Bombay High Court
Matsyagandha Macchimaar ... vs Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Through ... on 30 September, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1 wp159.18 & others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.159 OF 2018
1) The Matsya Vyavsay Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, Gumgaon,
Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur,
through its President Shri Nilesh
Harichandra Durge.
2) Wakeshwar Macchhi Palan
Vyavasay Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit,
Wakeshwar, Tahsil and District
Nagpur, through its President
Shri Satyavrat s/o Narendra Datta.
3) Dhamnapeth Macchhindra
Macchhimar Sahakari Sanstha,
Dhamnapeth, Tahsil Nagpur (Rural),
District Nagpur, through President
Shri Maruti Shrawan Bawane.
4) Macchhimar Sahakari Sanstha
Maryadit, Ghoti, Post Butibori,
Tahsil and District Nagpur, through
its President Shri Pyarelal Barve.
5) Bhujal Kisan Macchhimar Sanstha
Maryadit, Chandan Pardi,
Post Murti, Tahsil Katol, District
Nagpur, through its President
Shri Mahavir Gour.
6) The Fisherman Multipurpose
Cooperative Society Ltd., Ramtek,
through its President. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
2 wp159.18 & others
1) State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Agriculture,
Animal Husbandary, Dairy
Development and Fisheries
Department, Madam Cama Marg,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mantralaya Extension,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2) Zilla Parishad, through its
Chief Executive Officer,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3) Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4) Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Katol,
Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur.
5) Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Ramtek,
Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Ms. S.A. Lakhani, Advocate h/f Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for
petitioners.
Smt. K.R. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
no.1.
Shri P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5.
----------------
(II) WRIT PETITION NO. 1958 OF 2018
Panchasheel Matsyavyavasaya Sahakari
Sanstha (Mahurzari), Nagpur, through
its President, Taluq and District Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
3 wp159.18 & others
1) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its
Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3) Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4) State of Maharashtra, through its
Department of Agriculture,
Animal Husbandary, Dairy and
Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
5) State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary of Department of Rural
Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ... Respondents
----------
Shri O.A. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Smt. K.R. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos.4 and 5.
----------
(III) WRIT PETITION NO. 2772 OF 2018
1) Matsyagandha Macchimaar Sahakari
Sanstha, Gondkhairi, Taluq Kalmeshwar,
District Nagpur.
2) Jayashreelaxmi Sahakari Macchimaar
Sanstha, Pachgaon, Taluq Umred,
District Nagpur.
4 wp159.18 & others
3) Navjeevan Macchimaar Vyavasayik
Sahakari Sanstha, Navegaon,
Taluq Umred, District Nagpur. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, through its
Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3) Panchayat Samiti, Kalmeshwar,
through its Block Development Officer.
4) Panchayat Samiti, Umred, through
its Block Development Officer.
5) State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary of Department of
Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary of Department of
Rural Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai. ... Respondents
------------
Shri O.A. Ghare, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 , 3 and 4.
Smt. K.R. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos.5 and 6.
------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
5 wp159.18 & others
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2) In all these petitions, the respective tanks have been
allotted to these petitioners in a public auction held in that regard
and allotment of these tanks is for the purpose of exploitation of
fishing rights in respect of each of these tanks by the petitioners. The
rate at which these tanks have been allotted to these petitioners is
uniform and the rate is of Rs.300/- per hectare per year. These tanks
have been allotted to the petitioners for the period of five years with
effect from 1/7/2017 till 30/6/2022. The rate at which these tanks
were allotted to the petitioners was prescribed in the Government
Resolution dated 26/6/2014, which was temporarily stayed by
another Government Resolution dated 16/5/2016, which stay was
lifted by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 30/6/2017.
But in doing so, the earlier Government Resolution dated 26/6/2014
was also superseded by the Government Resolution dated
30/6/2017, thereby replacing the old regime of rates by new regime
of rates, which were Rs.1800/- per hectare per year.
6 wp159.18 & others
3) Considering the fact that the agreements regarding
allotment of tanks were executed much before coming into force of
the Government Resolution dated 30/6/2017 and these agreements
prescribe rate of allotment to be at Rs.300/- per hectare per year, the
new rate brought into force by the Government Resolution dated
30/6/2017 would not be applicable to the agreements, which were
already executed between the fishermen societies like the petitioners
on one hand and the State Government on the other unless both
parties agree for revision of rates of allotment. Admittedly, there was
no such agreement having taken place between both parties.
4) Apart from what is stated above, we find that the new
rates brought into force by the Government Resolution dated
30/6/2017 could not have been applied to the existing agreements
for one more reason. There is a clarification issued by the State
Government through its Department of Agriculture, Animal
Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries vide communication dated
4/10/2017 (page 65 in Writ Petition No.1958/2018), which clarifies
that the Government Resolution dated 30/6/2017 is not applicable
7 wp159.18 & others
to the tanks belonging to Zilla Parishads and which have been
allotted for exploitation of fishing rates.
5) Thus, we find substance in the petitions and declare that
the Government Resolution dated 30/6/2017 would not apply to the
fishing rights exploitation agreements already executed between the
petitioners on the one hand and the State Government on the other.
We also declare that no additional demands on the basis of
Government Resolution dated 30/6/2017 can be raised upon any of
these petitioners.
6) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ
JESWANI
Signing Date:03.10.2022 15:04
