YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) A public auction for grant of fisheries rights for ten years was held on 10th September. 1990 in respect of a pond in old Khasra Nos. 1439. 1617 and 1624 (area about 6 acres) situate in village Khajuriwala, District Saharanpur. Sri Shyam Sunder (the contesting respondent) was successful bidder in this auction. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur (S. D. M.)granted approval to this auction on 16th November, 1990 but the registered lease deed in respect of the same was executed on 21st April. 1994. In this lease deed, it was mentioned that it was for a period of ten years from 16. 11. 1990 to 15. 11. 2000. ( 2 ) THE contesting respondent filed an application dated 6. 12. 1995 for extension of this period on the ground that he was not permitted to exercise fishers rights till execution of the lease deed and prayed that the period of the lease be extended to 20. 4. 2004 to make it ten years from the date of execution. This application was dismissed by the s. D. M. on 17th September. 1998. The S. D. M. held : * R. K. Office (Record Keeper Office) was negligent in not getting the lease deed executed. * In future lease deeds be executed within 15 days. * The term of lease deed cannot be varied. * The contesting respondent cannot be given ten years lease from the date of execution of lease deed. ( 3 ) THE contesting respondent filed a revision against this order. This revision was allowed on 7. 2. 2000 and the matter was remanded back to the S. D. M. , for re-decision on merit after hearing the counsel for the contesting respondent. The S. D. M. , after remand, allowed the application on 7. 2. 2000. He held that : * The contesting respondent was not permitted to exercise fisheries rights till the execution of the lease deed. * The contesting respondent is entitled to lease of ten years. * The term of lease should be extended to 20. 4. 2004. ( 4 ) GAON Sabha, Khajuriwala, District Saharanpur (Gaon Sabha) filed an application on 10th october, 2000 to cancel the order dated 7. 2. 2000. The S. D. M. , by his order-dated 1. 11. 2000 cancelled his earlier order dated 7. 2. * The term of lease should be extended to 20. 4. 2004. ( 4 ) GAON Sabha, Khajuriwala, District Saharanpur (Gaon Sabha) filed an application on 10th october, 2000 to cancel the order dated 7. 2. 2000. The S. D. M. , by his order-dated 1. 11. 2000 cancelled his earlier order dated 7. 2. 2000 on the ground that term of lease cannot be varied. The contesting respondent filed a revision against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue and obtained an interim order on 28. 11. 2000 staying the order dated 1. 11. 2000. During this period, the Gaon Sabha held fresh auction on 16th November, 2000 ; it was taken by Sri Gulab (the petitioner ). Despite the stay order granted by the Board of Revenue, the auction was approved by the S. D. M. , on 29. 11. 2000 and lease deed was executed in favour of petitioner on 8. 12. 2000 (registered on 20. 12. 2000 ). The Board of Revenue, after hearing the petitioner, allowed the revision on 11. 2. 2002 holding that. * The contesting respondent is entitled to exercise fishers rights for 10 years. * He was only permitted to exercise it from the date of execution of the lease deed. * He should be permitted to exercise fisheries rights till 20. 4. 2004. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 5 ) I have heard Sri S. C. Verma counsel for petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Aditya counsel for contesting respondents, standing counsel and Sri Anuj , Kumar for the other respondents. The contesting respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit. The petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at this stage, the Parties Submissions ( 6 ) THE petitioner has raised three points : (i) The lease in favour of the contesting respondent is by a registered deed. It can be altered only by another registered lease deed. (ii) The S. D. M. , or the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to extend the time stipulated in the lease deed. (iii) The delay in getting the document registered was due to the fault of the contesting respondent and he cannot take advantage of the same. It can be altered only by another registered lease deed. (ii) The S. D. M. , or the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to extend the time stipulated in the lease deed. (iii) The delay in getting the document registered was due to the fault of the contesting respondent and he cannot take advantage of the same. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the lease deed in favour of the contesting respondent is registered by the parties disagree on the question whether it was required to be registered. According to the petitioner, it is required to be registered but the contesting respondent submitted that : * The lease deed is by the Government. * It was executed on behalf of the Governor. * It does not require registration in view of Section 90 of the Registration Act. * There is no necessity to execute another registered document to vary its term, as it was not required to be registered. ( 8 ) SO far as second point is concerned, the petitioner submitted that terms of lease deed could be varied by the civil courts only or a suit for damages could be filed in the civil courts but the executive authorities or revenue courts have no jurisdiction to vary terms of the lease deed. Decision ( 9 ) THE first two points are interesting but in view of my decision on the third point, it is not necessary to decide them. The main question for determination in this case is whether in the circumstances of the case authorities should extend the period of lease or not. In case the period is to be extended, then a fresh lease deed can always be executed. ( 10 ) IN support of his third point, the petitioner submitted that the contesting respondent is not entitled to any extension in view of the following reasons : * The delay, If any, was caused due to inaction of the contesting respondent and as such, he is not entitled to take benefit of his wrong, * The contesting respondent has been exercising fisheries rights since the date of the auction. The reasons are neither correct nor borne out from the record. ( 11 ) THERE is no dispute that the auction held on 10th September, 1990, was taken by the contesting respondent. The reasons are neither correct nor borne out from the record. ( 11 ) THERE is no dispute that the auction held on 10th September, 1990, was taken by the contesting respondent. It is also not disputed that it was approved but the lease deed was executed on 21. 4. 1994. The application of the contesting respondent was initially dismissed on 7th September. 1988 but the S. D. M. held that the Record Keepers Office was negligent. He further directed that in future lease deeds should be executed within 15 days. The contesting respondent filed a revision against this order. It was maintainable in view of Matsya Jeevi sahkari Samiti v. Divisional Commissioner. 1986 RD 8. The revision was allowed and case was remanded back for re-decision. The S. D. M. , after remand further held that the contesting respondent was not permitted to exercise fisheries rights till execution of the lease deed. It is true that this order was cancelled on the application of Gaon Sabha on 1. 11. 2000 but this finding was not set aside. It was cancelled on the ground that the terms of registered lease deed could not be varied. The impugned order has also held that the contesting respondent was not permitted to exercise fisheries rights till lease deed was executed. There is nothing on the record to show that there was any fault on part of the contesting respondent or he exercised fisheries rights prior to execution of the lease deed. The findings are also in favour of the contesting respondent ; there is no illegality in the same. In view of this, there is no merit in the submissions of the petitioner that the contesting respondent was at fault or he exercised fisheries right prior to execution of the lease deed. ( 12 ) ALL public ponds (including the pond in question) vest in the State Government : their management has been handed to Gaon Sab has where they are situate. But this does not mean that the Gaon Sabha have exclusive right to deal with them. The S. D. Ms, look after interest of the State. It is for this reason that every lease deed requires approval of the S. D. M. concerned. In this case, the decision (and approval) was to permit the contesting respondent to exercise fisheries rights for ten years. The S. D. Ms, look after interest of the State. It is for this reason that every lease deed requires approval of the S. D. M. concerned. In this case, the decision (and approval) was to permit the contesting respondent to exercise fisheries rights for ten years. The contesting respondent could not exercise it due to negligence and fault of the Government officials. It is for this reason that Board of Revenue has accepted the application of the contesting respondent. This does not mean that terms of lease deed has been varied, it only means that in the circumstances of the case, a decision has been taken to grant fresh lease for the period that the contesting respondent could not exercise his rights due to fault and negligence of the officials. A fresh lease deed for extended period may, if necessary, be executed in pursuance of this decision. ( 13 ) THERE is also no equity in favour of the petitioner. It is not disputed that he had taken auction during pendency of the application filed by the contesting respondent. It is correct that the earlier order of the S. D. M. allowing the application of the contesting respondent, was cancelled by the subsequent order dated 1. 11. 2000 but this order was stayed by the Board of Revenue. Despite this interim order approval was accorded and the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. This was illegal. In view of the interim order, the S. D. M. ought not to have approved the auction. Gaon Sabha also had no right to execute lease deed in violation of interim order. These proceedings seem to be taken in undue haste. ( 14 ) APART from this, the order passed by the Board of Revenue has done justice to the parties. The matter would have been different if the authorities had held that the contesting respondent was at fault or had worked from the date of auction. In view of this, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution. Conclusion ( 15 ) THIS writ petition has no merits. If required, the Gaon Sabha and the S. D. M. may take steps to get fresh lease deed executed from the contesting respondent permitting him to exercise his rights till 20. 4. 2004. Conclusion ( 15 ) THIS writ petition has no merits. If required, the Gaon Sabha and the S. D. M. may take steps to get fresh lease deed executed from the contesting respondent permitting him to exercise his rights till 20. 4. 2004. The case of the contesting respondent has been that he is working even after 15. 11. 2000. It is clarified that he will not be entitled to any more extension on the ground that he could not exercise his rights during period of this litigation. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. .