Ram Phal vs State Of U.P. Thru' Collector And 2 ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5525 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46902 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Phal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Collector And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 - Gaon Sabha and Sri Rajesh Kumar for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner was awarded a fishery lease for 10 years, which lease has expired on 31st December, 2012. The petitioner has applied for renewal of the said lease and before this court aid has been taken of the circular letter of the Board of Revenue dated 21st March, 2013.

According to the view taken by the Board in relation to a query raised by the Government at Item No. 32, the Board was of the opinion that in the event a lease expires, and the lease-holder has not violated any terms and conditions, he may be considered for renewal of the lease for the next five years on enhancement of 20% revenue. Learned counsel therefore submits that the respondents deserve to be directed for such a consideration of the renewal of the lease.

Sri Chauhan and Sri Rajesh Kumar contend that the said circular of the Board is in the nature of a recommendation and is not a government order. Even otherwise, the said recommendation is that such a renewal can be granted at the discretion of the Collector of the district and hence the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to extend any such benefit to the petitioner before whom the request was erroneously made.

Sri Rajesh Kumar has further invited the attention of the Court to Paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2005 (99) RD 823 to urge that the said decision has also not approved of any settlement by way of periodical enhancement to a previous lease holder and the settlement has to be made by a fresh advertisement. In the event several candidates of the same category being available, auction can be resorted to. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to claim renewal of his lease.

Having considered the submissions raised, learned counsel for the respondents are right in their submissions that such a right is not available, inasmuch as, the leases cease to exist and there is no subsisting right of renewal under any law for the time being in force. The circular of the Board of Revenue being only recommendatory in nature, is not binding on the respondents. In view of the decision in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), no further relief can be granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Order Date :- 6.9.2013

Sahu