Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1122 (ALL)

Ram Ugrah Nishad v. State of U. P.

2014-04-07

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri D.B. Yadav for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, Sri D.D. Chauhan, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri K.P. Pandey, for respondent-6. The counsel for the respondents do not propose to file counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties writ petition is decided finally. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Collector (respondent-2) dated 26.02.2014, passed on the application filed by Mustak Ahmad (respondent-6) for cancellation of fisheries patta of the petitioner. 3. It has been stated that after due publication, auction for fisheries right was held 06.06.2013, in which highest bid of the petitioner of Rs. 9,20,000/- per year has been accepted. Mustaq Ahmad, the Pradhan of the village made a complaint that auction money was less and it could be more. On which Sub-Divisional Officer, by letter dated 27.07.2013, asked the Pradhan to produce the person, who was interested for giving more auction money. The Pradhan, in stead of producing any such person, filed another complaint dated 26.07.2013 before the Collector alleging that irregularities were committed in auction. On which Fisheries Development Officer conducted an inquiry in the village and submitted his report dated 10.10.2013 that complaint of Pradhan was baseless. Sub-Divisional Officer then by order dated 25.10.2013 confirmed the auction. The petitioner deposited the required money on 26.10.2013 and Lease was executed by Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad on 28.10.2013, giving fisheries right in the pond situated in plot 1192 (area 9.156 hectares) of village Budhan Nagar, tahsil Khalilabad, district Sant Kabir Nagar for a period of 10 years on the lease rent is of Rs. 9,20,000/- per annum. 4. Thereafter, the Pradhan along with four other persons filed another complaint dated 15.01.2014 before the Collector, alleging therein that on the spot along with plot 1192, surrounding plots of private persons also submerged in water. The private owners of the land also use to catch fish from this pond. The water of this pond was also used for irrigation by the villagers. After auction, a serious problem has arisen on the spot. On this complaint a fresh inquiry was conducted and Tahsildar submitted a fresh report dated 24.01.2014, mentioning therein that the portion of plot 1192 for which lease in favour of the petitioner has been granted, is separate on the spot from the land of private persons. After auction, a serious problem has arisen on the spot. On this complaint a fresh inquiry was conducted and Tahsildar submitted a fresh report dated 24.01.2014, mentioning therein that the portion of plot 1192 for which lease in favour of the petitioner has been granted, is separate on the spot from the land of private persons. Allegations made in the complaint were again found to be false. Additional Collector by his order dated 25.01.2014 dropped the proceedings and directed the local police to protect the fisheries right of the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, Mustaq Ahmad (respondent-6) filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the lease of the petitioner on the same allegations, on 31.01.2014. On which the Collector by order dated 26.02.2014 took cognizance and directed for registering the case. He also granted interim order staying further proceedings in pursuance of auction dated 06.06.2013 as confirmed on 25.10.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. By the order dated 26.03.2014, Standing Counsel was directed to take instructions, particularly under what provisions order dated 26.02.2014 was passed. On the basis of written, instructions, Standing Counsel informs that as the case for cancellation of lease of the petitioner has been filed by the Pradhan and others in which interim order dated 26.02.2014 was passed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. Wide publication for fisheries right in the disputed pond was made in the news papers on 31.05.2013. In pursuance to the publication, the petitioner applied and participated in the auction proceedings held on 06.06.2013. Mustaq Ahmad, the Pradhan of the village earlier filed a complaint that auction money was less and it can be more. On which Sub-Divisional Officer by letter dated 27.07.2013, asked the Pradhan to produce the person, who was interested for giving more auction money. The Pradhan, in stead of producing any such person, filed another complaint dated 26.07.2013 before the Collector alleging therein that Fisheries Department had constructed a dam of the disputed plots due to which extra rain water would damage the crops of the surrounding plots. It has been further alleged that the villagers of Hindu and Muslim communities used to perform their customary religious rites in the pond and auction for fisheries would affect the customary religious rites of the peoples. It has been further alleged that the villagers of Hindu and Muslim communities used to perform their customary religious rites in the pond and auction for fisheries would affect the customary religious rites of the peoples. Thereafter contradictory allegation that boundaries of surrounding plots were mixed with the disputed pond, has been made. Fisheries Development Officer after conducting inquiry in the village, submitted his report dated 10.10.2013 that complaint of Pradhan was baseless. Sub-Divisional Officer then by order dated 25.10.2013 confirmed the auction and executed lease deed. So far as the allegations in respect of obstruction in customary and religious use of the pond by the villagers are concerned, the terms of lease itself provide that the leasee will not interfere with customary religious and other daily use of the villagers. 8. The petitioner, in pursuance of the patta, reared fish seeds and has done pisciculture after investing huge amounts. Now the fishes are grown up and ready for catching. The Collector by the impugned order stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the auction dated 06.06.2013 as confirmed on 25.10.2013, without applying his mind that all the proceeding relating grant of lease had already been completed on 31.10.2013. The allegations made in the various complaints of Pradhan were found to be false. Thus the Pradhan is creating hindrance by making vague and false allegations and has secured the order dated 26.02.2014. The respondents themselves granted the fisheries lease to the petitioner, now instead of protecting his interest, interim order has been granted against the petitioner. 9. The counsel for the respondent submits that as the inquiry on the application moved by the respondents is still pending before the Collector, as such, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in this matter at this stage. He also produced before the Court a copy of the map and on its basis argued that area of plot 1192 is very big. Out of which only 9.156 hectare has been auctioned to the petitioner. In the garb of this lease for a small area, the petitioner is enjoying possession over entire area for which auction was not made. A perusal of the application filed by Pradhan shows that no such allegation has been made in the application dated 31.01.2014 or in any other application. In the garb of this lease for a small area, the petitioner is enjoying possession over entire area for which auction was not made. A perusal of the application filed by Pradhan shows that no such allegation has been made in the application dated 31.01.2014 or in any other application. The counsel for the respondents could not produce any document showing that area of plot 1192 is more than 9.156 hectare. As such, arguments in this respect is not liable to be accepted. The only allegation has been made by Pradhan that boundaries of surrounding plots were mixed with the disputed pond, which has been found to be false in the report of Fisheries Development Officer as well as Tahsildar. The allegations in this respect is also contradictory to the allegations in the application dated 26.07.2013, in which it has been admitted that Fisheries Department has constructed a dam of plot 1192 on the spot. 10. A copy of the application moved by Mustak Ahmad (respondent-6) (filed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition) does not show that Mustak Ahmad has disclosed his personal right over any of the plots surrounding to plot 1192. The copy of other application filed by Rahmatulah, Mohd. Hadees, Abdul Ajiz and Khalifur Rahman also does not show that they have any plot adjacent to plot 1192. Thus, all the objectors have no personal grievance and general allegations have been made that the right of villagers are affected. In such circumstances, it was not proper for the Collector to pass any interim order, interfering with the fisheries right of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents then submitted that the Collector may be directed to expedite the inquiry and conclude the trial of the case within stipulated period. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26.02.2014, staying further proceeding, is set aside. The Collector may proceed with the case and decide the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him, without being influenced with the observations made in this order.