1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition NO. 2179/2011 Shri Govardhanlal L. Dave VERSUS The State of Mah. & others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MAY 03 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 6th March, 2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Nazul Tahsildar refusing to grant no objection in favour of the petitioner for renewal of the lease. The petitioner was granted a lease of land admeasuring 500 sq. ft. in Civil Lines area of Nagpur. The petitioner was running a canteen in the said lease premises. It is the case of the petitioner that the lease of the land was renewed by the respondents from time to time as the lease expired at the end of every year. After the lease period expired on 31.12.1991, the respondent Tahsildar decided not to renew the lease of the petitioner in view of a Govt. Resolution dated 15.4.1980 which provided that the civil lines area at Nagpur should not be leased for the purpose other than office and departmental residential quarters of the State. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar 2 refusing to grant ‘no objection certificate’ to the petitioner for renewal of the lease and hence the petitioner approached the appellate authority in an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 6.3.2011. There is nothing wrong in the order passed by the appellate authority on 6.3.2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had a right to get the lease renewed from the government every year. The lease of the petitioner was renewed from time to time, but after the respondents noticed that the lease could not have been granted or renewed in terms of the resolution dated 15.4.1980, the Tahsildar refused to grant no objection for the renewal of the lease after it expired on 31.12.1991. The Appellate Authority rightly considered the Govt. Resolution dated 15.4.1980 to hold that the petitioner could not have sought renewal of the lease as of a right. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is just and proper and does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader Shri Patel that the premises in which the petitioner was running a canteen has been demolished by the respondents at 11.00 a.m. today. Shri Choubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents had no authority to illegally demolish the premises in which the petitioner was running a canteen. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1989 SC 3 997 and 2011(3)SCC 436 in this regard. This court, however, cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the action of the respondents in demolishing the premises in which the petitioner was running the canteen as by the impugned order the appellate authority has merely rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner refusing the renewal of his lease and only the correctness of that order is in question before this court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan