Sharda Nishad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 19035 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sharda Nishad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95098
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14469 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Sharda Nishad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Munna Tiwari,Vindhyvasini Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

Heard Shri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Notice on behalf of respondent no.3 has been accepted by Shri Sudhir Bharti.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he is better for settlement of the Fishery pond being Arazi No. 388 area 0.417 hectare situated at village Aurawa Sofiganj, Tehsil- Kasia, District Kushi Nagar. The writ petitioner claims to have participated in the auction and deposited certain amounts, however, with respect to the said area, a civil suit is stated to have been pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Kasia was dismissed on 04.12.2019. However, according to the writ petitioner, he has not been handed over the possession.

The solitary relief sought in the present petition are two folds, firstly for a direction to the second respondent, Tehsil Kasia, District Kushi Nagar to extend the fishery lease and to decide the representation of the writ petitioner in the light of the judgment in Begraj Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2003 AIR SC 33.

Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha submits that the extension of release is dependent upon the terms and the provisions contained under the statutory provisions. However, in case, the writ petitioner has preferred the representation/application, the same will be dealt with by the second respondent, Tehsil Kasia, District Kushi Nagar.

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to decide the proceedings expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order in accordance with law bearing in mind the statute which enables the extension of lease and another relevant aspects.

Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.

Order Date :- 24.5.2024

A. Prajapati