DEO KISHAN Vs. U I T BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th Dec. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5655/94 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the writ petition had arisen out of contractual obligation and the petitioner desired a direction that the respondents may be asked to execute lease deed in his favour. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that the writ petition was belated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant (petitioner) has submitted that both the grounds on which writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, were not sufficient to dismiss the writ petition because the right of the appellant to get lease deed executed in his favour did not arise from any private contract but it had its origin in the Rules made by the Government under the U.I.T. Act and, therefore, the right of the appellant to get the lease deed executed by the respondent No. 1 in his favour had statutory origin rather than a contractual origin as pointed out by the learned single Judge. Regarding the second ground, on which the writ petition was dismissed, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petition was not belated as pointed out by the learned single Judge because the appellant (petitioner) had been repeatedly asking the respondent No. 1 to execute the lease deed and the right to get the lease deed executed in his favour does not come to an end so long he is in the possession of the property in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement for lease and the rules.