JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai,J. In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 1 of 2025 1. In view of the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners is permitted to make necessary amendment in the writ petition. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4- Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he was granted fisheries lease on 8.9.1987 in respect to the pond, situated over plot nos.146, 149 and 179, for a period of 10 years i.e from 8.9.1987 to 8.9.1997 but state/gram sabha is denying the execution of any lease in favour of father of petitioner No- 2 to 4. The Land Management Committee interfered with the right of the petitioner for fisheries, hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38365 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 14.5.1995, directed the authority concerned, not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot with respect to his fisheries right. The petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate on 19.11.1997 and prayed for extension of the fisheries lease for a further period of 10 years. The Addl. District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) submitted a report dated 26.9.1997 and recommended for extending the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 10 years. The petitioner alleged that he had deposited the requisite amount from time to time which was even accepted by the Land Management Committee without any objection and allowed the petitioner to carry out fisheries in the pond in question. Petitioner further alleged that the local person started interference in the fisheries right of the petitioner with respect to the pond in question, hence, petitioner filed an Original Suit No.478/2016 for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli on 24.11.2016. The interim injunction granted by the civil court, according to the petitioner, is in operation, but a complaint was filed by one Mangla Upadhyay of the same village, accordingly, a report was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that petitioner has made encroachment on the aforesaid plots in dispute which is recorded as pond in the revenue records. The interim injunction granted by the civil court, according to the petitioner, is in operation, but a complaint was filed by one Mangla Upadhyay of the same village, accordingly, a report was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that petitioner has made encroachment on the aforesaid plots in dispute which is recorded as pond in the revenue records. The proceeding for ejectment under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.323/2022 (Computerized Case No.T202214180200323, State vs. Lallan Upadhyay). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakiya, Chandauli vide order dated 24.2.2022, passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner from plot nos. 146, 149, 149kha as well as imposed damages of Rs.1,01,68,000/-. The Sub- Divisional Officer has recorded a finding of fact that after enquiry, it has been found that no fisheries lease was executed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is occupying the plot in question for the last 25 years in illegal manner which is recorded as pond. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 24.2.2022, petitioner filed Revision No.612 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.AL2022141800612, Lallan Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and Others), under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue along with stay application. During the pendency of the aforementioned revision before the Board of Revenue, an order of attachment was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.4.2022 as well as proclamation of sale under Section 184 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 5.5.2022. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the aforementioned proclamation, petitioner's property was sold in violation of Section 184 (3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The sale was made through auction and respondent no.6 purchased the property which was attached in the aforementioned proceeding for Rs.35,36,000/- on 4.6.2022. Against the order dated 4.6.2022, petitioner filed an application to set aside the sale under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 171 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 along with stay application which has been numbered as Computerized Case No.C202214000001046 of 2022 (Lallan Upadhyay vs. S.D.M, Chakiya and Others), Under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with stay application. According to the petitioner, no interim order was granted in Revision No.612/2022, hence petitioner filed Writ C No.12706/2022 (Lallan Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and Others) which was disposed of vide order dated 1.7.2022, directing the Board of Revenue to pass appropriate orders on the stay application of the petitioner within a period of 10 days. The Court has also directed that the order shall be passed in all the applications within a period of 3 weeks and till the passing of the order, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature, character and possession of the property in dispute. A direction was also issued for deciding the revision within a period of 6 weeks. Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.2.2023 dismissed the Revision No.612 of 2022 filed by the petitioners. Against the order dated 23.2.2023, petitioners filed a review application before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Review Application No.1069 of 2023. Board of Revenue has rejected the review application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 4.12.2024, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.2.2022 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.303 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202214180200323 (State Vs. Lallan Upadhyay), under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (vide annexure no.6 to this writ petition), order dated 23.2.2023 passed in Revision No.612 of 2022 by respondent no.1 (vide annexure no.8 to this writ petition) and order dated 4.12.2024 passed by respondent no.1 in Case No.REW/1069/2023, Computerized Case No.AL20231418001069 (Lallan Upadhyay Vs. State and Others), under Section 210 , U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (vide annexure no.10 to this writ petition). B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance of realization of Rs.1,01,68,000/-mentioned in the impugned orders. B-I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to determine / calculating the amount of damages at the rate as has been mentioned in the lease deed 20.4.2022 in respect of plot nos.179 area 0.607 hectare, plot no.146 area 0.256 hectare over which the pond situated Madahua Pargana Keramanagraur Tahsil- Chakia, District- Chandauli. C. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fisheries lease was granted in favour of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 in the year 1987 for the period of 10 years, which was duly approved and agreement was entered into between the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 and gaon sabha, therefore, petitioners could not be said to be encroacher or tress-passer of the pond in question. He further submitted that fisheries lease executed in favour of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 in the year 1987 was not cancelled, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the authorities to impose damages upon the petitioners in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the District Magistrate, Chandauli vide order dated 11.9.1997 has directed to grant the lease in favour of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 with effect from 11.9.1997 for a period of five years with enhancement of rent of 20%, as such, the imposition of damages against the petitioners is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the proceeding under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable. He further submitted that the amount of rent has already been paid for the period in which the fisheries right were exercised on behalf of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4. He further submitted that no proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated against the petitioners, as such, imposition of exorbitant amount of damages against the petitioners with effect from 1987 is wholly illegal. He next submitted that the authorities should be directed to determine/calculate the amount of damages at the rate as mentioned in the lease deed dated 20.4.2022 in respect to the plot in question. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the gram sabha submitted that the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 and after death of the father, petitioner nos.2 to 4 have misused the process of law, as such, the instant petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the gram sabha submitted that the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 and after death of the father, petitioner nos.2 to 4 have misused the process of law, as such, the instant petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed with cost. He further submitted that there was no lease executed in favour of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4, as such, the proceedings under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated against the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 and the order for ejectment and damages has been passed vide order dated 24.2.2022. He further submitted that the revision filed by father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 136 has been dismissed in proper manner, as such, no interference is required against the order impugned. He further submitted that although no lease was continuing in favour of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 till his death as well as no lease has been executed or continuing in favour of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 even then petitioner nos.2 to 4 are not permitting the valid lease holders to exercise their fisheries right in the pond in question on the basis of lease executed in their favour. He next submitted that the petitioners are invoking the jurisdiction of this Court again and again so that the lease holders in whose favour the fisheries lease of the pond in question has been executed, may not exercise their right in peaceful manner. He further submitted that the lease holder has filed a Civil Suit No.501/ 2023 before the Civil Court to restrain the petitioners from interfering in their fisheries rights over the plot in question and Civil Court vide injunction order dated 18.10.2023 restrained the petitioners from interfering with the fisheries right of the lease holder/plaintiff in any manner but petitioners are not permitting the lease holder to exercise their right in proper manner, accordingly, contempt proceeding has been initiated before Civil Court at the instance of the lease holder which is pending. He further submitted that in order to nullify the order passed in the proceeding under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4, the property has been sold by the petitioners, as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners should not be entertained and the same should be dismissed with heavy cost against the petitioners. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 vide order dated 24.2.2022. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed against the order dated 24.4.2022 at the instance of the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 was dismissed vide order dated 23.2.2023 and review application filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 23.2.2023 has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 4.12.2024. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the instruction sent by Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat will be relevant for perusal, which is as under: 8. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by Sub Divisional Officer under Section-136 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 will be also relevant which is as under :- 9. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by Sub Divisional Officer as quoted above demonstrate that there was no valid lease in favour of father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 or in favour of petitioner nos.2 to 4, as such, petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the matter. 10. The perusal of the order dated 24.4.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, there is no scope for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to the effect that the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 has misused the process of law by continuing their possession over the pond in question without any right & title over the plot in question. 11. 11. The revision filed by the petitioners under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed in proper manner and the review application has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue under the impugned order. 12. The entire record demonstrates that the father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are misusing the process of law, as such, there is no illegality in the imposition of damages of Rs.1,01,68,000/- against the petitioners in any manner. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter. 14. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.