Pankaj Naqvi, J.;- 1. We have heard Dr. G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Anil Tiwari appears for Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. 2.It is submitted that the petitioner is the son and legal heir of late Shri Dharm Dutt Vaid-the lessee of plot Nos. 82 to 85 area 10376-2/3 square yards situated at Udaipur Khas in the city of Bareilly. The lease deed for charitable purposes for plot nos. 82 to 85 was executed in the year 1945 for a period of 90 years renewable, every 30 years. The other lease deed, also for charitable purposes for plot nos. 86 and 89 was executed on 28.6.1952 for a period of 90 years renewable, every 30 years. The lease deeds stipulated that the land shall be used for Ayurvedic hospital in which free-treatment will be given to general public. 3. The petitioner's father died on 4.11.1989. It is stated by the petitioner that on the death of his father, he acquired knowledge of the terms of lease deeds and its stipulation for renewal every 30 years. His father was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly in the years 1952, 1957, and for the third time in 1962. He was a freedom fighter and a renowned social worker of district Bareilly. He had not applied for renewal of lease deeds on due dates. The petitioner searched out the papers of renewal and did not find any paper other than a document dated 9.9.1993, by which the petitioner had sent letters to Nagar Nigam, Bareilly informing that his father expired on 4.11.1989. The application for renewal was misplaced. 4. In his letter and application dated 9.9.1999 to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly annexed as Annexures 5 and 6, the petitioner stated that the leases have been renewed and in that respect correspondence was made with the Nagar Nigam, his father died on 4.11.1989, of which the death certificate is annexed. The petitioner thereafter requested that he is the heir of late Shri Dharm Dutt Vaid, and is unable to find the papers of renewal. He requested for an order so that the petitioner may deposit the necessary fee for getting the copies of documents of renewal. 5. The petitioner thereafter requested that he is the heir of late Shri Dharm Dutt Vaid, and is unable to find the papers of renewal. He requested for an order so that the petitioner may deposit the necessary fee for getting the copies of documents of renewal. 5. In his letter dated 2.12.2002 annexed as Anneuxre-7, the petitioner changed his stand and made an application to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly stating that the lease was executed on 10.10.1949. The petitioner's father had complied with the terms of the lease and according to the conditions of lease, his father had got the lease deed renewed in 1979 for a period of 30 years upto 2009. The petitioner had deposited the lease rent upto the year 1999, but that after 1999, the Corporation is not allowing the deposit of lease rent. He requested for deposit of lease rent after 1999 and to make the documents of renewal available to him. 6. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's grievances as contended in his representation dated 2.12.2002 (as Annexure-7 to this writ petition). (ii)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not create any hindrance of peaceful possession over the plot nos. 86 to 89 situate at Udaipur Khas, Distt. Bareilly. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the petitioner's lease and accept the yearly rent to the petitioner when it become due. (iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not take any coercive action against the petitioner's plot no. 86 to 89 situated at Udaipur Khas, Distt. Bareilly." 7. In the supplementary counter affidavit of Shri Dinesh Gupta filed on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, the facts, which were not disclosed by the petitioner, have been brought on record. It is stated in paragraphs 5 to 25 as follows:- "5. That the then Minister Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma has moved an application dated 09.09.1945 before the then Municipal Board, Bareilly for allotment of a plot on lease for establishment of an Ayurvedic Hospital for the benefit of general public. It is stated in paragraphs 5 to 25 as follows:- "5. That the then Minister Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma has moved an application dated 09.09.1945 before the then Municipal Board, Bareilly for allotment of a plot on lease for establishment of an Ayurvedic Hospital for the benefit of general public. The said application was moved by Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma pursuant to the resolution of U.P. Vaidya Sammelan. 6. That the President of U.P. Vaidya Sammelan also requested the then Municipal Board vide his letter dated 09.09.1945 to grant some land on lease for the aforesaid purpose. 7. That Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma vide his letter dated 18 October 1945 requested the Municipal Board for allotment of Plot No. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 89 in block C of the city improvement area. 8. That looking into the pious proposal the Executive Board of the then Municipal Board resolved to accept the proposal of Sri Sharma vide its resolution No. 340/15 dated 30.11.1945. 9. That from bare perusal of the resolution it is clear that the Board has resolved to give the Plot No. 82, 83, 84 and 85 on lease for a period of 90 year are renewable after 30 years. The board has further imposed the condition that the institution shall remain for public purposes and the treatment will be free. 10. That Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma accepted the condition imposed in the lease vide its letter dated 18.12.1945. 11. That pursuant to the aforesaid resolution a lease was executed at the rent of Rs. 10/- yearly for the Plot No. 82, 83, 84 and 85 measuring 10376/2/3 square yard. 12. That for the aforesaid very purpose the board vide its resolution No. 574/78 dated 01.11.1950 resolved to grant plot No. 86 and 89 on the same turn in favour of Sri Sharma. The lease deed was executed on 30.05.1952. 13. That apart from the aforesaid plots, which have been given to Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma on lease at the annual rent of Rs. 10/-, Sri Sharma has purchased plot No. 33, 87, 88-C measuring 7263/2/9 square yard. 14. That has already stated the lease was for particular purpose and was liable to be renewed after every 30 years. 15. 13. That apart from the aforesaid plots, which have been given to Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma on lease at the annual rent of Rs. 10/-, Sri Sharma has purchased plot No. 33, 87, 88-C measuring 7263/2/9 square yard. 14. That has already stated the lease was for particular purpose and was liable to be renewed after every 30 years. 15. That as a matter of fact no lease was renewed after completion of 30 years in the year 1979 nor any effort was ever made for getting the lease renewed, by the petitioner. 16. That as a matter of fact the petitioner has been using this land also for different purposes other than those specified in the lease deed. The petitioners are using these land for commercial purposes as they have constructed shops in premises and are receiving commercial benefits from the same. In this connection the deponent brings on record the inspection report conducted by the official of the Nagar Nigam. 17. That in the aforesaid situation a notice dated 01.11.2002 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the lease be not cancelled. 18. That on the aforesaid notice the petitioner submitted his reply vide his letter dated 04.3.2003. 19. That the Nagar Nigam has cancelled his lease vide his resolution dated 06.3.2003. This cancellation was done on account of illegal lease of the land and also on account of the fact that it was never renewed after 1979 nor any application in this regard had ever been moved. 20. That against the cancellation the petitioner approached to the government for a direction to the Nagar Nigam to renew the lease. In this application he took the support on this fact that he has been depositing the rent upto 1999. The State Government issued notices to the Nagar Nigam seeking reply in this record. 21. That aforesaid letter was specifically replied by the Nagar Nigam and particularly, the Nagar Ayukt reported this matter to the government vide his letter dated 18.6.2004. 22. That in view of the report of the Nagar Nigam, the State Government has not issued any directive in favour of the petitioner and these circumstances the petitioner filed a representation before the State Government as well as before the Nagar Nigam for declaring the land in dispute, a freehold land in his favour. 23. 22. That in view of the report of the Nagar Nigam, the State Government has not issued any directive in favour of the petitioner and these circumstances the petitioner filed a representation before the State Government as well as before the Nagar Nigam for declaring the land in dispute, a freehold land in his favour. 23. That the Nagar Nigam reported vide its letter dated 06.1.2005, to the State Government that there is no provision nor any policy for declaration of Nagar Nigam Land into a freehold land. 24. That at this stage the deponent also brings on records the rules of the society namely Dharam Dutt Ayurvedic Charitable Hospital for which the land was given on lease. 25. That at these stages it is also material to state that before executing the lease deed the then executive officer of the Municipal Board enquired from the society about the financial viability of the Hospital vide his letter dated 4.6.1949. In reply to this letter the society has emphasized the need of the hospital and its viability." 8.The petitioner has not challenged the resolution of the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, cancelling the lease deeds. 9. From the reports submitted by the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly to the State Government, it is apparent that the petitioner's father as elected Member of Legislative Assembly had requested the Nagar Nigam for execution of the lease of the Nagar Nigam property in his favour for establishing a charitable hospital. The lease of plot Nos. 82 to 85 and thereafter plot nos. 86 and 89 were executed in his favour in the years 1949 and 1952 respectively for a period of 90 years renewable at the interval of 30 years each. The petitioner's father did not apply for renewal of the lease deeds. He died on 4.11.1989, after which the petitioner started claiming that his father had got the leases renewed and requested for copy of the renewed leases. After ten years in the year 1999, he requested for depositing the rent, with assertion that he had been depositing upto the year 1999. The receipts of the deposit of rent do not relate to the period after 1989 when the petitioner's father died. On an enquiry made by the Special Secretary, Government of UP, the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly informed the State Government on 24.1.2003 that both the leases were executed for charitable purposes. The receipts of the deposit of rent do not relate to the period after 1989 when the petitioner's father died. On an enquiry made by the Special Secretary, Government of UP, the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly informed the State Government on 24.1.2003 that both the leases were executed for charitable purposes. The petitioner's father and thereafter the petitioner did not get the leases renewed and that they have made extensive constructions of private hospital, shops, schools and houses on the land in contravention of the terms of the lease deed. They have thereafter filed writ petitions in the High Court namely Writ Petition Nos. 13635 of 2003 and 15657 of 2003, in which they obtained the interim orders. The petitioner's name has also not been recorded on the land. 10. Shri G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he is ready to abide by the terms of the lease deed and has applied for free hold rights on the market rates. The Nagar Nigam, had accepted the lease rent upto the year 1999, and has also recommended for converting the property into free hold, if the State Government takes a decision for which the Nagar Nigam has no objections. 11. The property in question belongs to the Nagar Nigam. It is not a property of the State Government, which is in the management of the Nagar Nigam as a nazul property. The Nagar Nigam as a local body and not the State Government had executed the lease deed in favour of petitioner's father in the year 1949 and 1952, for the subject plots for charitable purposes namely for establishing hospital in which the public will be treated free of charges. Instead of using the property for establishment of the charitable hospital, the petitioner's father and the petitioner established a hospital, which is being privately run and managed by him for profits; constructed school in the name of Maharishi Vidyalaya, houses and shops. The constructions were raised against the terms of the lease deed. 12. We do not find that the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that he is prepared to get the property converted into free hold by depositing the market value on the rates on which the State Government has prepared a policy for conversion of nazul properties into free hold, is bonafide. The land does not belong to the State Government. The land does not belong to the State Government. It belongs to the Nagar Nigam and was settled with specific conditions of its use only for charitable purposes. The State Government has not made any policy for conversion of land leased out by the Nagar Nigam, into free hold. 13. The petitioner's father and thereafter the petitioner have been in unauthorised occupation of the land since after the first term expired and the lease deeds were cancelled on 6.3.2003, after issuing notices to the petitioner on 1.11.2002. The petitioner has not challenged the resolution of Nagar Nigam cancelling the lease. He has not amended the writ petition even after service of counter affidavit on his counsel on 5.5.2006. The prayer for renewal of leases, which have been cancelled, is wholly misconceived. The Nagar Nigam started proceedings for recovery of possession in which interim orders were passed by this Court apparently on the pleadings, which did not disclose full and correct facts. 14. We further find that the supplementary counter affidavit, bringing on record the true facts was filed on 22.5.2006, after service on learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on 5.5.2006.The petitioner has not cared to reply to the allegations made in the supplementary counter affidavit. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. 16. The writ petition is dismissed.