Disposed

jugal kishor alias ravi v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2018WRIC/11177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an auction notice for fishing rights. While the petitioner's prior lease was never approved and the previous leasee's was cancelled, the court declined interference following Full Bench orders and directed expedited auction completion.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; direction to S.D.M. to expedite auction completion within three weeks.

jugal kishor alias ravi Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11177 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jugal Kishor Alias Ravi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Raj Singh,Manu Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. Sri Manu Singh appears for Gaon Sabha.

¶6

The impleadment application has been filed by Sri Brij Raj Singh, Advocate on behalf of Abdul Quddus. The same is allowed and the impleadment may be carried out forthwith.

¶7

The Petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 09.03.2018 as well as advertisement dated 15.3.2018 passed by second respondent and for a further direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession/ pici cultural right of the petitioner over the pond in question till the year 2019.

¶8

It is claimed that the matter relates to Gata Nos. 1450/0.636, 1475/0.81, 1478/0417, 1492/0.376 and 1476/2.590 situated in Village-Shamaspur, Tehsil Patiyali, District Kasganj, which are recorded as pond. It is claimed that the lease of the aforesaid pond was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner namely Veer Pal Singh on 28.12.2009 for a period of 10 years, which was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned.

¶9

The record in question reflects that one Abdul Quddus (newly impleaded respondent) had proceeded to file Writ Petition No.16256 of 2010 (Abdul Quddus v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of by this Court on 19.01.2018 with direction to the respondents to settle the fisheries rights in pursuance of the judgment passed by Full Bench of this court in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. , 2005 (99) RD 823. Consequently on the basis of said direction the SDM had proceeded to issue auction notice in question. The said action of the SDM is being assailed by means of present writ petition on the ground that once lease for fishing rights have been executed by the respondents in favour of his father for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 19.12.2009 to 28.12.2019, as such during subsistence of the said lease, no fresh auction can be made. It is also submitted that at no point of time the respondents have proceeded to assail the validity of the said lease.

¶10

The aforesaid claim set up by the petitioner has been refuted by Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions dated 5.4.2018 sent by the SDM, Patiyali, wherein he has clearly made a mention that so far as Abdul Quddus is concerned, the fishery rights regarding the Gata Nos. 1450/0.636, 1475/0.81, 1478/0417, 1492/0.376 and 1476/2.590, allegedly given in his favour on 7.6.2003 has been cancelled by the SDM concerned vide order dated 8.10.2009 on account of non-deposit of Lagan. So far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, the same is also refuted on the ground that at no point of time the alleged lease was ever approved by the competent authority. In this backdrop, in response to the directives issued by this Court on 19.1.2018 the SDM concerned has taken cognizance and proceeded to hold the auction and for the said purpose advertisement has also been made. The instructions dated 5.4.2018 is taken on record.

¶11

Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has also made submission that in the previous round of litigation even the petitioner was also heard in the matter and finally the writ petition was disposed of relying on the judgment passed by this Court in Ram Kumar (Supra) and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned and no interference is required in the matter.

¶12

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as the instructions dated 5.4.2018 and find that this is factual situation that so far as Abdul Quddus is concerned, his rights regarding lease in question was already cancelled by the competent authority on 8.10.2009 and so far as the petitioner is concerned at no point of time his fishing rights had ever been approved by the competent authority. Moreover once the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar (Supra) and once in pursuance thereof the orders impugned has been passed, in such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, in the interest of justice, a direction is issued to the S.D.M. concerned to forthwith make proper publication and in case the same has already been done, the entire auction is to be expedited and completed within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Neeraj/SP/

jugal kishor alias ravi v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

jugal kishor alias ravi v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh and 6 Others Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Phoolpur and 6 Others

Vivek Das Vs Tehsildar(Judicial) Harraiya Basti and 2 Others

Mool Chandra and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

rampal singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Anil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Tirth and Another Vs State of U P and 7 Others