Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121924-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22349 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Leelawati Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Madhesia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Nigam and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 on 27.02.2025 and assigned by the appropriate authorities on 25.02.2025 in relation to petitioner's leased property Arazi No.361Mi. measuring Area 675 Sq. Meter situated at Village-Jatepur, near Bobina Hotel, Tappa-Qasba, Pargana-Haveli, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gorakhpur vide Ref. No.453/CE/PWG/2023-24 under the head note of Expression of Interest (EOI) in pursuance of order dated 30.01.1973 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Second Appeal No.1431 of 1965 (The Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur Vs. Sri Ram Bilas Sharma) (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a property (Arazi No.361 Min Jumla) measuring Area 675 Sq. meter situated at village-Jatepur, near Bobina Hotel, Tappa-Qasba, Pargana-Haveli, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Gorakhpur was leased out to the petitioners by lease deed dated 20.03.1984 for a period of 30 years which was extendable up to 90 years. It is contended that the petitioners are the legal occupants of the aforesaid property by virtue of lease deed as the lease deed is for 30 years and therefore, even if the term of lease deed is not extended even then by the principal of holding over, their possession shall remain valid and thus, for the aforesaid property, no expression of interest can be issued till the petitioners are evicted in accordance with law. In the aforesaid backdrop, the aforesaid prayer has been made. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioners have already instituted a suit for injunction registered as Original Suit No.415 of 2024 praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Nagar Nigam and other defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner and since the petitioners are already pursuing the remedy of injunction by filing the suit, therefore, present petition is not maintainable. 6. Be that as it may, admittedly the lease was granted for 30 years and, thereafter, it was not extended. Whether the possession of the petitioner over the suit property can be said to be legal on the principal of holding over is a question of fact which cannot be determined by this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since, the said question is a disputed question of fact, therefore, the aforesaid relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have already instituted the Original Suit No.715 of 2024, seeking a decree of injunction against the Nagar Nigam and other respondents and since the petitioners are pursuing an alternative remedy, the petitioners may seek the relief claimed herein in the said suit by filing an amendment application and seek appropriate relief from the civil court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 S.Chaurasia (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad