Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3055 (ALL)

SHYAM BABU BIND v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-12-22

S.U.KHAN

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 Ram Mani. 2. The dispute relates to grant of 10 years fisheries lease in respect of pond comprised in plot No. 1978 area 2.724 hectares situate in village Newariya, Tehsil Meja, district Allahabad. According to the petitioner, lease was settled in his favour on 17.4.2003 while according to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6, it was granted to respondent No. 6 on 9.4.2003. At no occasion advertisement was published in any newspaper. Through interim order dated 14.5.2003 passed in this writ petition respondents were restrained from executing any fisheries lease in favour of any of the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for respondent No. 6 stated that by virtue of the said interim order pond was lying unoccupied. Learned Standing Counsel also stated the same thing. 4. The Court by order dated 1.12.2006 directed the petitioner and respondent No. 6 to offer their bids in Court. It was done in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 . On 19.12.2006 bid took place in Court, however, against the bid of Rs. 15,000/- offered by respondent No.6, petitioner expressed his inability to enhance the bid. Order to that effect was recorded in the order sheet. Thereafter learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that his client was ready to enhance the bid to Rs. 17,000/- however, as bid had been closed and order had been dictated hence the said offer was not accepted in the sense that learned Counsel for the respondent was not asked to state as to whether his client respondent No. 6 was ready to enhance the bid or not. I have held in Babban Ram v. State of U.P., 2004 (97) RD 675, that normally fisheries lease for 10 years shall be granted on Rs. 10,000/- per hectare, per year, rent. According to that formula the reasonable rent for the pond in dispute would be Rs. 27,000/- per year. 5. For grant of fisheries lease certain directions have been given in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995. The said G.O was interpreted by a full bench of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State, 2005 (99) RD 823. According to that formula the reasonable rent for the pond in dispute would be Rs. 27,000/- per year. 5. For grant of fisheries lease certain directions have been given in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995. The said G.O was interpreted by a full bench of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State, 2005 (99) RD 823. The full bench held that fisheries lease cannot be settled without advertisement for auction in newspaper. Thereafter, Government issued an order on 23.2.2006, which was based upon wrong interpretation of the said Full Bench decision. According to the said G.O, lease was to be granted on the basis of priorities instead of public auction. I interpreted the said G.O in Satya Vrat Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(5) ALJ 549, and directed that the fisheries lease shall be settled strictly in accordance with the aforesaid Full Bench authority. Para 11 of the said authority is quoted below : “11. Before parting with the case it is essential to notice the Government Order dated 23.2.2006, shown by the learned Standing Counsel. The said Government Order was issued after the aforesaid Full Bench decision of Ram Kumar. In the said Government Order it has been mentioned that Full Bench authority of Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 29.9.2005 in Writ Petition of Ram Kumar v. State, 2005(99) RD 823 has held that State Government has got a right to settle the fisheries lease on the basis of priorities instead of public auction. The Full Bench in para 29, which has been quoted above, has clearly held that fisheries lease should be settled through public auction so that every person belonging to the preferential category may know about it and in case more than one person belonging to preferential category are interested in taking the lease, then it shall be settled through auction. The Government Order dated 23.2.2006 it clearly based upon wrong interpretation of the Full Bench authority. Hence it shall not be given effect to. Fisheries lease shall be settled strictly in accordance with Full Bench authority which clearly mandates that a date for public auction shall be advertised in newspaper. It is needless to add that the advertisement must appear at least about a week before the date of auction. Hence it shall not be given effect to. Fisheries lease shall be settled strictly in accordance with Full Bench authority which clearly mandates that a date for public auction shall be advertised in newspaper. It is needless to add that the advertisement must appear at least about a week before the date of auction. However, in case any one person belonging to preferential category comes forward on the advertised date, then fisheries lease shall be settled in his favour. In case more than one person belonging to preferential category as provided in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 intend to take the fisheries lease, then it shall be settled through auction amongst them. In case no person belonging to preferential category is present on the date of auction then general auction amongst all the participants shall take place.” 6. Accordingly, it is directed that fisheries lease shall be settled neither in favour of the petitioner nor in favour of respondent No.6 on the basis of alleged auction dated 9.4.2003 or 17.4.2003. Deputy Collector concerned is directed to settle the fisheries lease in accordance with the G.O dated 17.10.1995 as interpreted by the aforesaid Full Bench and in the aforesaid judgment of Satya Vrat Singh in which subsequent G.O. dated 23.2.2006 has been held to be based upon wrong interpretation of the aforesaid Full Bench authority. 7. The Deputy Collector is directed to hold the auction in accordance with the above authorities on 23.1.2007 for which an advertisement must be issued /published in ‘Dainik Jagran’ or ‘Amar Ujala’ daily Hindi newspaper published from Allahabad at least one week before 23.1.2007. All efforts must be made to let out the pond at maximum possible rent. As respondent No. 6 has already offered Rs. 15,000/- per year rent, hence in no case pond shall be let out for less than Rs. 15,000/- per year. However, I am sure that if proper efforts are made then pond will very well be let out for at least Rs.27000/- per year. 8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be given free of cost to Shri S.P. Misra, learned Standing Counsel by 2.1.2007. ———