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


Habib Ullah v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 12206 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10444 (26 May 2006)


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).



                                                                                       Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12206 of 2006

Habibullah.                                       Vs.    State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

             The dispute relates to the grant of fishery lease in respect of Gaon Sabha Plot No.79 area 0.748 hectares. The auction of the said pond was held on 13.12.2005 in which the bid of the petitioner of Rs. 79,000/- was the highest.  However, an offer was subsequently made by the respondent no. 6  Muqeem before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that he is ready to take the pond for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Sub Divisional Magistrate did not approve the bid of the petitioner and directed for re-auction.   The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was not given opportunity to raise his bid in view of the offer given by the respondent no.6 after the auction was over.

In Shyam Kunwar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (98) R.D. 361 this Court took the view that ordinarily a fishery lease ought to be granted for not less than Rs. 20,000/- per hectare per year unless there are special reasons stated for granting the same for lesser amount. The bid of the petitioner in the auction held on 13.12.2005 of Rs. 79,000/- is less than the rate suggested in Shyam Kunwar's case. More over no rights in favour of the petitioner were created merely on the basis that he was the highest bidder. The Sub Divisional Magistrate in these circumstances was not bound to accept the bid of the petitioner even though it may have been the highest.

On 28.2.2006 a statement was made in this petition on behalf of the petitioner through counsel offering Rs. 1,70,000/- for the said lease for the period of ten years. Notice was issued to respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 as well as the petitioner appeared on 22.5.2006 along with their respective counsel and the petitioner raised the amount to Rs. 4,25,000/- and the respondent no.6 was ready to offer a higher amount. In the facts and circumstances the court directed the parties to submit their respective offers on affidavit in a sealed cover. The petitioner as well as respondent no.6 have given their offer under sealed cover. The covers were opened in the presence of the parties and there counsel. The petitioner's offer is of Rs. 7,01,251/- and in paragraph 3 of the affidavit the petitioner has stated that he is ready to increase his bid by an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- to whatever bid is made by the respondent no.6. The purpose of calling for offers is in sealed cover was that the parties may quote a definite amount that they were ready to offer at the most. I am therefore, taking the offer of the petitioner to be of Rs. 7,01,251/-. On opening the sealed cover containing the offer of the respondent no.6 it has been found that the respondent no.6 has given his offer of Rs. 10,11,786/-. The offer of the respondent no.6 is clearly higher than the offer of the petitioner. The court therefore accepts his offer. In his affidavit respondent no.6 has stated that if he defaults in depositing one fourth of the amount within the time given the same be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. The respondent no.6 is present in court along with his counsel Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava. After taking instructions from the respondent no.6 Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava stated that the respondent no.6 may be given two weeks time to deposit 1/4 amount of Rs. 10,11,786/- before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. If the respondent no. 6  deposits 1/4 of the sum of Rs.10,11,786/- within a period of two weeks from today before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naugarh, Siddharthnagar the lease of the pond shall be settled in favour of the respondent no.6 and the installment may be fixed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. If the respondent no.6 defaults in making the deposit of this 1/4 amount within this period prayed for by him and granted by the court shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue and the pond will be re-auctioned and in that re-auction the respondent no.6 will not be permitted to participate.

        With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of finally.

        Copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.




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.