Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 708 (ALL)

Sonmati v. State of U. P.

2014-02-26

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Ms. Afshan Safaut, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2013 and 25.1.2014 and further not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner over fishery gata No. 114/0.724 hectare situated in villge Marwati Mafi, post Cauri Mahulani, Tehsil Naugarh District Siddharth Nagar. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that with respect of the aforesaid gata lease was granted to the petitioner's husband who died on 11.12.2013. After the death of her husband the petitioner has given an application for permitting her to perform fishery right but no decision has yet been taken. Hence this writ petition. On 6.2.2014 this Court has passed the following order: "In substance the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the interference in performance of fishery right over Plot No. 114/0.724 hectare situated in village marwati Mafi, post Chauri Mahulani Tehsil Maugarh district Siddharth Nagar. It is contended that the petitioner's husband was allotted the aforesaid pond and lease was executed in his favour which is operative upto 2017. Her husband has died and thereafter the petitioner is performing fishery right and is depositing the required amount as per the condition of the lease but now the respondents are creating hindrance. 4. Learned standing counsel as well as the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha are directed to seek instruction as to weather the lease granted under the Government order dated 17.10.1995 is inheritable or not. Put up as a fresh case on 17t February, 2014" On 17.2.2014 learned standing counsel stated that on the same facts Writ Petition No. 44742 of 2011 (Kishore vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed which is still pending. The record of the aforesaid case has been summoned. In the aforesaid writ petition counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents. 5. For appreciating the controversy it would be appropriate to reproduce the contents of paragraph 8 of the aforesaid writ petition as well as its reply in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit which are reproduced herein under: "8. In the aforesaid writ petition counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents. 5. For appreciating the controversy it would be appropriate to reproduce the contents of paragraph 8 of the aforesaid writ petition as well as its reply in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit which are reproduced herein under: "8. That respondent no.2 had rejected the representation of the Nathu son of Banshraj on the ground that Patta was granted in favour of father of respondent no.5 for fishing in the pond in question for a period of 10 years, which is valid till 2017 after passing 4 years lease holder had died thereafter petitioner approached to respondent no.2 for cancellation of the lease and fresh auction but respondent no.2 to decide an application in favour of respondent nalsoo.5 and saying taht lease holder right for fishing are heritable unless contrary is provided under the agreement of lease. " 6. The reply of paragraph 8 has been made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit which is also reproduced hereunder: ^^6- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj&8 esa of.kZr dFku ftl : i esa vafdr gS Lohdkj ughs gS\ blds izfrmRrj esa dgu gS fd ukFkw iqrz oa'kjkt fuoklh xzke dksgMoy )kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa flfoy felfyfu;e fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 26737@2011 fd'kksj cuke m0iz0 ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr ijekns'k fnukad 09&05&2011 ftlesa ;kph ds izR;kosnu ffnukad 03&05&2011 dk fuLrkj.k foi{kh@mRrjnkrk la0&2 ftykf/kdkjh] egkjktxat] dks djus gsrq funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk dh izekf.kr izfr ds lkFk fnukad 18&05&2011 dks izR;kosnu izfri{kh@mRrjnkrk la0 2 ftykf/kdkjh] egkjktxat] dks lEcksf/kr djus gq;s izLrqr fd;k] ekUuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ijekns'k fnukad 09&05&2011 ds vuqikyu esa ftykf/kdkjh] egkjktxat] )kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn )kjk flfoy felysfu;l fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 16087@2010** 7. From the perusal of paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it transpires that in that case the Collector has permitted the legal heirs of the deceased lease holder to perform fishery right for the remaining period of lease on the satisfaction of conditions made under the lease. 8. Taking note of that, writ petition is disposed of with the observation that for redressal of her grievance the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the Sub Divisional Officer. 8. Taking note of that, writ petition is disposed of with the observation that for redressal of her grievance the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the Sub Divisional Officer. In case such a representation is filed along with a certified copy of the order of this Court appropriate order be passed thereon keeping in mind the order passed by the Collector Maharajganj in Writ Petition No. 44742 of 2011 (Kishore vs. State of U.P. and others) This exercise is to be done within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of.