JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings relating to grant of fisheries rights as a society of the fisherman community. According to the petitioner, the proceedings had been undertaken in a camp that had been organized on 25.01.2016 and in such circumstances the approval granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 15.02.2016 would relate back to the proceedings which had been undertaken on 25.01.2016. Learned counsel submits that on a mere application having been filed the District Magistrate/Collector Hardoi has proceeded to cancel the said grant of lease to the petitioner on the ground that the allotment has been made in violation of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which had come into force with effect from 11.02.2016. Learned counsel submits that once the petitioner had succeeded in the proceedings that had been undertaken in the camp organized on 25.01.2016 then merely because an approval was made on 15.02.2016 and consequential orders were issued on 19.02.2016 would not invalidate the grant of fisheries rights on the ground of the enforcement of the 2006 Act on 11.02.2016. It is also submitted that in the event any person was aggrieved by any such allotment an appeal was available against the same, and the application for cancellation ought not to have been entertained which was an act without jurisdiction by the Collector. We have considered both the submissions and the undisputed fact remains that the final approval to the lease about which the process is stated to have been undertaken earlier was granted after the enforcement of the Act on 11.02.2016. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of any such saving clause under the 2006 Act, the proceedings undertaken earlier cannot be treated to have vested the petitioner with any right so as to claim that the order passed subsequently is valid. As a matter of fact with the enforcement of the 2006 Act on 11.02.2016 the correct procedure as provided under the 2006 Code ought to have been followed by adopting the procedure prescribed therein relating to allotment for which rules have also been framed, namely, U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016. In such a situation the argument advanced by the petitioner with regard to the proceedings prior to the enforcement of the code having created any right cannot be accepted. In such a situation the argument advanced by the petitioner with regard to the proceedings prior to the enforcement of the code having created any right cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, if the petitioner does not have any right accrued in his favour then there is no occasion to issue any orders or consider the argument relating to the filing of appeal in as much as the transaction itself is void. The authority concerned can proceed now in accordance with the 2006 Act and 2016 rules and the petitioner can also participate in the same in terms thereof. Consigned to records with the aforesaid observations.