Jay Prakash Singh vs State of U.P.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri A.K. Singh and Sri B.N. Singh Srinet, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan, for respondent-4.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20/27.10.2014 passed by Deputy Collector, allowing the petitioner to catch fishes in pond up to November, 2014, on deposit of Rs. 16900/-.

It is alleged that Deputy Collector auctioned the fisheries right in pond of plot 621-Ka (area 1.198 hectare) of village Nadwa Bishunpur, tahsil Kasya, district Kushinagar, on 07.06.2004, in which highest bid of the petitioner for Rs. 169,000/- for a period of ten years, was accepted. The petitioner deposited 1/4th of the auction money on 07.06.2004. However, approval of auction and execution of lease deed was withheld by the respondents authorities. Gram Pradhan issued a notice dated 11.04.2007 to the petitioner, stating therein that he was not depositing the lease rent. The petitioner challenged the notice, in Writ Petition No. 29354 of 2007, which was disposed of by order dated 05.07.2007 providing the petitioner to file a representation to Deputy Collector, within two weeks and Deputy Collector was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order.

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application before Sub-Divisional Officer, Kasya, who by order dated 18.07.2007 approved the auction of the petitioner for a period of ten years. However, Pradhan was creating hindrance and stating that period of ten years was up to 06.06.2014 although from the date of approval, period of ten years is up to 17.07.2017. Pradhan also moved an application in this respect before Tahsildar, who by order dated 03.09.2014, directed Station House Officer of local Police Station to stop the petitioner from catching fishes from the pond in dispute. The petitioner, then filed a representation before Sub-Divisional Officer against the order of Tahsildar. On this application a report was called for from Tahsildar. Revenue Kanoongo submitted his report dated 11.09.2014, mentioning therein that terms of the lease of the petitioner was up to 06.06.2014. The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 50222 of 2014, claiming that he had fisheries right up to 17.08.2017, which was disposed of by order dated 18.09.2014, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Deputy Collector, who was directed to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order. Then the petitioner filed a representation on 29.09.2014. Pradhan, also filed her affidavit on 28.10.2014 stating therein that the petitioner was permitted to exercise fisheries right only after approval of auction on 18.07.2007. The petitioner also filed an application before Deputy Collector on 01.10.2014 for supply of the lease deed to him. However, Deputy Collector, by the impugned order dated 20/27.10.2014 allowed the petitioner to catch fishes up to November, 2014, on deposit of Rs. 16900/-. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the auction dated 07.06.2004, the petitioner was highest bidder. The petitioner was asked to deposit 1/4th amount of the bid, which was deposited by him on 07.06.2004. Although, the petitioner had completed entire formalities even then neither the auction was approved nor patta was granted. In the absence of approval of auction and patta, the petitioner was not permitted to exercise fisheries right in the pond in dispute till 18.07.2007 as admitted by then Pradhan, in her affidavit. Ten years period has to be counted from the date of approval, as the petitioner for his no fault, was not permitted to exercise fisheries right from the date of auction. Even Deputy Collector did not record any findings that the petitioner had exercised fisheries right from the date of auction. The order of Deputy Collector dated 20/27.10.2014 is illegal and is liable to be modified accordingly.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of the impugned order and report of Revenue Kanoongo shows that auction of the petitioner was approved by order dated 18.08.2007 for a period from 07.06.2004 to 06.06.2014. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 18.08.2007 earlier. It is only after expiry of the term of the fisheries right, the petitioner began to say that his right ought to end up to 17.08.2017. After expiry of the term, such a claim cannot be entertained.

Arguments that the petitioner has not exercised fisheries right before 18.08.2007 is also not liable to be accepted. Admittedly, the Pradhan issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.04.2007, asking the petitioner to deposit lease rent. In Writ Petition No. 29354 of 2007, the petitioner came with the allegations that he had deposited the installment on 16.09.2006. In case, the petitioner was not exercising fisheries right in the absence of approval, then no question arose for depositing installment at that time. At that time, the petitioner has not stated that he was not exercising fisheries right. Affidavit of Pradhan is contrary to the notice dated 11.04.2007. It is only when Pradhan moved application for fresh auction of the pond in July 2014, then the petitioner allegedly deposited Rs. 30,000/- on 08.08.2014. It is admitted that the petitioner was exercising fisheries right from 18.08.2007, even then no amount was deposited by the petitioner, after approval. Deputy Collector, in his discretion permitted the petitioner to catch fishes up to November, 2014 on deposit of Rs. 16900/- as the petitioner was alleging that due to confusion, he could not catch his fishes.

The petitioner does not belong to fishermen communities. According to the Government Order dated 17.10.1995, the petitioner is not coming to the preferential categories. Grant of the fisheries right to the petitioner was illegal as such terms cannot be extended.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.