- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Sri Arivind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Km. Puja Banga, Advocate for re spondent. 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 no tice 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 command ing the respondent not to disturb the running of petitioner's hotel or to interfere in the possession of the petitioner over the prop erty 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. " 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 re newal 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 Compe tent 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 Rahamatullah on 30-04-1966. Thereafter, mutation appli cations were moved on behalf of the per sons holding the rights by way of parti tion before the Military Estate Officer. The said mutation applications were not decided by the Competent Authority. In the meantime, notices were issued alleg ing therein that the buildings are 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 her itable rights to the lessee over the prop erty 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 Canton ment 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. Respondent Cantonment Board has filed its counter affidavit in which it has been admitted that the said build ing, where the Hotel is being run known as West View Hotel, Ranikhet along with appurtenant land, was leased out for a period of 66 years, which was to expire on 09-01-1984, by the Government of India in the year 1918 to the following persons : 1. Mst. Akhtar Jahan W/o Sri Abdul Salam. 2. Sri Khalid Masood Salam. 3. Sri Saeed Anwar Salam 4. Sri Qumar Salam All S/o Mst. Mehar Nigar Begam
(3.) MST. Tahira Begam Mst. Naseema Begam. 5. The said lease expired on 09-01-1984 and thereafter, it has not been re newed by the Government of India. The original lessees have divested all their rights after the expiry of the lease in the year 1984. The petitioner is neither the original lessee nor she can claim rights on the basis of the lease granted earlier. The petitioner has purchased the 2/3rd share of the said land from the share holder of the lessee in the year 1991, after the expiry of the lease deed. The present petitioner applied for mutation to the Defence Estate Officer, Bareilly for mutating the said property in her favour on 2/-05-1998. The said permis sion was subsequently refused by the Defence Estate Officer, Bareilly. 6. We have heard the learned coun sel for the parties and perused the record.;