- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioners is to quash the letter/order dated 9-6-92 of the District Magistrate, Nainital as contained in Annexure-10.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned docu ment shows that the District Magistrate, Nainital requested the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Rudrapur (Nainital) to forward a proposal of transfer of 0. 167 hectare lands in favour of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kumaon Division, Nainital as per the rules and prevent anyone from encroaching the lands after observing that over an area of 1. 29 hectares of land in Khasra No. 307 there is an orchard of Lichi and Mango, over 0. 124 hectare, north of the said plot, there is a floor mill and over 0. 032 hectare of plot No. 308 there is abadi but remain ing 0. 167 hectare of land on the spot is vacant which is said to have been leased earlier by the Nazul Department but the period has elapsed on which a Workshop and Bus-stand can be erected on which 60 buses can be accommodated. The petitioners assert that in the Master Plan of Ram Nagar the place of Roadways Bus-stand and its workshop has been earmarked by letter T elsewhere of which the District Magistrate was himself the Chairman ; that after the expiry of 30 years period of the lease dated 4-11-1939 its renewal has been recommended and the petitioners have already submitted requisite papers and the State Govern ment had already directed the proceedings to be stayed and the District Magistrate, Nainital to renew their lease with a stipulation that it may be acquired for residential purposes. In the counter-affidavit attached with the impleadment application No. 79065 of 1997, filed by U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, to which no Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners despite receipt of their copy on 4-12-97, it has been stated, inter alia, that even though the land in question was ac quired for the purposes of Corporation and its possession was already handed over on 23-9-92 these facts have been con cealed in the writ petition, which has been filed without impleading the Corporation, which is a necessary and proper party; that thereafter the Corporation issued a notice inviting tenders for construction of boundary wall which the petitioners chal lenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13420-C of 1993 in which an interim order dated 26-4-93 was passed staying the construction of the boundary walls ; that since the public of Ram Nagar were agitat ing for creating of a Corporation Bus Stand, the District Magistrate was of the opinion that the land in question was suitable for construction of Corporation Bus Stand as the lease in question had already expired and thereafter the follow up action has been taken; that it is wrong to suggest that the petitioners are still in possession of the leased land; and that no cogent reason has been given explaining the gross laches of 6 months in filing the writ petition and, accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) SRI Sameer Sharma, learned Coun sel appearing on behalf of the Corpora tion, contended that in view of the un disputed facts the land in question are in possession of the Corporation, yet it has not been impleaded as a party-respondent and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non- implead ment of this necessary party alone. Sri Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, disputed the claim of execution of any document in favour of the Corporation by the State and prayed for admission of this writ petition.;