JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In the first writ petition, which was connected with writ petitions No. 23933, 23994, 24800, 27918 and 28676, all of 2001, a detailed order was passed on 25.9.2001 referring eight questions to Full Bench. Thereafter, matter was heard by Full Bench (However W.P. No. 24800 of 2001 had meanwhile been dismissed on 8.4.2005 by a Single Judge in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner). The questions were answered on 29.9.2005. The Full Bench judgment is reported in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2005(99) RD 823 : 2005(4) ESC 2617 (All)(FB). In other writ petitions, which are being decided through this judgment, orders for connecting the same with writ petition of Ram Kumar were passed. The Full Bench after giving its decision on the points, which were referred, sent the writ petitions to the Single Judge for decision in accordance with the views expressed by it. Accordingly, these writ petitions have been listed today. 2. Heard learned counsel for some of the petitioners, Sri Zafar M. Naiyer, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri V.K. Chandel and Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, for the State and its authorities. Some of the learned counsel, who are appearing for private respondents in some of the writ petitions, have also been heard. 3. The matter in dispute in these writ petitions relates to grant of fisheries lease normally for ten years in respect of ponds. In some cases, question of renewal of lease after expiry of the initial period is also involved. The Full Bench categorically held in Para-29 that lease should be granted after appropriate advertisement of the date of settlement. 4. The other important point decided by the Full Bench is that renewal of lease is utterly illegal. The third important thing which the Full Bench decided is that preference to cooperative societies of fishermen or those persons belonging to such castes, which are traditionally carrying the profession of fisheries as provided in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 should be followed. 5. In the judgment reported in Satya Vrat Singh v. State, 2006 (5) ALJ 549 : 2006(6) ADJ 346 , I summarised the effect of the Full Bench. 5. In the judgment reported in Satya Vrat Singh v. State, 2006 (5) ALJ 549 : 2006(6) ADJ 346 , I summarised the effect of the Full Bench. Wrongly interpreting the said Full Bench, Government had issued an order on 23.2.2006 mentioning that the Full Bench had held that State Government had got a right to settle the fisheries lease on the basis of priorities instead of public auction. I therefore directed that the said Government Order shall not be given effect to. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 of Satya Vrat Singh authority are quoted below : “5. In the aforesaid Full Bench authority in para 29 it has clearly been held that fisheries lease shall be settled through auction after due advertisement in newspaper. It has also been held in the said authority that no renewal must be granted. The Government Order dated 17.10.1995 dealing with manner of settlement of fisheries lease and preferece for such settlement with certain castes/communities has been approved subject to these two exceptions. The said Government Order has been upheld by the Full Bench in respect of priorities to members belonging to such casts, who are traditionally carrying on the fisheries business. Para 29 of Ram Kumar’s Full Bench decision is quoted below : “29.The settlement of fishery according to the directions under Section 126 of 1950 Act is settlement of property vested in the Gaon Sabha which should be done in a prescribed manner giving opportunity to all eligible persons to participate. The Revenue Officers, who are entrusted with duty, shall ensure proper advertisement of the date of settlement so that all persons who are eligible to participate have sufficient notice of the proposed settlement. The Government order itself contemplates “wide publicity”. The Sub-Divisional Officer himself should see that wide publicity is made. Now a days newspapers having wide circulation in the area is surest mode to publish a proposed settlement. As a general rule the Sub-Divisional Officer should publish in a newspaper having wide circulation of the settlement of fishing right to enable all concerned to participate. As observed above, in the event there are more than one person in one particular category of preference, the Sub-Divisional Officer is not prohibited to award the said fishing right by inviting bids by tender or auction.” 6. As observed above, in the event there are more than one person in one particular category of preference, the Sub-Divisional Officer is not prohibited to award the said fishing right by inviting bids by tender or auction.” 6. However, if no person belonging to the preferential category as mentioned in the Government order dated 17.10.1995 is interested in taking the lease then the pond cannot be left vacant. It will have to be given to any other person who is interested in taking the fisheries lease and is highest bidder in the open auction. According to the Full Bench even if in the preferential category more than one person are interested, then the lease shall be settled through auction. 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, has held that State Government has got a right to settle the fisheries lease on the basis of priorities in stead 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 is 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. However, in case only 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. However, in case only 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. In Babban Ram v. State of U.P., 2004 (97) RD 675, I have held that fisheries lease should not be settled for less than Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year. I have decided more than 500 cases on the basis of the said authority. Other Honourable Judges in several cases have also issued similar directions. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the authority of Babban Ram are quoted below : “1. Dispute in the instant writ petition relates to grant of fisheries rights in respect of a pond comprised in plot No. 220 area 1.06 Hectares situate in village Seuwara, Tahsil Machhalishahr, district Jaunpur. Initially petitioner was lessee of the said pond at an annual rent/premium of Rs. 300/-. Lekhpal, Naib Tahsildar and Tahsildar recommended that the lease of fisheries rights in respect of the said pond might be given to respondents No. 5 and 6 for Rs. 250/- per year. S.D.O./Deputy Collector on 14.11.2003 passed a patent order, “accepted as proposed”. On 23.3.2004 I passed an order indicating that on the next date pond might be auctioned in the open Court. Today both the parties i.e. petitioner on the one hand and respondents No. 5 and 6 on the other hand through their learned counsel offered their bids in the following manner : Petitioner Respondents Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 22,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 27,000/- Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 37,000/- 2. By judicial intervention annual rent/premium has been enhanced from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 37,000/- (i.e. 148 times). 3. I have followed this procedure with very good results in several cases drawing inspiration from an authority of Supreme Court reported in Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 . In the said authority Supreme Court settled mining lease through auction in Court wherein annual premium was enhanced from Rs. 37,000/- (i.e. 148 times). 3. I have followed this procedure with very good results in several cases drawing inspiration from an authority of Supreme Court reported in Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 . In the said authority Supreme Court settled mining lease through auction in Court wherein annual premium was enhanced from Rs. 4.5 lacs to Rs.25 lacs i.e. about five and half times by judicial intervention, which according to para-6 of the said authority visibly shocked and surprised each one in the Court. “Shock was induced by the fact that public property was squandered away for a song by persons in power who hold the position of trust. Surprise was how judicial intervention can serve larger public interest. One would require multilayered blindfold to reject the appeal of the appellant on any tenuous ground so that the respondent may enjoy and aggrandize his unjust enrichment. On this point we say no more.” (para-6 of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court). 6. It is a matter of grave concern that inspite of the aforesaid judgments Deputy Collectors are settling fisheries pattas without auction on highly inadequate premiums which is some times almost no premium as in the instant case. In the instant case instead of enhancing the premium it has been reduced. In almost all such cases favourable recommendation for renewal or grant of lease is made by Naib Tehsildars, Tehsildars and Revenue Inspectors and the said recommendation is blindly accepted by Deputy Collectors by patent order “accepted as proposed”. Deputy Collectors are not supposed to pass such orders in important matters. Such orders can be passed only in routine matters. For important matters Deputy Collector or any other Executive Officer must apply his mind and pass a reasoned order. In several cases pertaining to fisheries pattas which came before me during last two and half months premium was enhanced by 30 to 50 times either through auction in Court or by simply asking patta holder to enhance the premium. The Deputy Collectors are directed to be cautious in future otherwise Court may consider recommending initiation of punitive proceedings against erring officials including Deputy Collectors. Collectors of the Districts are also directed to keep a watch on the working of Deputy Collectors in this regard. The Deputy Collectors are directed to be cautious in future otherwise Court may consider recommending initiation of punitive proceedings against erring officials including Deputy Collectors. Collectors of the Districts are also directed to keep a watch on the working of Deputy Collectors in this regard. On the basis of experience gained by auctioning fisheries leases in Court it can safely be said that the average premium for which such leases can be granted is Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year. In future if lease is granted for lesser premium than Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year then special reasons must be given by the Deputy Collectors in the orders accepting the proposal/bid.” 7. In none of the present writ petitions, leases were settled after due advertisement in any such newspaper, which might have got wide circulation. 8. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions: (1) In those cases where leases or renewals already granted have expired, possession of the pond shall positively be taken back by 30.6.2009. (2) All the continuing leases or renewals are cancelled except those where lessees (either petitioner or respondent) offer to pay Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year for the unexpired period of lease and Rs. 5000/- per hectare per year for the period of lease till date after adjusting any amount already paid. In some cases learned counsel for the lessees either petitioner or contesting respondent expressed the willingness on behalf of their clients to pay the said amount. Such readiness shall positively be intimated to the Deputy Collector concerned by 30.6.2009 along with the amount as indicated above in respect of the period of lease or renewal till date. If it is so done, then the rent for the unexpired period of lease/renewal @ Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year shall be deposited by 31.12.2009. This direction is being issued in view of the fact that in most of the cases very little period of the lease is left. If it is so done, then the rent for the unexpired period of lease/renewal @ Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year shall be deposited by 31.12.2009. This direction is being issued in view of the fact that in most of the cases very little period of the lease is left. (3) The ponds leases or renewals in respect of which have already expired or the ponds in respect of which leases are continuing but the lessees do not give their willingness in writing by 30.6.2009 to occupy and use the pond on payment of the amount at the above rate, shall be advertised for settlement of lease within first fortnight of July, 2009 fixing a date for settlement after about a week from the date on which advertisement appears in the newspaper. The advertisement shall be published in daily Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagaran or Amar Ujala published from the place nearest from the pond. Leases shall be settled strictly in accordance with the view expressed by the Full Bench and as explained in the body of this judgment. It is further directed that leases shall be settled at least for Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year. (4) In all those cases where lease/renewal of the lease has expired, possession shall positively be taken by 30.6.2009 as indicated above and damages @ Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year shall also be recovered like arrears of land revenue from the occupants for the period from the date of expiry of lease/renewal till 30.6.2009. 9. If some further specific direction is required in any of these writ petitions, then an application for the said purpose may be filed therein for modification of this judgment to that extent in the writ petition concerned. 10. With the above observations all these writ petition are disposed of. 11. Sri V.K. Chandel and Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, who appeared on behalf of State in these writ petitions, are directed to send the copies of this order to all the Deputy Collectors concerned with the following particulars : (1) Number of the pond in dispute. (2) Name of the village, block, tehsil and district, where the pond in question is situate. (3) Name of the person to whom fisheries lease in respect of the pond was granted and the date and rate on which the lease was granted. ————