K.S. JHAVERI, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. The prayer of the petition before the learned Single Judge reads as under:

"(a) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record and examine the same.

(b) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.1989 to the extent it restricts the tenure of the lease renewed upto 31.03.1990 and Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the renewal is for the period of 99 years starting from the execution of the original lease deed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1994.

(c) By issuance of the suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.06.2007 passed by the respondent No. 3.

(d) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 07.04.2017 issued by the respondent No. 3 and Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the petitioners are in lawful occupation of the land demised under lease deed dated 29.08.1952.

(e). In the alternative but without prejudice to the above stated submissions it is prayed that by issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's case for renewal of the lease deed dated 29.08.1952 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974.

(f) Pass any other appropriate order or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice.

(g) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.

3. In our considered opinion, the so-called order which is now produced on record of the year 1992 was not before the learned Single Judge which has been produced before us by way of Order 41, Rule 27. Petitioners, themselves were the party, in the said order of 1992, was not shown to the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while deciding the matter has clearly observed that after 1989, the order a Government policy dated 14.08.2015 the question of extension will not arise and on 03.11.1989 the order was not very clear. Application of 1977 for renewal of lease was rejected in the year 1992. For the convenience, we reproduce the order of the learned Single Judge which reads as under:

"I have considered the aforesaid and find that out of many grounds to challenge the order dated 16th June, 2007, competence of the officer has also been questioned. It has been replied by the respondents showing appointment of the Officer to act as Estate Officer thus the arguments about competence was not pressed.

The question is as to whether the order can be said to be non-est in reference to the definition of "unauthorised occupants" given under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1964.

The issue aforesaid could have been raised by maintaining an appeal being factual in nature. The order was passed after expiry of the period of lease and an order not to accept the lease amount. The petitioners had contested the case before the Estate Officer but did not raise the issue as raised herein. They were not restrained to challenge the order by maintaining an appeal thus challenge to the said order by this writ petition cannot be accepted. The delay of around 10 years remains unexplained.

The challenge has been made even to the order dated 07th April, 2017. It has been passed by the Jaipur Deve