JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] (CLMA 10939/20 12) Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the plaintiffs/petitioners. 2. Sri A.S. Rawat, Addl. Advocate General, along with Sri A.K. Bansal, Standing Counsel on behalf of State/respondents. 3. Sri Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate along with Sri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the intervener. 4. Heard on C.L.M.A. 1093 9/ 2012, which has been moved by the plaintiffs/petitioners to withdraw the O.S. No. 24 of 2008 Kailashanand Mission Trust and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another pending before Civil Judge(J.D.) Kotdwar, District Pauri. 5. The Suit No. 24 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs/Trust of the property in suit. 6. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing the W.S. and also filing the objection against the application U/O 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial court has granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to maintain statusquo regarding the possession at the relevant point of time vide order dated 22-10-2008. Aggrieved by the above order the respondents preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2008 before the District Judge, Pauri, which was allowed by the District Judge vide impugned order dated 26-7-2012. Aggrieved further, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are that a lease under Government Grant Act, was given to Kailashanand Mission Society on 1.7.1960, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure SCA-2 to the short counter affidavit, wherein initially the lease was granted for 30 years, renewable for two terms of 30 years. This fact is not disputed that initially 30 years of the lease has elapsed. When the application was moved by the Trustee in the year 1989, on 3-9-2012 a letter was written to Mr. Naveen Porwal, President Kailashanand Mission Trust, by Conservator of Forest/Direction, Rajaji National Park, Dehradun, that it is not possible to renew the lease any further. 8. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the plaintiffs/petitioners also moved I.A. applications before the Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1995. The Apex Court also declined the permission to further renewal of the lease. 8. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the plaintiffs/petitioners also moved I.A. applications before the Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1995. The Apex Court also declined the permission to further renewal of the lease. However, it was made clear that if the State Government decides the Trust is entitled to renewal of the lease this order will not come in the way of State Government to submit a proposal to the Central Government along with the recommendation of Chief Wildlife Warden or other appropriate Forest Authority. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for the renewal of the lease to the Nodal Officer/Conservator of Forests on 4-2-2008, as has been mentioned in the affidavit Naveen Porwal plaintiff. Thereafter as mentioned above the Forest Authority has also written letter that the lease cannot be renewed. Therefore the State Government did not make any recommendation to the Central Government. 9. Now during the pendency of the writ petition this application has been moved to withdraw the suit and prayer has also been made to allow the plaintiff to remove the structures as well as other effects and goods from the property in question. This fact is also not disputed that the open land was given to Kailashanand Mission Society to erect the Naturopathy Center and the constructions were raised by the Trust. It is stated in the writ petition that Sri Kailashanand had created a trust and property of the Society has been vested in the Trust. 10. The learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that two years time as sought by the petitioners to remove the structures and other goods from the property in dispute, is too much. 11. So far as the intervention application filed by the intervener to intervene in the matter is concerned, since the plaintiff/petitioner himself is withdrawing the suit, therefore, there is no question to allow the intervention application and the same is rejected. 12. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the withdrawal application is allowed and the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the O.S. No. 24 of 2008, Kailashanand Mission Trust and others Vs. 12. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the withdrawal application is allowed and the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the O.S. No. 24 of 2008, Kailashanand Mission Trust and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, and the same is dismissed as withdrawn, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kotdwar and six months time is allowed to the plaintiffs/petitioners, from today to remove the effects and structures etc by the plaintiff Trust from the property in dispute and the respondents shall also cooperate in the removal of the effects, goods and structures. 13. Since the O.S. No. 24 of 2008 is withdrawn, the writ petition stands dismissed. The finding which has been given by the learned District Judge vide impugned order dated 26-7-2012. in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2008, will not prejudice the parties to the suit in any way. If the effects, goods and structures are not removed by the plaintiffs/petitioners within a period of six months, the respondents would be entitled to forfeit the effects, goods etc as per clause 2-Kha of the lease-deed.