JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the State Respondents and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the respondents no.2 to 4 not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner over the pond gata no.763 area 1.4700 hectare, situated at village- Baheriya, Pargana- Godwa, Tehsil- Sandila, District- Hardoi at the place of her husband who died for balance term of lease. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the respondent no.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, Hardoi to allow the petitioner to deposit the rent of year of 2023 and 2024 in respect of pond in question as per the lease deed. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the respondent no.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, Hardoi to consider the case of petitioner and decide the representation dated 01.04.2024, sent by the petitioner, contained as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition, within the period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had taken fisheries lease over Gata No. 763 area 1.4700 hectare, situated at Village - Baheriya, Pargana-Godwa, Tehsil-Sandila, District- Hardoi on 03.01.2019. The lease deed was executed between the husband of the petitioner and the Revenue Authorities on 22.01.2019 for a period of ten years (03.01.2019 to 02.01.2019) and the said fisheries lease is also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sandila. The possession of the aforesaid pond was delivered to the petitioner's husband and he started do fishing therein, but he died unfortunately on 01.06.2022 leaving the petitioner and three sons & two daughters as dependents. The petitioner went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi for paying rent for the year 2023 but the concerned official has refused to accept the rent saying that the lease was allotted to her husband and after the death of the allottee, the lease is likely to be cancelled. The petitioner has approached the respondents no. The petitioner went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi for paying rent for the year 2023 but the concerned official has refused to accept the rent saying that the lease was allotted to her husband and after the death of the allottee, the lease is likely to be cancelled. The petitioner has approached the respondents no. 2 by sending an application on 01.04.2024 by registered post, but no heed has been paid, and therefore, this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Judges in various writ petitions of similarly situated persons. The judgements rendered by Hon'ble Writ Court have been collectively filed as annexure-6 to the petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of instructions sent by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi states that there is no provision in the Rules framed under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code for giving succession rights on fisheries lease allotted on ponds of Gaon Sabha under Section 106 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code. The consequences of the transfer made by an asami in contravention of the Code are mentioned and the petitioner's husband was a lease holder/asami and since there is no provision for succession the petitioner is liable for eviction from Gram Sabha property. 6. The instructions further mention Section 148 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code which prescribes that an allottee has to strictly follow the conditions of allotment and since there is no such condition in the allotment letter or transfer of lease on the basis of succession, the petitioner cannot be treated as successor of her husband. Reference has also been made of Section 108 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code which relates to general order of succession to male bhumidhar or asami or Government lessee. 7. This Court has gone through section 108 which provides for general order of succession to male bhumidhar, asami, Government lessee and a widow has a right for such succession. Under Rule 59 of the Rules of 2016 also every lease conferred under Rule 58 shall be deemed to be a lease for agricultural purpose. Therefore, if such lease is considered to be a lease for agricultural purposes then the general order of succession mentioned under Section 108 could apply. 8. In Smt. Gyan Mati & Others Vs. Under Rule 59 of the Rules of 2016 also every lease conferred under Rule 58 shall be deemed to be a lease for agricultural purpose. Therefore, if such lease is considered to be a lease for agricultural purposes then the general order of succession mentioned under Section 108 could apply. 8. In Smt. Gyan Mati & Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others, bearing Misc. Bench No. 27765 of 2016 a Division Bench of this Court while considering the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code and the Rules framed thereunder referred to Section 108 of the Code which provides the general order of succession to a male bhumidhar, asami and Government lessee and observed that under Section 108 there are three categories of persons whose rights in land holdings are to devolve upon their heirs in terms of the provisions contained therein and these categories are; (i) bhumidhar, (ii) asami and (iii) Government lessee. 9. The Division Bench was considering a writ petition filed by a widow and her sons for right of succession to the fisheries lease on a pond owned by the Gram Sabha. The lease was executed in favour of their predecessor in interest for a period of ten years and there was no violation of the conditions of the lease, after the predecessor in interest died and the lease was not being transferred in their favour and they had approached this Court. The Division Bench observed that their predecessor in interest, namely, Late Chhedi Ram died on 27.07.2009 and fisheries on the pond and being admitted as a lessee, his succession would be governed by Section 108 of the Code. 10. We find in the case of the petitioner that her late husband was a lesee of Fisheries Rights of the pond and the lease deed is valid upto 2029. There is no mention in the instructions sent by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of any violation of conditions of the lease deed. There is also no mention of any order of cancellation of lease deed after affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. 11. The petitioner's late husband being covered under Section 108 of the Revenue Code, being an allottee of a Government lease, the order of succession as given thereunder needs to be followed. The petitioner being a widow is entitled to succeed to the leasehold rights of her dead husband. 11. The petitioner's late husband being covered under Section 108 of the Revenue Code, being an allottee of a Government lease, the order of succession as given thereunder needs to be followed. The petitioner being a widow is entitled to succeed to the leasehold rights of her dead husband. 12. We are fortified in our view also by the definition given of "agriculture" in Sub-Section 2 of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 where agriculture is defined to include horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture(fisheries), flower farming, beekeeping and poultry farms, 13. The instructions sent by the S.D.M. are kept on record. 14. We find that the view taken by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, Hardoi in the instructions is against the law settled by this Court and also against the provisions of Section 108 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code read with Rule 59 of the Rules of 2016. 15. The writ petition is allowed. We further issue a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to grant the benefits of succession to the petitioner on the fisheries rights of her late husband and pass an appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. If any order has been passed cancelling such lease only on the grounds of death of the lessee, the said order is set aside. 16. Till such a decision is taken no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 17. Learned Standing Counsel shall inform of the order passed today of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned through Fax without waiting such order to be uploaded on the online portal.