JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, District Hardoi dated 25.01.2021, by which the lease granted to the petitioner for exercising fishery rights over a pond on Gata No. 614ka, 611Ka and 619Gha on 14.06.2016 for five years has been cancelled on the ground inter alia that the petitioner has sublet the pond to villagers. Secondly, it had been given possession of the pond earlier, thirdly the agreement was not got executed by the petitioner, fourthly, the lease consideration had not been deposited by the petitioner for the past three years. 3. The petitioner's counsel says that he was never given possession of the pond, whereas the impugned order as also the report at page 66 says that it was given, therefore, this is a disputed question of fact. 4. Considering the fact that it is a dispute arising out of a contract between the petitioner and opposite parties and it is not possible for the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide disputed questions of fact. 5. No appeal lies against an order of cancellation of such lease under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and the appeal prescribed therein is only against the grant of such lease and it is to be filed within 30 days from the date of approval of such lease by the Sub Divisional Officer. Any order passed in appeal under Rule 59 is subject to the revisional powers under Section 210. There is no mention of any appeal against an order of cancellation of lease under Rule 57 (14) of the Rules, 2016. The use of the words "person aggrieved thereby" in Rule 59 refers to a person aggrieved by grant of lease and an appeal lies against such grant of lease, which is also evident from the fact that the period of limitation of 30 days is prescribed from the date of approval of such lease by the Sub Divisional Officer, which is not relevant in the case of cancellation of lease. 6. 6. As an appeal does not lie against such cancellation as held here-in-above, we dismiss this petition for the reasons aforesaid, but with liberty to the petitioner to avail other remedies prescribed in law.