JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: (a) Identify, demarcate on the spot the leased property measuring 1 bigha adjoining to Khasra No. 7299 situate in Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais (Daunsa-Ri-Bihal) Tehsil and District Kullu, which was leased in favour of the petitioner-Company vide Registered Lease Deed dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure PC) and to thereafter again handover actual possession of the same on the spot after its proper demarcation and thereafter to mutate the same in favour of the petitioner Company and effect necessary entries in the Revenue Record. (b) Direct the respondents to execute and register a lease deed in favour of the petitioner-Company for a further period of 15 and half years commencing from the date of its execution and registration in respect of the land described in para (a) supra. (c) Restrain the respondents from interfering in the peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment of the leased land adjoining to Khasra No. 7299, situate in Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are as under: 2.1 Petitioner is running a tourist resort on the right bank of river Beas under the name and style of M/s Apple Valley Resort Private Ltd. in Village Mohal, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner proposed to link its resort with highway on the left bank of river Beas with a rope-way/cable-car and for such purpose approached the respondents for grant of lease of a piece of Government land measuring 1 bigha on the left bank of river Beas abutting the highway. Respondents accepted the proposal of petitioner and leased a piece of land measuring 1 bigha abutting khasra No. 7299 in Village Daunsa-Ri-Bihal, Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. A lease deed was executed and registered on 5.2.2002 whereby the above noted piece of land was leased to petitioner for a period of 10 years. The leased money was settled at Rs.1056/- per annum. 2.2 Respondent No.2 cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner and such fact was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 18.2.2005. The cancellation was made on the premise that the lease was in contravention of provisions of the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993. 2.3 Petitioner assailed communication dated 18.02.2005 before this Court by way of CWP No. 543 of 2005. The cancellation was made on the premise that the lease was in contravention of provisions of the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993. 2.3 Petitioner assailed communication dated 18.02.2005 before this Court by way of CWP No. 543 of 2005. The petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 12.06.2007 by this Court in following terms: “The respondents have not pointed out which Rule or terms and conditions of the lease have been violated by the petitioner. The bald assertion made in letter dated 18.2.2005 is that the lease is cancelled as per the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993 without mentioning what particular rule has been violated. The lease could only be cancelled once executed as per H.P. Lease Rules, 1993 if there was violation of any of the terms and conditions of the lease. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner has not been heard before the cancellation of lease vide letter dated 5.2.2005. The petitioner on the basis of the promise held out had altered his position, thus attracting the principles of promissory estoppel. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure PK dated 18.2.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner while raising the infrastructure for the purpose of operation of cable car/bridge on Khasra No. 7299 situate in Daunsa-Ri-Bihal, Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. There shall be no order as to costs.” 2.4 As evident from the concluding para of above noted judgment, directions were issued to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in Khasra No. 7299. Later, it was found to be a clerical error as no portion of Khasra No. 7299 had ever been leased in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the land comprised in Khasra No. 7299 belonged to private parties, who by way of Civil Review No. 16 of 2009 had sought the review of judgment passed in CWP No. 543 of 2005. The review was allowed on 14.6.2010 and the operative portion of the judgment was modified in following terms: “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure PK dated 18.2.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The review was allowed on 14.6.2010 and the operative portion of the judgment was modified in following terms: “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure PK dated 18.2.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner while raising the infrastructure for the purpose of operation of cable car/bridge on the land adjoining to Khasra No. 7299 situate in Daunsa-Ri-Bihal, Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the passing of judgment dated 12.6.2007, in CWP No. 543 of 2005 and the order dated 14.06.2010 in Civil Review No. 16 of 2009, the respondents failed to identify the leased land and thus prevented the petitioner to commence the work for which the lease was granted. Having failed to get redressal of its grievances, petitioner has again approached this Court by way of instant petition for the reliefs as noticed above. 4. The petitioner has contended that the fruits of lease have been denied to it by such acts of omission and commission on part of the respondents in which petitioner was neither contributory nor accessory. Petitioner claims that since he has been divested from the right to use the leased land without any fault on his part, he was entitled for renewal of lease for a further period of 15 years. At the time of hearing, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner on instructions even offered to pay lease money at prevailing rates. 5. Initially, respondent No.2 submitted his short reply in pursuance to orders passed by this Court on 15.10.2011. It was submitted that after passing of the orders by this Court on 12.6.2007 and 14.6.2010, the matter was referred to Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh from where the instructions were received to resume the land immediately after expiry of lease period of 10 years. The department of Forest had raised objection with respect to the grant of lease of forest land without prior approval under Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It was also submitted that the nature of forest land could not be converted as per the orders dated 12.12.1996 of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in CWP No. 202 of 1996. Sh. Arun Sharma, owner of Apple Valley Resort Pvt. Ltd. had encroached upon 0-00-18 bigha of land in Kais-3 Forest. It was also submitted that the nature of forest land could not be converted as per the orders dated 12.12.1996 of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in CWP No. 202 of 1996. Sh. Arun Sharma, owner of Apple Valley Resort Pvt. Ltd. had encroached upon 0-00-18 bigha of land in Kais-3 Forest. The encroached land is at a distance of 95 “Karam” from Khasra No. 7299 and at a distance of 35 “Karam” from leased land in question. The Collector under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Rules, 1971 had already passed eviction order in respect of the encroached land. Further, the specific stand of respondent No.2 was that the petitioner had not undertaken any civil work on the leased land to establish the cable rope way. Petitioner had instead raised some structure on encroached land. 6. Later, a detailed joint reply on behalf of all the respondents has also been filed. The contents of short reply as noticed above, find elaboration in said reply. Additionally, it has further been submitted that the petitioner was required to utilize the leased land for the purpose it was leased within six months from its allotment as per Clause 4 (e) of the lease deed, but petitioner had failed to comply with the said condition. No steps were taken by the petitioner to install the cable car. Nonattestation of mutation could not have precluded the petitioner from undertaking the work for which the land was taken on lease. It is also the case of respondents that the petitioner had failed to procure ‘No Objection Certificates’ from Forest Department, Town and Country Planning Department and HPPWD. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. Undeniably, the lease granted by the respondents in favour of the petitioner was held as valid transaction by this Court vide judgment dated 12.6.2007 passed in CWP No. 543 of 2005. It was specifically held that the lease could only be cancelled, once executed as per the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993, if there was violation of any of the terms and conditions of the lease. Another ground that had weighed with this Court was that the petitioner was not heard before cancellation of lease deed. The principle of promissory estoppel was also applied against the respondents. Another ground that had weighed with this Court was that the petitioner was not heard before cancellation of lease deed. The principle of promissory estoppel was also applied against the respondents. The aforesaid judgment of this Court attained finality as the respondents did not choose to assail it. 9. Thus, respondents cannot now be heard to say that the lease executed in favour of petitioner in the year 2002 was not legal and valid transaction. Nonetheless, the period of lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents was ten years and said period expired in 2012. The question, thus, arises with respect to efficacy of terms of said lease even after the expiry of its terms. 10. Lease is a consensual agreement and the parties thereto derive rights and obligations under the terms of the contract of lease. Nothing can be obligated against any of the parties to the contract of lease beyond the agreed terms. 11. Petitioner herein has sought Mandamus against respondents. The Mandamus can be issued against public authority(ies) in case they refuse or fail to perform their duties or to fulfill their legal obligations. Hence, petitioner firstly has to prove existence of any such duty cast upon the respondents and thereafter has to prove refusal of performance on their part. 12. Looking at the facts of case and material available on record there is nothing to suggest or to infer that respondents were under any legal obligation to extend the period of lease in favour of petitioner. There was no condition in the first lease deed executed between petitioner and respondents that the period of ten years would be subject to extension. Respondents also are not under any legal obligation to grant a fresh lease to the petitioner. 13. There was no condition in the first lease deed executed between petitioner and respondents that the period of ten years would be subject to extension. Respondents also are not under any legal obligation to grant a fresh lease to the petitioner. 13. The allegation of the petitioner that it was prevented from utilizing the lease period due to acts of omission and commission on part of the respondents need not be gone into by this Court in the instant proceedings for the reasons firstly, that the issue involves intricately disputed question of facts, secondly, the parties had specifically agreed to refer such matters to arbitration of the Commissioner i.e. the Commissioner of the concerned division as per Clauses 13 and 14 of the lease deed and lastly, even if, the contention of petitioner is upheld, the inevitable consequence necessarily will not be issuance of mandamus as sought in the petition. 14. Petitioner also cannot be held entitled to its prayer (c) as it cannot be held to be in possession of the land once leased to petitioner. The identity of such land was not clear and for such reason only petitioner had made prayer (a) in the instant petition. Even otherwise after lapse of lease period petitioner cannot be granted any such relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.