- (1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner late Shri Avadh Prasad through his legal heir Shri Ganesh Prasad, for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 7.5.2014 (Annexure-5) and further seeking direction against the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and to renew the lease deed dated 7.1.1982 for a period of 99 years.
(2.) The short facts of the present petition are that one Shri Avadh Prasad Sareen was given on lease a piece of land admeasuring 100 x 80 feet situated on GT Road, Dholpur by the respondent No.2 on 1.1.1970 for establishing a petrol pump allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation. The said Shri Avadh Prasad Sareen was also given on lease another piece of land admeasuring 30 x 80 feet adjacent to the said land for a period of 7 years on 11.11.1970. As per the case of the petitioner, the periods of both the leases were extended by the respondent No.2 for a period of 30 years on 07.01.1982. The said Shri Avadh Prasad Sareen expired on 11.5.1994 and according to the said Ganesh Prasad Sareen he being his real brother had inherited the said leased lands. The petitioner thereafter, submitted two applications to the respondent No.2 on 18.11.2011 seeking extension of the lease period with regard to the said two pieces of lands. However, the respondent No.2 without taking any decision on the said applications issued the impugned notice dated 07.05.2014 to the petitioner calling upon him to hand-over the possession of the said lands within three days. The said notice has been, therefore, challenged by way of present petition.
(3.) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing the reply raising preliminary objection contending inter alia that pursuant to the notice dated 7.5.2014, the final notice was served on 11.5.2014, and thereafter the possession of the lands in question was taken over by the respondents on 12.5.2014 with the help of the police and, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. It is further contended that the petitioner was not entitled to get any extension or renewal of the leases, in view of the decision of the Empowered Committee Meeting taken on 25.12.2012.;