JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member (J.) - The present revision was filed by Sri Parminder Kumar Mal against Murlidhar, Balchan, Sheomun, Munni Lal and Land Management Committee village Sultanpur Barahgawan Pargana Nathupur Tahsil Ghosi district Azamgarh, Challenging the order passed by S.D.O. Ghosi on 14-3-93 approving the Tahsildar report for executive 10 years pattas for fisheries fights in favour of O.Ps. 1 to 4 discarding the resolution of L.M.C. dated 11-1-82 by which it was decided that the lease for 10 years should not be granted to any person. This revision was filed before Commissioner Gorakhpur who, vide his order dated 14-10-86, recommended that the order of S.D.O. Ghosi dated 14.3.83 be quashed as the lease was granted by S.D.O. without complying with the provisions of rules and instructions contained in G.O. dated 2 May, 1981. He treated the revision as if it was filed against the order of S.D.O. passed under Rule 115s of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules as in the grounds for revision it was represented that the order of S.D.O. was passed under Rule 115s. 2.The learned counsel for the revisionist supported the recommendations of the Commissioner and argued that S.D.O. could not have given 10 years patta disregarding the resolution of L.M.C. He should have directed the L.M.C. for auctioning the Tank for fisheries rights for 10 years as provided in G.O. dated 2.6.81. He also pointed out that the patta in favour of O.Ps. was not a registered one and as such it was nullity. In reply the learned counsel for pattedars O.P. 1 to 4 argued that order passed by the S.D.O. was the administrative order and was not reviseable. Patta, was executed by the Tahsildar on 11-4-83 which order was not challenged. It was only the intimation to L.M.C. Informing it the factum of execution of patta in favour of O.Ps. and as such it was not required to be challenged. 3. I have considered all the aspects of the case. Old Rule 115s regarding the auction of fisheries rights is no longer on a statute book since 17-3-1972. Even under the second proviso of older Rule 115s, this rule was not applicable to the cases in which State Government issued directions under Section 126 of the Act read with Rule 115-A, 115s U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is not applicable after 17-3-72, regarding pattas of fisheries rights. 4. Even under the second proviso of older Rule 115s, this rule was not applicable to the cases in which State Government issued directions under Section 126 of the Act read with Rule 115-A, 115s U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is not applicable after 17-3-72, regarding pattas of fisheries rights. 4. Now there is no provision under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for giving patta of fisheries rights. There is now no rule U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules under which the patta of fisheries rights can be granted to any one. Thus fisheries pattas are now granted under various G.Os. issued by the Government under Section 126 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by which the contractual liability is created between the executer of the patta and the pattedar and it is also required to be registered under Indian Registration Act as held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Mahboob Ali v. Prescribed Authority, 1990 RD 374. 5. While a. provision is made under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of Bhumidhari Patta under Section 198 and for cancellation of Abadi Patta under Section 122C-6 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, no provision is made for cancellation of patta of fisheries right, in the absence of which this court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision in the order of S.D.O. or Collector regarding the pattas of fisheries. The remedy for the aggrieved party is to file civil suit for the enforcement of the contractual rights or for getting the patta adjudged as null and void or to file civil suit to claim damages for the breach of contractual liabilities. 6. The result is that the recommendation of the Commissioner is not accepted and the reference is rejected. Parties shall bear their own costs.