Chattisgarh High Court
Shriram Matsya Udhyod Sahakari ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 September, 2021
1
WA No. 272 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 272 of 2021
[Arising out of order dated 23.8.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPS No.3346 of 2021]
Shriram Matsya Udhyog Sahakari Samiti, Jevra Registration
No. 2698, Through The President Chaitram Nishad S/o
Dukalharam Nishad, Caste Kenwat, Resident of Village-
Jevra, Tahsil & District- Bemetara C.G.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Fishery
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Bahinga, Tahsil And District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5. Mahila Machhuwara Swa-Sahayata Samuh Through The
Prsident Meena Nishad W/o Shashikapur, R/o Village Karhi,
Post Jiya, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6. Shail Kumari Nishad W/o Thandu Nishad Secretary Mahila
Machhuwara Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Village Karhi, Post
Jiya, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent-State :- Mr. Vivek Rajan Tiwari, Addl.A.G.
with Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy.G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey. J
WA No. 272 of 2021
Judgment On Board
By
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
13/09/2021
1. Aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant has
preferred this intra Court appeal in a case where he had
called in question fishing lease of the pond admeasuring
8.640 hectares which was resolved to be alloted to
respondent No.5 Mahila Machhuwara Swa - Sahayata
Samuh.
2. The argument mainly revolves around clause 3.2 of the
policy filed as Annexure P3 in the writ petition. It is the
stand of the appellant that under the said clause a pond/tank
having area more than one hectare cannot be alloted to a
Machhuwara Samuh, as the same can be alloted only to
Machhua Cooperative Society.
3. Clause 3.2 of the policy prescribes that in case of Machhua
Coporative Society, Machhuwara Samuh or Machhua
person, lease can be alloted in the ration of 0.50 hectare per
person in cases of pond and 4.0 hectare per person in the
case of irrigation tank. Likewise, tank having area upto one
hectare will be alloted to Machhua person and those having
area of more than one hectare will be alloted to Machua
Cooperative Society. Reading this provision, it is argued
that there is no place for Machhuwara Samuh for acquiring
lease of tank having area more than one hectare.
WA No. 272 of 2021
4. Learned Single Judge has refused to read clause 3.2 in
isolation and has considered the same along with clause 3.1
of the policy.
5. On conjoint reading of these two clauses, it is opined by
learned Single Judge that the order of preference is to Co-
operative society, Machhuwara Samuh and Machhua
person, in that order, therefore, the tank which can be
alloted only to Machhua person shall remain with the person
but those tank which are having an area of more than one
hectare can be alloted to Machhuwara Samuh or
Co-operative society by maintaining the preference.
6. It is also observed by learned Single Judge that the
appellant is having lease of another tank admeasuring 12.01
hectares, therefore, if the lease of the subject tank is alloted
to respondent No.5, no illegality can be found.
7. Having seen the documents attached to the writ petition, we
are of the view that the finding recorded by learned Single
Judge is emerging from the facts available in record and
clause 3.2 of the policy is correctly read by learned Single
Judge. The same is just and proper and does not suffer
from perversity.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Rajani Dubey)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Ayushi
