JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Rajive Ratan Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. The petitioner herein claims that he had participated in an auction held in 2018 for settling fishery rights in respect of a pond situated at Gata No. 347 area 1.212 hectares Village -Balapur, Tehsil -Bikapur, District-Ayodhya. He was the only bidder and had deposited Rs.12,500/-at that time, however, he admits to the fact that the lease was never executed in his favour and the said auction and the bid was never approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as is mandatory under Section 61(b) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 57(9) and (10) of the Revenue Code Rules, 2016. He however claims that he was allowed to exercise fishery rights in respect of the said pond and also deposited the requisite money for each year. However, in 2020 the said Pond was re-notified for auction whereupon the petitioner raised an objection and the matter was shelved. 3. Now, again vide impugned notification dated 12.05.2022 the pond in question has been notified. He says that the advertisement, in pursuance to which he had participated in auction in 2018, was for 10 years. He also invited the attention of the Court to an alleged report at page 25 annexed as Annexure No. 7 in support of his contention. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the records the Court finds that the mandatory approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was admittedly never given to the bid made by the petitioner allegedly in 2018, a fact which is mentioned at page 25 also. It is inexplicable as to how he was allowed to exercise fishery rights without such approval since 2018. This would be a matter of inquiry for the District Magistrate, Ayodhya. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, we do not find any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner merely because he, as claimed, has been exercising his alleged fishery rights in respect of the aforesaid pond without approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as apparently that was illegal. 6. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the notification is not in accordance with rules that is a matter to be seen by the concerned authorities. Petitioner may participate in the fresh auction in pursuance to the impugned notification. 7. 6. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the notification is not in accordance with rules that is a matter to be seen by the concerned authorities. Petitioner may participate in the fresh auction in pursuance to the impugned notification. 7. The District Magistrate, Ayodhya shall look into the matter as to how such a scenario as has been noticed arose and how, without approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner, if it is so, exercised fishery rights in respect of the pond in question and why it was not advertised earlier and settled in accordance with law with any eligible person. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Shri Rajive Ratan Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Ayodhya as also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur, District-Ayodhya.