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


Rameshwar & Others v. The State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 39703 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12819 (2 August 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.4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39703 of 2006

Rameshwar and others


The State of U.P. and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, have challenged the order dated 15th June 2006 passed by the Tahsildar, Sadar, Maharajganj whereby the Tahsildar has cancelled the settlement of fisheries rights in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the same has not been done in accordance with the provisions of Government Order and directed the same to be done in accordance with the Government Order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before passing of the aforesaid order the Sub-Divisional Officer has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and further according to the provisions of Gram Sabha Manual, the petitioners being the highest bidder, the bid settled in their favour cannot be cancelled in the manner in which it has been done by the impugned order. The Government Order concerned clearly provides that the settlement made by the Gram Sabha concerned is subject to approval of Sub-Divisional Officer. Admittedly in the present case there is no approval of Sub-Divisional Officer/Tahsildar concerned. It isonly when the aforesaid matter was placed before the Sub-Divisional Officer he found that the settlement of the Gram Sabha is not in accordance with the Government Order and disapprove the same and directed the Gram Sabha concerned to hold a fresh bid. Thus on merits the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force and are liable to be rejected.

There is yet another reason, which is against the petitioners, is the view taken by Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2487, wherein the Full Bench has held in paragraph 32 as under:-

"32. The Collector when considers an application for cancellation of fishery lease, it decides a lis between parties and act as Revenue Court. The order passed by Collector cancelling a fishery lease or refusing to cancel a fishery lease is, thus clearly amenable to revisional jurisdiction as provided under 1950 Act. 1950 Act being a complete code, the remedy with regard to fishery lease has to be first obtained under the  four corners of the Act and Rules. Learned Single Judge has referred to Section 133-C, sub-sections (6) and (7) which has not applicable in the present case. Section 122-C relates to allotment of land for housing site to member of schedule caste, agricultural labour etc. The said provision is not attracted."

In view of law laid down by the Full Bench since the petitioners have remedy of filing revision before the Board of Revenue, this writ petition is dismissed.

Dt: 2.8.2006.



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.