State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4/State. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rishi Tondon, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 to 7. Sabina, Judge, (Oral) Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking following relief: (i) To set aside and quash the mining lease having endorsement dated 29.03.2022 Annexure P7 granted in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7. (ii) To direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 not to grant and allow respondents No. 5 to 7 run stone crusher on the land comprised in Khata No. 68 min, Khatauni No. 80, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on 21/12/2022 20:32:24 :::CIS 2 Khasra No. 981 measuring 06049 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mauza Sirat, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. . 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Khasra No. 981. Lease deed was executed between petitioner No.1 and his brother on one side and respondent No.7 as the other party on 24.04.2010. As per the said lease deed, land bearing Khasra No. 981 was leased out to respondent No.7 for running a stone crusher. After the expiry of the lease period in April, 2020, the petitioners had not renewed the lease deed. Hence, the possession of the private respondents over the land belonging to the petitioners was illegal. The respondent No.3 has erred in granting mining lease in favour of respondent No.5 and Harsaran Singh, partners of respondent No.7, vide Annexure P7, qua the land owned by the petitioners, as at the time of passing of order Annexure P7, there was no valid lease deed in favour of the respondent No.7 issued by the petitioners qua their land bearing Khasra No. 981. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for private respondents on the other hand has opposed the petition and submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was not maintainable. In fact both the parities have already filed civil suits against each other. So far as civil suit filed by the private respondent is concerned by way of interim relief, their possession has been protected. The writ petition, involves disputed questions of law and the since parties have already taken recourse to legal remedy by filing civil suits, this petition was liable to be dismissed. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that although no fresh lease deed has been executed between the ::: Downloaded on 21/12/2022 20:32:24 :::CIS 3 parties after the expiry of the initial lease deed Annexure P2, but it was evident from the receipt of Annexure R5/1, issued by petitioner No.1 and his . brother Maan Singh on 12th October, 2020 with regard to receipt of dues of lease agreement till October, 2020 that the lease period had been impliedly extended. 5. In the present case admittedly lease deed was executed between the parties on 24th April, 2010. As per the lease deed, the petitioners had permitted respondent No.7 to run a s