Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Raghubir v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 52627 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17051 (29 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52627 of 2007



State of U. P. and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner claims to have been granted lease of fishing rights in the pond in question on 4.11.1997 for a period of ten years which is to come an end on 3.11.1997. In the month of August, 2007, proceedings for fresh settlement of the fisheries rights in the point in question were initiated and the Lekhpal submitted a proposal forwarding the name of respondent no. 3 and one more person for allotment. It is submitted that the said report was forwarded with recommendation by the Tehsildar and on the basis of the same Sub Divisional Officer has approved the same on 24.9.2007. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the subsisting lease of the petitioner, pond could not have been settled in favour of respondent no. 6. It has further been submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before making allotment of fisheries rights in favour of the respondent no. 6. It has also been contended that on account of settlement in favour of respondent no. 6, he is not being allowed to carry out the fishing even though lease subsists.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From the perusal of record, it appears that when the lease of the petitioner was about to expire proceedings for fresh settlements were undertaken in the month of August, 2007 and after following the procedure, names of two persons were recommended which has been approved on 24.9.2007. However, there is nothing on record which may go to indicate that lease has been executed in favour of respondent no. 6 and he has started carrying out fishing in the pond in question. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the allotment made in favour of respondent no. 6, it is always open to him to undertake appropriate proceedings in accordance with procedure contained in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995.

In view of the above, relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.