Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 681 (ALL)

Ravindra v. State of U. P.

2015-04-02

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of respondent No. 3 and serve copy of the writ petition to Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Heard Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.1.2015 passed by the Collector/Zila Adhikari, Sant Kabir Nagar in Misc. Case No. 8 (Ravindra and others v. Shoba Devi and others) by which the petitioners' application, for permitting them to perform their fishery right over pond situated over Plot No. 290-Ka (measuring about 0.376 hectare) situated in Village Dharmsinghva Tappa Patana Pargana Bansi Purab Tehsil Mehadawal District Sant Kabir Nagar, has been rejected. 3. While assailing this order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that fishery lease is inheritable and the Collector concerned has erred in rejecting the petitioners' application on the ground that after the death of the petitioners' mother in whose favour lease was executed, the period of lease has come to an end and the petitioner cannot be permitted to inherit the same. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that a lease was executed in favour of the petitioners' mother Smt. Chandrawati Devi for performance of fishery right over the pond mentioned hereinabove. The lease was executed for the period of ten years and was operative till 31.12.2018. Later on, the petitioners' mother has died and after the death of the mother, the respondents have started hindrance in performance of fishery right by the petitioners. In that eventuality, the petitioners have approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 64996 of 2014. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 2.12.2014 with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation/application before the Collector/District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar. Pursuant thereto, the representation was filed. The Collector has rejected the petitioners' application on the ground that after the death of the original lessee, the period of lease has come to an end and stand cancelled and the heirs and legal representatives cannot inherit the same. 5. Pursuant thereto, the representation was filed. The Collector has rejected the petitioners' application on the ground that after the death of the original lessee, the period of lease has come to an end and stand cancelled and the heirs and legal representatives cannot inherit the same. 5. This type of controversy has earlier came up before this Court in the writ petition No. 5536 of 2005 (Mohan Lal v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 9.2.2005, wherein this Court has held that the fishery lease is inheritable. Not only in that case, but in another Writ (C) No. 7322 of 2014 (Smt. Sonmativ. State of U.P. and others), this Court has held that fishery lease is inheritable. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, I am of the opinion that the Collector has erred in rejecting the petitioners' application holding that the petitioners have no right to perform fishery right on the strength of the earlier lease executed in favour of their mother. The question as to whether the petitioners are the sons of the original lessee or not, this is a question of fact and that can be examined by the District Magistrate but so far as their inheritable right is concerned, that cannot be denied in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohan Lal and Smt. Sonmati (supra). In view of foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.1.2015 passed by the Collector/Zila Adhikari, Sant Kabir Nagar in Misc. Case No. 8 (Ravindra and others v. Shoba Devi and others) is hereby quashed with the direction to pass a fresh order in this regard in accordance with law looking into the order passed in this petition and earlier decisions of this Court as mentioned hereinabove expeditiously but not later than two months from the date of filing of certified copy of the order of this Court.