Sushila Devi vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12527 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35239 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sushila Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri R.C. Maurya learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi who appears for respondent No. 4, Gaon Sabha.

The case of the writ petitioner is that the husband of the writ petitioner, namely, late Majanu Banvasi was granted a lease for fisheries on 15.02.2016 relating to fishery rights for the period till 02.11.2025. It is further the submission of the writ petitioner that she happens to be the wife of Sri Majanu (since deceased) who held fishery rights over the plot being Khasra No. 1048 area 0.668 hectares situate at Village Bhanpur, Bock Rampur Tehsil Madiyahun, District Jaunpur and he expired on 28.08.2022. The petitioner being the wife and the legal heir thereafter represented her claim before the second respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Madiyahun, District- Jaunpur for the purposes of the words related to fishery, however, the same remain unheaded. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner on the strength of the judgment in Writ C No. 6267 of 2019 (Ganesh Kumar Gaud Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 22.02.2019, Ravindra and others Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (127) RD 849 and other judgments has sought to contend that the fishery rights granted in favour of the husband of the writ petitioner is heritable and she by operation of law will step into the shoes of her husband and she will become a licensee to carry forward the work already assigned to deceased husband in that regard.

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the second respondent to decide the pending representation and to legalize her right for the purposes of doing fishery work.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the issues which are being sought to be raised by the writ petitioner are centering around factual issues and since a final call is to be given by the second respondent as to whether the fishery rights is heritable or not is a question which is to be gone into by the second respondent and since the writ petitioner herself represented her cause before the second respondent, thus the second respondent be directed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner.

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents while granting liberty to the writ petitioner to represent her cause before the second respondent who shall on the receipt of the same proceed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner as well as the competing claims of the others strictly in accordance with law in view of the mandate of the Court of law as well as the terms and conditions of the original lease itself.

Needless to point out that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter as the writ petition has been decided on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the statements made in the writ petition. The aforesaid exercise is to be completed within a period of three months of course subject to any legal impediment.

Order Date :- 24.4.2023

Rajesh