JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - As both the petitions arise out of the same order hence it is convenient to dispose of both by a common judgment ghora of details he the facts are that there is a tank in plot no. 35 area 1.26 acres situate in village Mahabalpur, Pergana Rethupur, Tahsil Chandauli, District Varanasi. It is used for fishing purposes. It was auctioned by the Land Management Committee Gaon Sabha Mahabalpur, respondent no. 4 in writ petition No. 9681 of 1983 and petitioner in the other writ petition. Kasim Ali respondent no. 5 in the writ petition No. 9681 of 1983 was the highest bidder in the auction sale held on 13-2-79, one Sri Sheo Naresh the petitioner in writ petition no. 9681 of 1983 made a complaint on 15-2-79. One Sri Sheo Naresh made a complaint on 15-2-79 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Chandauli (West) to enquire into auction of fishing rights in the said tank held on the said date and he alleged that he remained present there but no auction was held and the entire proceedings were fictitious and he came to know on 14th February 1984 that the tank had been auctioned in illegal manner. A report was called for from the Lekhpal who submitted the report that auction was legal and the supervisor Kanungo was also present. The proceedings started at 10 A. M. Five Participants participated and Kasim was the highest bidder for Rs. 3000/- hence he was granted lease for a period of 10 years. 2. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha alleged that Sheo Naresh petitioner was resident of village Shujabad and not of village Mahabalpur where tank was situate. Supervisor Kanungo also submitted his report on 15-5-79, The application of petitioner Sheonaresh was transferred to Tahsildar who by his order dated 31-12-80 allowed the application of Sheo naresh and cancelled the auction dated 13-2-79 in favour of Kasim Ali. A true copy of this order has beer, filed as annexure 4 in writ petition filed by Gaon Sabha (writ petition No, 11141 of 1983). 3. Kasim Ali, Sheo Naresh and Gaon Sabha preferred three different appeals against the order dated 31-12-80 under the provisions of rule 115-S (IV) of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. rules hereinafter referred as the rules. A true copy of this order has beer, filed as annexure 4 in writ petition filed by Gaon Sabha (writ petition No, 11141 of 1983). 3. Kasim Ali, Sheo Naresh and Gaon Sabha preferred three different appeals against the order dated 31-12-80 under the provisions of rule 115-S (IV) of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. rules hereinafter referred as the rules. The Assistant Collector by order dated 16-4-81 dismissed the appeals preferred by Gaon Sabha and Kasim Ali and gave a direction that Sheo Naresh may be given lease for a period of 10 years, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual (Annexure 3 in the writ petition of Sheo Naresh). 4. Revisions were filed by aggrieved persons before the Additional Commissioner who by his order dated 23-9-81 made recommendation that the order dated 16-9-81 may be set aside. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 10-6-83 has accepted the reference and has set aside the order dated 16-4-81 passed by Assistant Collector Varanasi and 30-10-81 passed by Tahsildar Chandauli. 5. In the writ petition No. 11142 of 1983 filed by Gaon Sabha of Mahabalpur and Land Management Committee Gaon Sabha Mahabalpur on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 namely Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad. Assistant Collector. Tahsildar Chandauli and State of U.P. Sri N. P. Misra learned Chief Standing Counsel has appeared and he has raised a preliminary objection that the petition filed by Gaon Sabha was not maintainable. He urged that the Gaon Sabha has conducted auction of fishing right in respect of the tank situate within its jurisdiction. The Additional Collector passed an order setting aside the auction of the fishing right and the Additional Collector directed that the lease may be granted in favour of Sheo Naresh, the petitioner in other writ petition. He urged that the property of the State is vested in Gaon Sabha for purpose of Management in accordance with provision of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act. It is provided that the Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee were acting with the direction of the State Government, It is open to the State Government even to transfer the property of the One Gaon Sabha to another Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha accordingly cannot claim any right to the property against the State Government. It is provided that the Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee were acting with the direction of the State Government, It is open to the State Government even to transfer the property of the One Gaon Sabha to another Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha accordingly cannot claim any right to the property against the State Government. He urged that as the Gaon Sabha has made auction hence it cannot change its stand and no legal right of the Gaon Sabha was effected and the petition may be dismissed on this preliminary ground alone but I propose to deal with this preliminary objection later on. 6. Sri S.M. Chaturvedi appeared for Sheonaresh petitioner urged that the orders of Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue are manifestly erroneous and the order of the Additional Collector was correct and as the same contained direction that the land may be settled with the petitioner Sheonaresh for a period of 10 years. According to procedure prescribed that order was correct and may be maintained. He further contended that Sheonaresh was residing in the Gaon Sabha as a tenant and was a landless labourer hence he was resident of Gaon Sabha Mahabalpur. He urged that the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner may be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari and that of the Additional Collector may be maintained. 7. Sri R.P. Tiwari appeared for Kasim Ali respondent no. 5 in both the petitions. He urged that the auction of fishing rights in respect of tank in dispute in favour of Kasim Ali was correct and he was the highest bidder hence auction sale in his favour held on 13-2-79 may be maintained. Sri Sankatha Rai appearing for Gaon Sabha in writ petition no. 11142 of 1983 urged that the writ petition filed by Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee was maintainable and that the preliminary objection urged by Sri N. P. Misra Chief Standing Counsel has no substance. Hence it may be rejected and the petition filed by Gaon Sabha may be allowed and a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing resolution of Land Management Committee Mahabalpur dated 13-2-70, order of Tahsildar dated 30-11-80 and part of the order of Assistant Collector dated 16-4-81 and the order of Additional Collector Commissioner dated 31-7-81 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 10-6-83 may be quashed. 8. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is a fact that Gaon Sabha Mahabalpur conducted the auction of fishing right in respect of the tank in plot no. 36 area 1.26 acres situate in village Mahabalpur, pargana Rathupur, Tahsil Chandauli, Distt. Varanasi. It was for pieces-culture. The auction was given in favour of Kasim Ali for a period of 10 years for a sum of Rs. 3000/-. Tahsildar allowed the objection of Sheo naresh and set aside the auction in favour of Kasim Ali by the order dated 31-12-30. The Additional Commissioner directed that tank may be settled in favour of Sheo naresh after following procedure prescribed The Additional Commissioner recommended to Board of Revenue that the revision may be allowed and the order of Assistant Collector may be set aside. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision and accepted the recommendation of Additional Commissioner, even though it has been urged that these orders adversely affect the interest of Gaon Sabha. The reasons are that Section 126 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act gave power to the State Government to issue such orders and direction to Land Management Committee as may appear necessary for the purpose of this Act and it would be the duty of the Land Management Committee and its office bearers forthwith to carry out such orders and comply such directions. Further section 321 of the Act provides that the State Government may by notification in Gazette delegate any Officer or Authority subordinate to it any of the powers conferred on it by this Act subject to restriction and condition specified in notification. Rule 115-A provides that State may issue direction to Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Land Management Committee, established under Section 28-A of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 pertaining to the land management etc. These directions may be issued to Collector of the District under rule 115-B of the rules by the State Government and the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual shall be deemed to contain the direction issued in accordance with rule 115-A. It means that Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual containing directions issued by the State Government as provided under Section 126 of the Act. The State Government has been issuing directions from time to time in connection with grant of lease or licence in respect of fishing rights. The State Government has been issuing directions from time to time in connection with grant of lease or licence in respect of fishing rights. These directions contained in paragraph 62 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual, provides that preference shall be given to fishermen, Boatmen residing in the village. The Gaon Sabha granted lease in favour of Kasim Ali. State Government has got superior authority to issue any direction as provided under Section 126 of the Act. The Gaon Sabha has to carry it out. It has come in evidence that Kasim Ali did not comply with the conditions of the auction and did not deposit the amount as provided under rule 115 5(1) of the rules and also under paragraph. 6 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual. No legal rights of the Gaon Sabha will be effected in this way as it has to carry out directions issued by State Government under Section 126 and other provisions. In view of the legal position, I am of the view that the writ petition filed by Gaon Sabha (writ petition No. 11142 of 1983, Gaon Sabha Mahabalpur and others v. Board of Revenue and others) would not be maintainable. I find support in the view that I am taking from a Division Bench decision of this court in Gaon Sabha Baisoh v. Additional Collector and others, ( 1979 RD 124 ) and another decision in Gaon Sabha Gave. v. Collector (AIR 1972 Allahabad 222) in this view of the matter the preliminary objection raised by Sri N. P. Misra learned Chief Standing Counsel is tenable and is allowed. 9. Kasim Ali respondent no. 5 in both the petitions did not comply with the conditions of the auction in his favour and did not deposit the amount as required by provisions of the Act and rules hence the auction sale in his favour has correctly been cancelled. Further the Additional Collector was not justified in giving direction to the effect that lease may be granted in favour of Sheo Naresh the petitioner in writ petition no. 9681 of 1983. In view of this fact the order dated 16-4-81 passed by Additional Collector Varanasi was also not correct. No legal right of the Gaon Sabha was effected hence it has no right to file revision before Additional Commissioner. 9681 of 1983. In view of this fact the order dated 16-4-81 passed by Additional Collector Varanasi was also not correct. No legal right of the Gaon Sabha was effected hence it has no right to file revision before Additional Commissioner. Revision No. 186 of 1981 (Gaon Sabha v. Sheo Naresh) has incorrectly been referred for being allowed by the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 21-9-81 and the Board of Revenue also committed an error in allowing the revision by accepting reference made by Additional Commissioner. 10. However, I.am of the view that as Kasim Ali did not deposit the amount required to be deposited under the rules nor he complied with the terms in respect of instalments as provided under Rule 115-S of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and Paragraph 62 of Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual hence auction in his favour was correctly set aside by the Tahsildar. At the same time the order of Additional Collector giving a direction in favour of Sheo Naresh was also not correct and the impugned orders being manifestly, erroneous deserve to be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari and Civil Mist writ petition No. 9681 of 1983 filed by Sheo Naresh must be allowed in part. 11. In the result, Civil Misc. writ petition No, 11142 of 1983 (Gaon Sabk Mahabalpur v. Board of Revenue and others) is dismissed as not maintainable ant Civil Misc. writ petition No. 9681 of 1983 is allowed in part and impugned orders passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner, Additions Collector and the Tahsildar are quashed. I am, however, also of the opinion that keeping in view the interest of general public and the financial loss of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Mahabalpur, I should direct the Collector, Varanasi, Tahsildar, Chandauli, Varanasi, Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee Mahabalpur to take immediate steps to re-auction the tank in dispute to a proper person after following the procedure prescribed by law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to Costs.