JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the auction notice dated 23-7-1986 notifying an auction to be held on 25-8-1986 for settlement of fishing rights in the portion of river Ganga adjoining districts Badaun and Bulandshahr. Another prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the fishing rights in favour of the petitioner cooperative society in accordance with the Government Orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-81 with regard to the portion of river Ganga adjoining Tahsil Anupshahar. 2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. It consists of members belonging to Mallah and Machhuwara communities. According to the petitioner its members are residents of district Bulandshahar and are fishermen by profession. The petitioner claims settlement of fishing rights in its favour on the basis of Government Orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-81. The writ petition was presented on 21-8-1986 and a bench of this Court asked the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit and to explain which authority could auction the fishery rights in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case. By agreement of the parties we proceed to decide the writ petition at the stage of admission. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties a question arises whether the petitioner can get relief claimed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The basis of the petitioner's claim is the Government orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-1981. The petitioners has only to satisfy us that the aforesaid Government orders apply to the present petitioner. The petitioner claims right of fishing in river Ganga. The real question in the present case is whether the river Ganga ever vested in the Gaon Sabhas under the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act. The Government orders relied upon by the petitioner relate to the rivers vested in Gaon Sabha and it has been contended that the provisions of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual will govern the Thekas regarding fishery rights in the river in question. 4. The Government orders relied upon by the petitioner relate to the rivers vested in Gaon Sabha and it has been contended that the provisions of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual will govern the Thekas regarding fishery rights in the river in question. 4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted before us that river Ganga was the property of the Crown in good old days and it did not vest in Gaon Sabhas after the enforcement of UP ZA Act. The provisions of U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual will not at all be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The second submission made on behalf of the State is to the effect that the Theka of fishing rights claimed by the petitioner is in the hands of opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition i.e. the Executive Engineer, Narora Division Lower Ganga Canal, Aligarh and the opposite party has been auctioning the fishery rights since many years back, therefore, a dispute has arisen whether the opposite party no. 2 would auction the fishery rights in river Ganga or the opposite party no. 3. We have been informed that the opposite party no. 1 is considering the claim of the opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present writ petition regarding auction of fishery rights in river Ganga. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel the petitioner should approach the opposite party no. 1 regarding his claim and that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived because the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner are not at all attracted to the inter State river Ganga which belongs to the Union of India and previously belonged to the Crown. Reliance has been placed upon a ruling reported in 1946 AWR 155 PC, Rani Prabhawati Sahiba v. Secretary of State. 5. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to items nos. 56 and 57 of List I or VII Schedule as well as item no. 21 of List II of VII Schedule and it has been contended that the management of fishing rights in river Ganga would vest in State and the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner would be attracted. 56 and 57 of List I or VII Schedule as well as item no. 21 of List II of VII Schedule and it has been contended that the management of fishing rights in river Ganga would vest in State and the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner would be attracted. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon paragraph 62 of the U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual. 6. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. To answer the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding para 62 of the U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual, it is better to quote the relevant provision which reads as under :- "Para. 62 (3) (a) : As regards the auctioning of fisheries rights where the ex-zamindars had, in the past, been deriving income from fishings in the rivers and stream, the Land Management Committees shall continue the practice. In case where there was no such custom before the abolition of zamindari, the Land Management Committee may auction the fisheries' rights provided firstly that this decision is taken unanimously by all the members of the Land Management Committee and, secondly that the Collector has approved the decision. In according his approval, the Collector shall in view of the fact that the auction does not cause hardship to such people living on the banks of the river who were enjoying the fisheries' rights free of charge before the abolition of zamindari in accordance with some well-established custom, particularly if it is supported by any order or decree of a Court or by an entry in the Wajib-ul-arz or Dastur Dehi. (b) The fishing rights of Gaon Samajes situated on either banks of a river or the stream shall be governed by the Deep Stream Rules and every Land Management Committee will have a right to exercise their rights "within the boundaries of the villages for which it has been constituted." A bare perusal of para 62 of the U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual would indicate that the aforesaid para relates to Rule 115 (1) (d) of the UP ZA and LR Act. When river Ganga being a navigable river and inter-State do not vest in the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of sections 6 and 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act, it is incorrect to contend that the Government Orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-1981 would help the petitioner in getting the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition. To our minds the river in question in the present writ petition did not vest in Gaon Sabha and the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner do authorise the petitioner to claim the reliefs mentioned above. 7. The provisions of UP ZA and LR Act, namely sections 4, 6 and 117 only take away the rights, title and interest of the intermediaries including fisheries. They do not take away the right of fish in respect of Government owned river or other State properties as no question of their vesting in State would arise, Therefore, the right of fishing available to all the world on the high-seas and such public rights of fishery in the Government owned rivers will not vest in Gaon Sabhas under the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act. 8. Moreover, the State Government is itself considering the claim of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 regarding auction of fisheries' rights in the river in question. Unless their right is determined no question of auctioning the fisheries rights to anybody arises. If any of the opposite parties acts illegally, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the illegal act of the opposite parties in a properly constituted suit. We do not consider it a fit case to grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Even if we assume that the Collector of a district can auction fishery right independent of the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act as well the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that the Collector of the district has granted any right or licence so as to entitle the petitioner to claim the relief in item no. 1 of the present writ petition. As the petitioner has no sustainable claim, it cannot be granted the relief regarding quashing of the auction notice dated 23-7-1986 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1 of the present writ petition. As the petitioner has no sustainable claim, it cannot be granted the relief regarding quashing of the auction notice dated 23-7-1986 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Assuming that the opposite parties act illegally in auctioning fishery rights, the petitioner will have a remedy by way of a regular suit. 9. It is also note-worthy that the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that the river in question ever vested in Gaon Sabha. Therefore, we think that the petitioner cannot get any benefit out of the Government Orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-1981 and various subsequent orders which can be termed as issued under the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act. No decision has been brought to our notice that the river in question or other nevigable rivers which would be the State properties, ever vested in Gaon Sabha. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that it is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 10. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.