Rajeev Gupta, J. - (1.)Sri Arivind Vashistha, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Km. Puja Banga, Advocate for Respondent.

They are heard.

(2.)Petitioner Anju Rekhi has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:
(a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/ show cause notice dated 20 -12 -06 passed by Cantonment Officer, Ranikhet and proceedings in pursuant to notice dated 22 -2 -2007 issued by on behalf of Cantonment Executive Officer, Ranikhet and its consequential proceedings.

(b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent not to disturb the running of Petitioner's hotel or to interfere in the possession of the Petitioner over the property in dispute in any manner.

(c) Any other writ order, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Award cost of writ petition to the Petitioner.

(3.)The disputed land, on which the hotel West View was constructed, was demised in favour of Mr. M.M. Lindsley for 66 years' lease with an option of renewal for another 66 years vide lease deed dated 10 -01 -1918 by the Union of India. The first term of the lease was to expire in the year 1984. Therefore, an application for renewal was moved on 03 -11 -1982, which was pending before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority neither renewed the lease nor rejected the renewal application. Thereafter, the Petitioner's predecessors in interest and the Petitioner, after the sale deed was executed in favour of the Petitioner, are holding over the property. As per the requirement of the lease deed, a permission to transfer the lease hold rights to Late Rahamatullah was sought and the same was granted in the year 1936 and thereafter, a partition took place among the heirs and legal representatives of Late Rahamatuliah on 30 -04 -1966. Thereafter, mutation applications were moved on behalf of the persons holding the rights byway of partition before the Military Estate Officer. The said mutation applications were not decided by the Competent Authority. In the meantime, notices were issued alleging therein that the buildings are unauthorised constructions. The Petitioner has further alleged in her petition that the transfer made in favour of the Petitioner was in accordance with law as the lease deed provides the transferable and heritable rights to the lessee over the property in dispute. The approval of the transfer in favour of the Petitioner was sought, which was never decided. Now, the Respondent Authority is threatening to demolish the hotel of the Petitioner and the impugned notice dated 20 -12 -2006 has been issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Ranikhet and another notice dated 22 -02 -2007 has been issued by a Lawyer on behalf of the Cantonment Executive Officer, Ranikhet. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
;