JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In this case on 05.12.2009, following order was passed : “The allegation is that a pond having an area of 0.809 comprised in Plot No. 244 situate in Village Mujdeeha Tehsil Hata District Kushinagar was allotted to respondent No. 6, Narvada on whose behalf Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel, has filed vakalatnama today, on 25.5.2005 for Rs. 2,01,000/-. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 admits this fact and also submits that one fourth of the said amount was deposited by the respondent No. 6 on 13.6.2005. The copy of receipt is Annexure-I (4th receipt) to the writ petition itself. Some further amount was also deposited by respondent No. 6 subsequently copy of receipt of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition. Now in July, 2009, the same pond has again been settled in favour of respondent No. 6 for only Rs. 10,000/- by the S.D.O. The Court is of the opinion that the S.D.O., who has done it, does not deserve to remain in government service. However, before recommending to the State Government to at once initiate disciplinary proceedings against him after suspending him, it is essential to provide an opportunity of hearing to the S.D.O. concerned. Accordingly, the officer who was holding the post of S.D.O. Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, in July, 2009, shall be present in Court and file his affidavit on 15.12.2009. Put up for further order on 15.12.2009 at 2 p.m. Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha is also present. Meanwhile, respondent No. 6 is permitted to exercise his fisheries right over the pond in dispute treating the pond in dispute to have been allotted to him in May, 2005 for Rs. 2,01,000/-. If any amount is due to be paid thereunder then the same shall also be paid by respondent No. 6. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the records pertaining to the settlement of fresh fisheries lease in respect of the pond in dispute in favour of respondent No. 6 in July, 2009. It must also be informed as to whether the amount of Rs. 50,250/- and the subsequent amount, which was deposited by respondent No. 6 pursuant to settlement of lease in his favour in May, 2005 is still in deposit or has been permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No. 6. It must also be informed as to whether the amount of Rs. 50,250/- and the subsequent amount, which was deposited by respondent No. 6 pursuant to settlement of lease in his favour in May, 2005 is still in deposit or has been permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No. 6. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned Chief Standing Counsel today for sending the same to the Collector & the S.D.O. concerned.” 2. Today, affidavit of Sri Birjnath Yadav, who was the Deputy Collector/ S.D.O., Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar has been filed. It has been stated in the said affidavit that Sri Yadav joined the post of S.D.O. Tehsil Hata on 7.2.2009, that concerned lekhpal had issued a letter on 17.1.2009 to the Land Management Committee for calling of meeting of Gaon Sabha for settlement of fisheries lease and a similar letter was sent by Tehsildar to the Chairman, Land Management Committee mentioning therein that some persons had submitted applications for allotment of fisheries lease. It is also stated in Para-7 that Munadi was done on 27.1.2009 and on 23.2.2009 only respondent No. 6, and one more person submitted applications. Thereafter, in Para-10, it has been stated that earlier proceedings of 25.5.2005 were not brought to the notice of the deponent/ S.D.O. by concerned area lekhpal. It is also stated in Para-10 that deponent has started departmental proceedings against concerned area lekhpal and concerned revenue inspector. It is also stated in Para-12 that the amount of Rs. 50,250/- deposited by respondent No. 6 in 2005 is still in deposit. 3. The Court expresses its wonder over the manner in which records are maintained in the District. It is share common sense that before proceeding to auction fisheries lease in respect of a pond, it must be ascertained as to whether there is any continuing lease or not. If the records are maintained in such manner that new incumbent on the post of S.D.O. is not able to ascertain this fact then it depicts the entire office of S.D.O. in a very shabby form. Not only in the district in question but in all the districts of the State, records should be maintained in proper manner. If the records are maintained in such manner that new incumbent on the post of S.D.O. is not able to ascertain this fact then it depicts the entire office of S.D.O. in a very shabby form. Not only in the district in question but in all the districts of the State, records should be maintained in proper manner. The allegation of the present S.D.O. that he merely acted upon the report of lekhpal also shows that he does not bother about the details and does not apply his mind. It has not been stated that in what manner disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against lekhpal and the inspector. 4. However, I am sitting in this jurisdiction for about a month and in several fisheries matters, I have found that the working of Deputy Collectors in this regard is not upto the mark, hence I do not consider it appropriate to single out Sri Brijnath Yadav, the then S.D.O., Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar for initiating disciplinary proceedings. 5. However, it is high time that the Government seriously thinks about the problem. Ponds are being squandered away and settled for fisheries leases for highly inadequate considerations, which may well be described as negligible. According to the study and the recommendations made by the fisheries department, if the business of fisheries is done in an appropriate manner, then profit of Rs. 90,000/- per hectare per year may very well be earned. About two years before, learned Standing Counsel supplied a five pages document prepared by Fisheries Development Authority Allahabad (Matsyapalak Vikas Adhikaran), which does not contain any date. It is in the nature of guideline/project. It is mentioned therein that cost of a finger’s length fish is 8 paisa, which after 12 months, weighs 1 kg and is sold for about Rs. 40/-. On page-4, it is mentioned that gross income from a pond of one hectare where only 5 feet deep water is maintained through out the year is Rs. 1,20,000/- per year and after deducting the expenses of Rs. 30,000/- per year, the net income is Rs. 90,000/- per hectare per annum. In view of this, the minimum rate of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year fixed by the authority reported in Babban Ram v. State of U.P., 2004 (97) RD 675 is quite on the lower side still in almost all cases fisheries leases are being granted for about Rs. 90,000/- per hectare per annum. In view of this, the minimum rate of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year fixed by the authority reported in Babban Ram v. State of U.P., 2004 (97) RD 675 is quite on the lower side still in almost all cases fisheries leases are being granted for about Rs. 1000/- per hectare per year. If the lease has been taken for highly inadequate amount, then the lessee will not do the business with full dedication. If ponds are taken on good rent, then the lessee will do the business in an appropriate manner and for the said purpose will make all efforts to maintain the water level in the ponds. This will have double benefit, fisheries will develop in the State and ponds will be maintained. In this manner, economy and ecology, both will be benefited. In spite of several authorities of this Court including full Bench authority of Ram Kumar v. State, 2005 (99) RD 823, fisheries leases are seldom settled after due advertisement. This is an alarming situation. Along with the counter affidavit, three Government Orders have been annexed. One is dated 17.10.1995, which has thoroughly been examined in the aforesaid bull Bench authority and some portions of the said G.O. have been set aside. The other is dated 23.2.2006. In Satya Vrat Singh v. State, 2006(6) ADJ 346 , I held that the said G.O. was against the directions of aforesaid Full Bench authority of Ram Kumar (supra) even though in the said G.O., reference to the said full bench authority was made. Third G.O. is dated 20.11.2006. There is a highly perturbing direction in the said G.O. under Clause-3. According to the said direction, leases should be granted to the deserving persons of fisheries community on priority basis without giving them any trouble (taklif/ kathinai) and in that regard, procedural requirements/ complications should be ignored. This direction is directly against the aforesaid full Bench authority. If procedure is prescribed, then it will have to be followed. If after due advertisement no person belonging to preferential category comes forward, then lease will have to be granted to one of the applicants through auction. This direction is directly against the aforesaid full Bench authority. If procedure is prescribed, then it will have to be followed. If after due advertisement no person belonging to preferential category comes forward, then lease will have to be granted to one of the applicants through auction. In one case (Writ Petition No. 64025 of 2009) decided by me on 5.12.2009, none of the eight applicants, who had come forward in pursuance of the advertisement, was granted fisheries lease and after few days for almost negligible amount, it was granted to some so-called fisheries society and the S.D.O. tried to justify his action on the basis of the above clause of the G.O. dated 20.11.2006. 6. Under Para-4 of the said G.O. regarding rent/ lagaan reference has been made to an earlier G.O. dated 20.05.1981 according to which the rent/ lagaan should be fixed on the basis of average income of last three years otherwise rates fixed by fisheries department. The third contingency is that it must be double of the lagaan at marusi rate. In no case effort is made to determine the income of last three years or reference is made to the rates fixed by fisheries department. In this regard, it is utmost essential that clear guidelines must be issued to all the S.D.Os. As in the brochure issued by Fisheries department (supra) net income has been estimated to be Rs. 90,000/- per hectare per year hence 1/4th or 1/5th of the said income may be fixed as minimum rent/lagaan. 7. All the deputy Collectors are required to settle the fisheries lease in accordance with the above authorities and directions given hereinafter. In this regard, suitable directions may be issued by the Government so that they may serve as compilation of all the relevant requirements in this regard. The S.D.Os. are directed to take decision by themselves while granting fisheries lease instead of putting the three magic words ‘approved as proposed’ on the proposals of lekhpals, Niab Tehsildars and Tehsildars. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has categorically stated that respondent No. 6 is ready to continue with the lease dated 25.5.2005 for ten years, i.e. till 25.5.2015, for Rs. 201,000/-. In view of this statement, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has no further grievance left. 9. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has categorically stated that respondent No. 6 is ready to continue with the lease dated 25.5.2005 for ten years, i.e. till 25.5.2015, for Rs. 201,000/-. In view of this statement, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has no further grievance left. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that fisheries lease granted on 25.5.2005 to respondent No. 6 for Rs. 201,000 /- should remain in operation and balance amount shall be paid by respondent No. 6 in accordance with the prevalent procedure of payment of the lease amount. All proceedings pending in respect of fisheries lease of the pond in dispute before any Court or any authority subordinate to the High Court shall at once be dismissed as abated. 10. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned Chief Standing Counsel within ten days for immediately sending the same to appropriate authorities of the Government including Chief Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. ————