Sewalal vs District Magistrate/ Collector ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 20981 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8679 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sewalal
 
Respondent :- District Magistrate/ Collector Ayodhya And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Gaon Sabha.

The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant lease in favour of petitioner of pond situated in Gata No.399 (New No.870-Ga), Village-Ankaripur, Pargana-Amisan, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Ayodhya for doing business of fisheries, in the interest of justice.

b. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 and 2 to decide the representation dated 29.11.2022, contained in Annexure No.6 to this writ petition."

The facts, in brief, of the present case as appears from the present petition are to the effect that fishery lease for the period of 10 years was granted to the petitioner on 02.09.1989. During the period of lease, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by instituting a Regular Suit No. 790 of 1999 (Sewalal v. Matsya Jeev Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Others) seeking the relief of permanent injunction. This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2009 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haveli, Faizabad, now Ayodhya. From the operative portion of the judgment dated 03.10.2009 passed in Regular Suit No. 790 of 1999, it is apparent that the decree of the trial Court is in favour of the petitioner, which is to the effect that he should not be evicted unless otherwise after adopting due process of law.

The aforesaid order/decree of the trial Court as appears from the judgment of the trail Court, which is on record, was passed based on the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the fishery pond in issue and proposal for renewal in his favour was sent to the competent Authority. The law on the issue of granting the fishery lease is now settled. (See: judgment of Full Bench of this Court dated 29.09.2005 passed in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in [(2005) 3 UPPLBEC 2487)].

In view of the relevant observations in the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra), lease can only be provided by way of auction. In view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court the prayers sought, quoted above, can not be granted by this Court, as such, the prayers are hereby refused. Present petition is accordingly dismissed.

Before parting further, it would be appropriate to observe that as per the judgment and decree of the trial Court indicated above, the possession from the petitioner can be taken by the State Authorities as per the procedure prescribed under the law including the mode, manner and procedure prescribed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and after getting the possession of the property, in issue, i.e. fisheries pond, the same can be allotted as per the relevant provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the State Authorities may proceed in accordance with law for the purposes of allotment of fisheries pond and get the revenue therefrom in favour of the State.

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

Arun/-