Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHHOTE LAL versus UP

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chhote Lal v. Up-Ziladhikari & Others - WRIT - C No. 4394 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 9407 (17 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39677 of 1997

Ram Roop Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and others

AND

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.4394 of 2004

Chhote Lal Vs. Up-Ziladhaikari, Deoria and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

No one appeared to press the first writ petition of 1997. The said writ petition appears to have become infructuous because the prayer in the said writ petition is for quashing the order dated 09.10.1997 through which patta granted to the petitioner on 28.12.1996 was cancelled  and through the said order, fisheries lease was granted to Pheku-Respondent No.3 in the said writ petition. According to the Paras 3 & 4 of the said writ petition, fisheries lease for ten years in respect of pond comprised in plot No.646 area 0.462 hectares situate in Village Hirindapur was granted to the petitioner of the said writ petition. Stay order was granted in the writ petition on 27.11.1997. The period of ten years has already expired in December 2006. Accordingly, nothing survives in the said writ petition.

Adjacent to the pond comprised in plot No.646 situate in village Hirindapur, there is another pond, which is situate in Village Madhopur and is contained in Plots No.268, area 1.015 hectares, No.269, area 0.142 hectares and No. 270, area 0.162 (Total area of these three plots comes to 1.319 hectares). There is no dividing line between the ponds situate in the two villages. The entire body of the water is in the form of one pond located in the two villages, which are situate in Tehsil and District Deoria. It appears that pond comprised in Plot No.268 was also earlier allotted to Pheku, however the lease expired in September, 2002. Through order dated 04.12.2002, said period was extended for one more year. Ram Roop Nishad filed an application before Deputy Collector for grant of patta of pond comprised in plot No.268 also. Lekhpal obliged Ram Roop Nishad-Respondent no.5 in the second writ petition and recommended for grant of patta of pond No.268 also in favour of Respondent No.5. The report was submitted on 29.04.2003. Deputy Collector, Deoria granted patta to respondent No.5 on 04.06.2003 without any advertisement. The patta has been granted for the pond comprised in all the three plots, i.e. plots No.268, 269 and 270 total area 1.319 hectares situate in Village Madhopur, on Rs.1700 yearly lagan. The pond has been let out for fisheries purposes almost on the 1/10th of the amount for which it could be let out if auction after due advertisement had been held. Even though in the order dated 04.06.2003, it is mentioned that advertisement was issued in local newspapers, but from perusal of the order it is clear that order was passed merely on the application of Respondent No.5 and for the reason that he was holding patta for adjacent pond No.646 situate in Village Hirindapur. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5-Ram Roop Nishad, nothing has been stated regarding advertisement in newspapers. In Paras-10 & 11, only thing which has been stated is that Munadi was done through Duggi. In Para-11, it is also stated that respondent participated in the auction and was higher bidder, while in the order there is no mention that any auction took place or there was any other bidder. From perusal of the counter affidavit, it is quite clear that no advertisement in any newspaper was made. The second writ petition has been filed by Up-Pradhan, Chhote Lal challenging the settlement of fisheries lease of the pond situate in Village Madhopur through order dated 04.06.2003.

It has been held by the full Bench Authority of Ram Kumar Vs. State, 2005 (99) RD 823 that fisheries lease shall be settled only after due advertisement and auction, if necessary. In the said full Bench Authority, the relevant Government Order dated 17.10.1995 has been approved subject to the modification that advertisement in newspaper shall be made before settlement of fisheries lease in every case. I have held in Satya Vrat Singh Vs. State, 2006 (5) ALJ 549 that advertisement must be made in some such daily Hindi newspaper, which has got wide circulation in the area like Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagaran. I have further held that if after due advertisement only one person belonging preferential caste/category appears and shows the interest in taking the lease, then lease must be granted to him. However, in case more than one person of preferential category are desirous of taking the lease, then it shall be settled through auction and in case no person belonging to preferential category in accordance with Government Order dated 17.10.1995 comes forward after due advertisement, then lease shall be settled through auction. In Babban Ram Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (97) RD 675, I have held that fisheries lease shall be settled at least for Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year.

In the instant case, I directed the parties to offer their bids in Court, however no proper bid was offered in Court. Accordingly, order dated 04.06.2003 settling the fisheries lease of pond comprised in plots No.268, 269 and 270, situate in Village Madhopur is set aside. Fisheries lease of plot No.646 situate in Hirindapur has already expired. Deputy Collector concerned is directed to immediately get the entire pond situate in both the villages vacated (any delay on the part of the Deputy Collector will not be appreciated by this Court). It is further directed that Deputy Collector shall settle the fisheries lease of the entire pond comprised in plots No. 268, 269, 270 and 646 settled for ten years after due advertisement in daily Hindi newspaper Dainik Jagaran or Amar Ujala published from the place nearest from the villages in question. All efforts must be made to let out the entire pond for at least Rs.18,000/- per year, as the total area is 1.781 hectares. The amount, for which fisheries lease is settled, shall be divided between the two villages proportionately 3/4th share of amount shall go to the Gram Sabha of Madhopur and 1/4th share of the amount to Gram Sabha of Hirindapur. The lease shall be settled before 31.07.2007.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel, by 11th June, 2007.

Date: 17.05.2007

NLY


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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