JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member (Judicial). - The facts are : A.L.M.C. resolution dated 8-8-1968 was for fishing rights for Beni on a payment of Rs. 560/- to last till 5-6-1977. The resolution sent to S.D.O. for judicial approval. Things did take a new "turn. Vikrama etc. rank outsiders, moved an application on 8-8-1986, wheretofore, resolution of 1968 lay uncared for, that they are willing to pay for the fishing rights Rs. 700 annually. A report of Naib Tahsiladar, forwarded by Tahsildar on 12-9-1976, was received to assist S.D.O. in opinion formation. The recommendation was : reject resolution of L.M.C. for Beni, instead grant fishing rights to Vikrama. The S.D.O was pleased to express his magisterial opinion on 4-12-1986 only that : as proposed. This was followed by execution of formal lease deed on 10-8-1987. Beni lost the game in a field not of his choice. He appealed with the hope of securing a reversal. Chief Revenue Officer Mirzapur, by his order dated 20-1-1988 reversed the opinion under appeal, set aside order dated 4-12-1986 and 10-8-1987, directed S.D.O. to decide by auction, buttressed also by resolution of L.M.C. 2. It was now turn for Vikrama etc. to file a revision petition before the higher court of Commissioner. Sri R.N. Varma, Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, on 29-4-1989 has forwarded this reference to upturn the order dated 20-1-1986 of Chief Revenue Officer, whom the appeal did not lay. On merits he was not disposed to address a finding. 3. The reference is up for disposal, heard the counsel, the record has been seen. 4. The procedure prescribed for grant for fishing rights is significantly clear. L.M.C. has passed a resolution for Beni. The area is : 2-19-0. This is less than 3 acres. It did not require approval for final allotment. This allotment was open to challenge as detailed in Rule 115-S. This did not happen. 5. The order of S.D.O., dated 4-12-1986 was not challengeable in appeal, as revision lay. It lay not before Collector but before Commissioner. This position is beyond controversy, mediated in 1986 R.D. 8 (H.C.) The filing of appeal before Collector for Beni by his advocate is indefensible. The Additional Commissioner confounded the confusion by his unmerited order that he passed. He sat in revision only to proclaim, appeal did not lay before Collector. But, then, revision before him did lay and he was seized of the same. The Additional Commissioner confounded the confusion by his unmerited order that he passed. He sat in revision only to proclaim, appeal did not lay before Collector. But, then, revision before him did lay and he was seized of the same. So he was to evaluate and address a finding on issues that arose. The allotment by S.D.O. to Vikrama, without resolution, without auction, was beyond S.D.O.s concern. 6. It is now apt to wrestle with the issues with precision and in greater detail. The resolution of L.M.C. for Beni was erroneously sent to S.D.O. for his prior approval. He did not return it with his guiding opinion, that it requires under law, no judicial sanction. His obvious satisfaction was in passing no order thereon. Indifference - yes, indifference to the case of L.M.C. for 18 years. Omission - yes, stark omission to dispatch at once the papers for aspiring Beni. The process took an ugly turn when outsider Vikrama, riding roughshod over L.M.C. resolution made a move in their application on 8-9-1986 addressed to S.D.O. and delivered to Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, with no role in the picture, wrote a recommendation in his inadmissible report that resolution of L.M.C. for Beni be rejected, that offer of Virkrama for Rs. 700/- be accepted. Was S.D.O. competent to decide this? Was there auction and L.M.C. resolution for Vikrama ? Was the difference in price more than Rs. 140? Is the thing conceived only as a business enterprinee? Was Beni with no voice ? How the fortunes of Vikrama brightend in Tahsil is for S.D.O.s contemplation. What tackle did he use to secure fishing rights? And behold S.D.O. did it on 4-12-1986. The counsel for Vikrama urges that action of S.D.O must be seen founded in paragraph 62 (2) of Gaon Sabha & B.P.S. Manual. I cannot. When L.M.C. resolution is in processing under Rule 115-S.Z.A. and L.R. Rules S.D.O. in this case ought not to have put his foot down. Even otherwise S.D.O. will not assume functions of L.M.C. - an autonomous body with few qualifications unless the same fails and falters and for prior recorded justifications, 1990 R.D. page 3. The S.D.O. is not to encroach and snatch the rights of L.M.C. This is typical of S.D.O.s abuse of his official position. Even otherwise S.D.O. will not assume functions of L.M.C. - an autonomous body with few qualifications unless the same fails and falters and for prior recorded justifications, 1990 R.D. page 3. The S.D.O. is not to encroach and snatch the rights of L.M.C. This is typical of S.D.O.s abuse of his official position. He was neither responsive to nor supportive of L.M.C. No. summon was valid for him to give shape, meaning and substance to requirement of Para 62 (2), Gaon Sabha and B.P.S. Manual. He seems reckless with no sense of judicial responsibility and precision to inform his conduct. 7. The institution of L.M.C. is mens creation. This is an experiment and is under supervision, Tahsildar/S.D.O. should not over reach and throttel its legitimate functions. They cannot intrude without informing themselves of accredited procedure and legal position. Even to help L.M.C. with sincerity is to ignore the French saying : small reforms are the worst enemies of great reforms. It is apt to remember : an organism, if pulsating with vitality, decomposes to re compose. 8. All considered the allotment in favour of Vikrama cannot stand. The order of S.D.O. dated 4-12-1986 is set aside. The consequential allotment order 10-3-1987 also goes down. Plot no. 173 area 2-19-0 is vested in Gaon Sabha. Since Rule 115-S are not on the statute book since 17-3-1972 Beni should try for fresh fishing lease as he deems proper. Reference is accepted, the order of Addl. Collector 20-1-1986 is also set aside.