Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARIHAR GOND versus D.M., MAU & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harihar Gond v. D.M., Mau & Others - WRIT - C No. 70854 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6041 (21 November 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

The petitioner was granted a fishery lease in the year 1982 which according to the petitioner was renewed from time to time and that the fishery lease has expired in May 2005. The prayer made in this writ petition is for a renewal of the lease in respect of the pond no. 101 area 1.270 acres of village Amriha District Mau.

Shri S.K. Yadav holding brief for Shri Anuj Kumar counsel for the Gram Sabha respondent no.2 submitted that no renewal of the fishery lease can be granted in view of the decision of this Court in Feru Vs. State of U.P. and others  [2004 (96) RD 645] and in Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others [2005 (4) ESC Alld 2617].

The prayer made in this writ petition that the lease of the petitioner be renewed therefore cannot be granted. However, if a fresh settlement of fishery lease is made, it is open to the petitioner to apply and the matter may be considered in accordance with law and the provisions of the Government Orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the fishes of the petitioner are lying in the pond as he was under  the  impression  that  the lease would be, and  renewed as such some time be granted to the petitioner to remove them. It is not necessary to express any opinion, upon this prayer in this petition It is open to the petitioner to make an application before respondent no. 2 Up Ziladhikari, Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau for giving him short-time for removing the fish. The Up Ziladhikari may consider the merits of the petitioner's claim and may pass appropriate orders on such representation expeditiously.

With these directions, the wit petition is disposed of

Dt. 21.11.2005

Sn/wp-70854/05


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.