Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 430 (ALL)

Ramanand v. State of U. P.

2020-02-07

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishikant Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Sharma, the Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and the Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be finally decided on the basis of facts stated and the documents annexed with the writ petition itself and no counter-affidavit is required. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has proceeded to decide the case on merits. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted fisheries lease on 10.3.2016 for a period of ten years. The area of the pond is 0.502 hectares. An agreement to that effect was also executed in favour of the petitioner after the petitioner deposited the requisite amount. Objections were filed before the Collector, Mau under Rule 59 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 2016') challenging the allotment of fisheries lease to the petitioner on various grounds including that because the area of the pond was less than 5 hectares, therefore, the petitioner could" not have been granted lease for a period of ten years. The other grounds raised in the objections related to the procedure adopted by the authorities regarding the allotment. Rule 57(12) of the Rules, 2016 as it stood on 10.3.2016 provided that fisheries lease for small tanks i.e., tanks whose area is less than 5 acres but more than .5 acres shall be executed for a period of 5 years and shall not be renewed or extended. The provisions were subsequently amended with effect from 20.10.2016 and under the amended provision fisheries lease shall be executed for a period of 10 years. However, the amendment is not relevant for adjudication of the present dispute as the fisheries lease was granted to the petitioner on 10.3.2016. The Collector vide his order dated 14.8.2017 cancelled the allotments made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the allotment was contrary to Rule 57(12) of the Rules, 2016 as it stood on 10.3.2016 as no fisheries lease could have been executed for more than 5 years. Against the order dated 14.8.2017 passed by the Collector, Mau, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh which has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 13.12.2019. Against the order dated 14.8.2017 passed by the Collector, Mau, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh which has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 13.12.2019. The orders dated 14.8.2017 passed by the Collector and 13.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner have been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Rule 57(12) of the Rules, 2016 as it stood on 10.3.2016 provided grant of fisheries lease only for a period of 5 years. It is also admitted that the area of the pond is only .502 hectares, i.e., it is less than 5 acres but more than .5 acres. In view of the aforesaid, on 10.3.2016, the petitioner could not have been granted fisheries lease for a period of 10 years. However, merely because the petitioner was granted fisheries lease for a period more than the prescribed period cannot be a ground to cancel the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner as a whole. The appropriate course in such circumstances would have been that the fisheries lease granted in favour of the petitioner should have been restricted to a period of 5 years, in case, the allotment was otherwise in accordance with law, i.e., the procedure prescribed in the relevant rules had been followed while allotting fisheries lease to the petitioner. It is apparent from the orders dated 14.8.2017 and 13.12.2019 passed by the revenue authorities that the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner was allotted the lease for a term exceeding 5 years which was contrary to the Rule 57(12) of the Rules, 2016 and no finding has been recorded by the Collector, Mau as to whether the other issues raised in the objections filed by respondent No. 5 were valid and the procedure prescribed in the rules had been followed while allotting fisheries lease to the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reason, the orders dated 14.8.2017 and 13.12.2019 passed by the Collector, Mau and the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, District Azamgarh are, hereby, quashed. 6. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Mau to decide the objections filed by respondent No. 5 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 7. 6. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Mau to decide the objections filed by respondent No. 5 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 7. The Collector shall record specific findings regarding the various issues raised by respondent No. 5 in his objections regarding violation of the procedure prescribed in the rules for allotment of fisheries lease and, in case, the objections raised by respondent No. 5 are not substantiated and the allotment in favour of the petitioner is found to be valid, i.e., made after following the proper procedure, the Collector, Mau shall restrict the allotment in favour of the petitioner to a period of 5 years and the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner shall be suitably modified. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.