Allahabad High Court
Goan Sabha/ Gram Panchayat ... vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 4 ... on 7 October, 2013
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No.6
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55536 of 2013
Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat, Village - Mubarakpur Kuturtulla, Gahzipur, through its Pradhan Vs. State of U.P. and others
****
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.K. Singh for the Caveator - respondent No.5.
A fishery lease duly approved has been granted to the respondent No.5 in respect of a pond in the village in question. This writ petition has been filed by the Gram Pradhan of the village contending that the grant of fishery lease is causing inconvenience to the public at large and certain complaints had been entertained, which are mentioned in Annexures- 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The said complaints are addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer and a report is said to have been made by the Lekhpal, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
I have perused the Government Order that has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner dated 17.10.1995 and clause-3 of the said Government Order recites as follows:-
"3- ;gkWa bldk mYys[k izklafxd gksxk fd mijksDr O;oLFkk esa fu/kkZfjr ojh;rk vuqlkj izklafxdrk ds vk/kkj ij leqfpr vxzsrj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA tgkW rd iV~Vs dh vof/k rFkk rkykcks ds [email protected] mi;ksx dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa iwoZ fu/kkZfjr O;oLFkk rn~uqlkj ykxw jgsxhA mYys[kuh; gksxk fd ftu rkykcksa dks [email protected] mi;ksx ;Fkk dqEgkjh dyk gsrq feV~Vh fudkyuk] diM+s /kksuk] tkuojksa dks ugykuk] ?kjksa dh ejEer gsrq feV~Vh fudkyuk] flpkabZ vkfn dk;Z esa gksrk jgk gS rks og iwoZor gksrk jgsxk rFkk bl ckr dk iV~Vs dh 'krZ esa fof'k"V mYyss[k gksxk fd iV~Vsnkj [email protected] mi;ksx esa gLr{ksi ugha djsxkA iwoZ fu/kkZfjr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj 0-5 ,dM+ ls de {ks=Qy ds [email protected][kjksa lkeqnkf;d mi;ksx gsrq lqjf{kr jgus rd buds iV~Vs ugha gksaxs fdUrq bl lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;s fd tgkWa LFkkuh; ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, 0-5 ,dM+ rd ds rkykcks ds iV~Vs fd;k tkuk mfpr le>k tk;s ogkW ftykf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls 0-5 ,dM+ rd ds rkykcksa ds iV~Vs Hkh LrEHk&1 esa of.kZr izLrko ds vuqlkj fd;s tk ldrs gSSA"
From the complaint made by the petitioner, it appears that there was some allegation of obstruction in the use of the pond by the villagers. It is for this reason that a prayer has been made for determining the lease granted in favour of the respondent No.5.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions, there is no statutory violation alleged nor is there any material to indicate any such violation.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 is not a resident of the village and, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of lease. For this, reliance has been placed on the family register extract indicating that the petitioner is a resident of different village and also the voter list of the said village. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 disputes the said position and he contends that the respondent No.5 is residing in the village and his name is also entered in the voter list. It is urged that the correct documents have not been filed on record.
Having perused the Government Order and the contentions raised, the priority for grant of lease is in favour of a Member of Schedule Caste or Member of a boatman community of the village; the second priority is in favour of Member of the village Nyay Panchayat and the third priority is in favour of any resident of the said category in the entire block. The fact that the respondent No.5 is the resident of the same block is undisputed and, therefore, the respondent No.5 falls within the third category as provided in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995.
The complaint made and the report given by the Lekhpal are at variance in respect of the main grievance raised namely that the respondent No.5 is not a resident of the same village. This ground of residence, therefore, does not appear to be available to the petitioner - Gaon Sabha.
So far as the utilization of the pond for the purpose as referred to in clause-3 extracted hereinabove, the Government Order itself provides that the pond shall be allowed to be used for the said purpose unhindered .
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Gaon Sabha to raise any complaint in case clause-3 of the Government Order has been violated before the appropriate authority. There is no ground made out for cancellation of the lease as on the strength of the records which are now available at present.
Dt. 7.10.2013
Irshad
