Prem Chandra Tiwari vs Sub-Divisional Officer/UP-Ziladhikari and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The petitioner Prem Chandra Tiwari has come up questioning the order dated 16.9.2013, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Maharajganj, withdrawing the permission granted to the petitioner on 3.9.2013 for carrying out fishing activities over the pond in question. The impugned order records that the order dated 3.9.2013 had been obtained by the petitioner without disclosing correct facts and, therefore, the same deserves to be recalled. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- had also been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 3.9.2013.

Sri Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lease of the petitioner was for a period of 10 years, which is undisputed, but the petitioner was not allowed to operate for the entire period for which the lease had been granted. In the said circumstances the petitioner deserves to be compensated for allowing him to run the lease uptill 2015.

The contention raised is that it is for the said reason that the petitioner moved an application on which he was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- which he did and then was granted permission on 3.9.2013.

Having heard Sri Verma, it appears that the Gram Pradhan of the village has moved an application that the lease of the petitioner already stood determined as the period of the lease had already come to an end on 30.4.2013. It is on this application that the Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to withdraw the said order dated 3.9.2013 after coming to the conclusion that such a permission could not have been granted.

I have considered the submissions raised and in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by any violation of the permission of lease or the period for which he was not allowed to operate the lease due to the fault, if any, on the part of the opposite party, then the petitioner has to file a suit for damages, inasmuch as, there is no period or condition mentioned in the lease under which such an extension can be granted to the petitioner.

Apart from this, in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (99) RD 823 such ponds are now to be put to auction and cannot be settled in the manner as suggested by the petitioner.

Apart from this, the deposit of Rs. 40,000/- does not confer any right on the petitioner as it has been observed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that in view of the background and the terms of the lease and the writ petitions that have intervened, it would not be possible to grant any such extension to the petitioner. Consequently, if the petitioner wants, he can apply before the Sub Divisional Officer for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 40,000/- which application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously.

Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with the said observations. Sri Verma then prays that a fresh auction should be conducted in case the same has already not been done. If the aforesaid submission of the petitioner is correct then the Sub Divisional Officer shall take appropriate steps for holding fresh auction of the pond in question.