JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - Annexure 4 to the writ petition indicates that a lease was executed in favour of the petitioners with respect to an area of land for a period of 20 years. It also appear that this was a renewal of an earlier lease. It was clearly stipulated that the renewed lease will expire on 31st March, 1973. It appears that the petitioners made an application to the Nagar Palika Ram-nagar for the renewal/extension of the lease. On 27th December, 1989, the Additional District Magistrate, Nainital, Camp at Rudrapur, sent a communication to the Chairman, Nagar Palika, stating therein that the State Government had on 6th October, 1989, taken a decision, in reiteration of its earlier decision dated 1st February, 1982, that the land, which was the subject matter of the lease in favour of the petitioners, should be put to public auction. The arrears of rent, viz, a sum of Rs. 12,000 should be realised from the petitioners and if the petitioners had cut and removed certain trees standing on the said plot, the price of trees should be valued at Rs. 5,000 and that amount too should be realised. This communication is being impugned in the present petition. Today (9-7-1991) an application has been made on behalf of the petitioners seeking the amendment of this petition to the effect that they may be permitted to challenge the legality and propriety of the Government orders dated 1st February, 1982, and 6th October, 1989. Though this application has been made at a very belated stage-in the midst of the arguments of this petition in the interest of justice we are inclined to accept the same and allow the amendments sought for. 2. After exchange of the affidavits between the parties, the position which has emerged is this. The 20 years lease, which had been executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, expired on 31st March, 1973. This lease deed does not contain the usal renewal clause. After the expiry of the lease on 29th November, 5976, a notice was issued by the Municipal Board to the petitioners calling upon them to hand over possession of the demised land in view of the fact that the lease in their favour had expired. The petitioners felt that they may be dispossessed forcibly. They, therefore, approached this Court by means of a writ petition. The petitioners felt that they may be dispossessed forcibly. They, therefore, approached this Court by means of a writ petition. This Court took note of the stand taken by the Nagar Palika that in fact, the petitioners stood dispossessed. However, this Court refused to record any categorical finding on the question of fact with regard to the dispossession of the petitioner as it felt that the material placed before it was insufficient. This Court opined That the Municipal Board will dispossess the petitioners in accordance with law. This Court also observed that in case proceedings are initiated for the dispossession of the petitioners, it will be open to them to raise such pleas as are permissible to them under the law. On 2nd June, 1980, the petitioners received some sort of a letter from an official of the Municipal Board giving them an offer to pay a higher amount as premium. This offer, according to the petitioners, was accepted by them. The said offer and acceptance, according to the petitioners, has brought into existence a valid agreement. 3. Even in this petition the parties are at variance on the question of possession. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Palika it has been categorically stated that before the filing of this petition the petitioners stood dispossessed from the land in question. In the rejoinder-affidavit, however it has been averred that the petitioners are still in possession. We are not in a position to record any finding on this question. If the petitioners have not been already dispossessed from the land in question, the nature of their initial possession being juridical, they cannot he dispossessed except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. We, therefore, direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land in question, if they have not already been disposed therefrom, except in accordance with law. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed that we may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Nagar Palika to renew she lease in favour of the petitioners. We have already indicated that the foundation of this claim is the alleged offer and the alleged acceptance. We feel that this is not the proper forum to go into the question as to whether a valid agreement has come into existence. We have already indicated that the foundation of this claim is the alleged offer and the alleged acceptance. We feel that this is not the proper forum to go into the question as to whether a valid agreement has come into existence. This is a matter to be gone into in detail by a competent Court whose jurisdiction the petitioners, if so advised, may invoke. 5. Learned Counsel next urged that the petitioners have made two representations to the State Government praying therein that the lease in their favour may be renewed. He asked us to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to dispose of the said representations. We are not inclined to accept this prayer. The petitioners have no statutory right to make a representation. 6. The communication of the Additional District Magistrate dated 27th December, 1989, is, as already stated, based on the Government Orders X, dated 1st February, 1982 and 6th October, 1989. No arguments have been advanced by the Counsel for the petitioners to assail the two Government Orders. 7. With these observations, this petition is disposed of finally, but without any order as to costs.