafter, the petitioner found his bank account to be inoperative, for which he had written a letter to the Branch Manager, SBI, Tlabung Branch, and thereafter, vide letter dated 23.06.2023, the Branch Manager informed the petitioner that on the basis of the letter dated 22.05.2023 (Annexure-7), the account of the petitioner was frozen and though a notice was issued to the respondent authorities through the engaged counsel of the petitioner, the same failed to evoke any response, and being left with no other choice, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 8.3. She further submits that the petitioner has never sold any portion of land to the respondent No. 5 and he has not received any amount as consideration amount, and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received by him for site development. She also submits that the petitioner has already instituted one civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 11/2025, before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division-I), Lunglei district, for claiming his right, title and interest over the said plot of land and the same is still pending. She further submits that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have claimed that the land was sold by the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 14,19,432/- was assessed in respect of the property of the Tourism Department, yet the same is a disputed question of facts and the same cannot be adjudicated in this writ proceeding. 8.4. In support of her submission, Ms. Zothanmawii has referred to the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. vs. Anupama Patnaik, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 649. (ii) World Tel Inc. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 513. 8.5. She has also referred to an order, dated 11.03.2026, passed by the Page No.# 12/18 Telangana High Court at Hyderabad, in W.P. No. 7500 of 2026 [M/s. The Bottle Restaurant and Bar, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Kandibanda Sridhar, Nayakan Gudem, Khammam city & District vs. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Home), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and 4 others], to contend that any freezing order of bank account passed dehors such safeguards betrays a colourable exercise of power, is manifestly arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8.6. Further, she has referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, to contend that though the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, and that the land of the petitioner is illegally being occupied by the Tourism Department and that is also a disputed question of facts, that cannot be decided in this petition. Under the given facts and circumstances, she has contended to allow her to withdraw this petition or to allow the same making the interim order dated 22.03.2024, absolute, however, without any conditions. 9. Per contra, Mr. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, submits that though there is no document to show that the petitioner has sold some portion of his land to the Tourism Department, yet on payment of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, to the petitioner, he had sold the portion of the land to the Tourism Department, for which the Tourism Department has constructed a Tourist Lodge. He also submits that for construction of National Highway, a Page No.# 13/18 portion of land was acquired and over the said portion, one RCC tanky, RCC column (fencing), fencing and RCC pavement were there and a sum of Rs. 7,09,715/- with 100% solatium and interest, amounting to Rs. 14,19,432/-, was assessed for the same in the name of the Tourism Department and the said amount is lawfully entitled to by the respondent No. 5. But, mistakenly, the amount was deposited in the account of the petitioner, and as such, the respondent No. 4 has rightly asked the Branch Manager, SBI, Tlabung to freeze the account of the petitioner and there is no illegality in the same. 9.1. Mr. Lalnunsanga also submits that after the amount being credited in the account of the petitioner, a meeting was called by the respondent No. 4, on 17.11.2022, and a resolution was adopted therein, and the said document is annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure-II/A, at page No. 24, the petitioner is a signatory to the same and now he cannot turn around and take a different plea as he is estopped. He also submits that while the Department had initiated steps for partition of the land and a surveyor attended the site, the petitioner and his wife had opposed the same as in the meantime, survey was conducted by the National Highways Authority of India for acquiring the land, for which mutation could not be materialized. 9.2. By referring to a decision of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23148/2025 (Sayed Sarfaraj vs. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.), Mr. Lalnunsanga submits that the disputed amount in the Bank Account can be frozen, though the account cannot be frozen. Under the given facts and circumstances, he submits that there is no merit in this petition, and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the same. 10. Mrs. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 4, however, Page No.# 14/18 submits that though some disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition, yet this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate the same. She further submits that though the prayer in the writ petition is only to unfreeze the account of the petitioner, yet the Court can go into other aspects of the matter also. 10.1. In support of her submissions, Mrs. Khiangte has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785. 10.2. Mrs. Khiangte further submits that the respondent No. 4 has rightly asked the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to freeze the account of the petitioner, wherein the amount belonging to the Tourism Department was mistakenly deposited, and under such circumstances, she has contended to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties. Discussion and Analysis:- 12. As submitted, as well as pointed out, by Ms. Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the land bearing Periodic Patta No. G-738/1976, was allotted in the name of the petitioner, vide Annexure-1 of the petition, and the Notification issued by the Government after acquiring the land of the petitioner, was also issued in the name of the petitioner and his name finds mention at Sl. No. 185. Further, the assessment of the land, the crops damaged and the structures standing thereon were also assessed in the Page No.# 15/18 name of the petitioner. The 3G estimate (Annexure-5), also indicates that the same was assessed in the name of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 37,17,672/-. And the said amount was credited in the bank account of the petitioner. However, the said account was frozen by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a letter dated 22.05.2023, of the respondent No. 4. 13. Indisputably, before freezing the account of the petitioner, no notice was issued to him and no opportunity of being heard, was given to him. It is well settled that the amount so deposited in the said account and the account is a property of the petitioner, which is a Constitutional right as well as human right, though not a fundamental right, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi (supra). 14. It is to be noted here that though the respondent No. 5 in its affidavit- in-opposition, had taken the plea that the land was sold to the respondent No. 5 by the petitioner on payment of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, yet, admittedly there is no documentary proof to support the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, being the consideration of the land purchased by the respondent No. 5. Notably, in its affidavit, the respondent No. 5 had clearly stated that there is no document of purchasing the land. 14.1. In its affidavit-in-opposition, at paragraph No. 5, the respondent No. 5 has stated that it approached the petitioner to purchase his land for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, to which he gladly agreed and sold in the name of donation. But, the petitioner denied receiving the same as sale consideration. Thus, this is a disputed question of fact. Similarly, another disputed question of fact involved herein is whether the respondent No. 5 has illegally occupied the land of the petitioner. Admittedly, a civil suit being Civil Page No.# 16/18 Suit No. 11/2025, in respect of the same is pending before the learned trial Court. It is well settled in the cases of Anupama Patnaik (supra) and World Tel Inc. (supra), that this Court is not entitled to adjudicate disputed question of facts. Reference can also be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein it has reaffirmed the general principle that High Courts normally do not decide seriously disputed question of facts in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such questions are better left to civil suits or statutory forum where evidence can be led. 15. It also appears that before freezing the account, no notice was issued to the petitioner and as such, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Indisputably, the account of the petitioner has already been unfrozen on the basis of the earlier order dated 22.03.2024, passed by this Court, and as such, the prayer made by the petitioner has already been satisfied with, for which the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition. 17. This Court has also considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the decisions referred by them, and this Court finds that the same cannot be concurred with, in view of the following reasons: (i) There is no document such as Sale Deed, Agreement for Sale to show that the petitioner had sold a portion of his land to the respondent No. 5 for construction of Tourist Lodge. (ii) Though the respondent No. 5 claimed having purchased the land on payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, yet no supporting documents, such as Page No.# 17/18 receipt etc. have been produced in support of the same. Though, the petitioner has admitted receipt of the same, yet he did so for site development. (iii) Serious disputed questions of facts, as discussed herein, are involved in this petition and this Court is not entitled to adjudicate the said disputed questions of facts on the basis of affidavit as evidence is required to be led and appreciation of the same will be necessary to determine the same. (iv) The petitioner has already instituted one civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 11/2025, before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division-I), Lunglei district, claiming his right, title and interest over the plot of land where the Tourist Lodge is presently situated, which is still pending for decision. (v) Right to property, though not a fundamental right, but a constitutional right recognized under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and the bank account of the petitioner and the amount lying there is the property of the petitioner that cannot be frozen, except by due process of law, which has not been followed. (vi) While freezing the account of the petitioner on the basis of the letter of the respondent No. 4, no notice of hearing was given to the petitioner, for which the principles of natural justice stand violated. (vii) Though the respondent No. 4 has issued the letter to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 asking them to freeze the account of the petitioner, yet there was no proof before the respondent No. 4 to substantiate that the land in question belongs to the Tourism Department, except the Page No.# 18/18 minutes of the meeting dated 17.11.2022, and to the considered opinion of this Court, the said minutes of the meeting cannot be accepted as a proof of selling a plot of land by the petitioner to the Tourism Department, not to speak of the right, title and interest of the respondent No. 5 over the said plot of land, also it cannot operate as estoppel against the petitioner. (viii) Further, during the pendency of this petition, this Court vide order dated 22.03.2024, had already unfrozen the account of the petitioner and as such, the prayer made in this petition has already been satisfied with. Conclusion: 18. In the result, while not allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition, the issues raised in this petition stand adjudicated on merit, as discussed herein above. 19. Since the prayer of the petitioner has already been satisfied with, vide interim order dated 22.03.2024, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by making the interim order dated 22.03.2024, absolute. And, the conditions, so imposed in unfreezing the account, stand cancelled/withdrawn. 20. However, liberty will remain with the respondent No. 5 to get his grievances addressed before appropriate forum. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant