Gyanti Devi vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 18237 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gyanti Devi vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 21 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91058
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16117 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Gyanti Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Munna Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sudhir Bharti for Respondent No.3.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that with respect to Arazi No.1015-cha area 1.526 hectare situate in village- Usmanpur, Tehsil Kasia, District Kushi Nagar, a patta was settled in favour of the writ petitioner on 04.07.2014 for an amount of Rs.38,150/-, the term whereof was 10 years and the writ petitioner also deposited the lease rent. However, according to the writ petitioner, one Ram Lakhan instituted a suit for cancellation before the District Magistrate, District- Kushinagar in the year 2014 and the said suit finally got dismissed on 28.02.2023.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that a patta was settled in favour of the writ petitioner, but he has not been permitted to enjoy the fruits.

4. Prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushinagar to extend the fishery lease and in alternative to decide the representation dated 02.04.2024. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 AIR (SC) 833, so as to contend that in the said eventuality the Hon'ble Apex Court has extended the patta.

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the writ petitioner might be right that on account of legal impediment, the petitioner could not the benefits of the fishery lease, however the judgment in the case of Beg Raj (supra) would not apply, as even in fact, there are subsequent judgments, which forbids extension of patta.

6. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of requiring the writ petitioner to prefer an appropriate application along with the self attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall thereupon consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law bearing in mind the fact as to whether in such contingency and in the wake of the terms and the condition of patta, the patta can be extended or not and also the applicability of the case of Beg Raj (supra) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, subject to legal impediment.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

8. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.

Order Date :- 21.5.2024

N.S.Rathour