Dismissed

Nand Lal v. State of Up and 6 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIB/2613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fishery lease over a pond in Jaunpur granted during the subsistence of a prior lease was cancelled by the Collector and upheld by the Board of Revenue. Court found petitioner deposited only a quarter rent, lacked receipts, and no fresh auction had occurred; writ petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nand Lal vs State of Up and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154107

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2613 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nand Lal Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Tiwari,Pranesh Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri H.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6.

¶8

The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj, in Revision No. REV/2813/2023/Jaunpur, preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, whereby dismissing the Revision as also upholding the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur under Rule 59(233)(2)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Rules, 2016 cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that the lease of fishery rights over Gata No. 164 area 1.392 hectare situate at village Pattupur Nisphi (Bhabhanpur) Pargana Mundra, Tehsil Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, was granted for a period of ten years commencing from 07.12.2019 upto 06.12.2029 by the Sub Divisional Officer. The allotment was alleged to have been approved on 05.03.2020. On 25.08.2020, the petitioner is stated to have induced the fish seeds in the pond in question after purchasing the same from the Uttar Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. The Respondent No. 7, who was the earlier allottee of the lease filed an appeal against the order dated 05.03.2020 on 02.08.2021 under Section 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur. The Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur allowed the appeal of the Respondent No. 7 vide order dated 10.07.2023 and cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the lease could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 07.12.2019 upto 06.12.2029 as the lease in favour of the appellant i.e. Respondent No. 7 herein was subsisting and

¶10

was valid upto 28.06.2020. The matter, after setting aside the lease in favour of the petitioner was remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer with a direction to issue a fresh advertisement inviting Bids and make allotment to the highest Bidder in accordance with law. The Collector/District Magistrate further noticed several irregularities committed by the authorities in the allotment process adopted to grant the lease in favour of the petitioner. It is also noticed that considering the size of the pond in question, the same could have fetched a minimum of Rs. 13,920/- if not more but the allotment was done on yearly lease amount of Rs. 7,600/- only.

¶11

Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 cancelling his lease, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which too has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.04.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the lease granted to the petitioner was for the period 07.12.2019 upto 06.12.2029 but the possession of the same was granted to the petitioner only after the lease period of the Respondent No. 7 expired i.e. after 28.06.2020.

¶13

This Court taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2024 had required the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents to obtain specific instructions, as regards under what circumstances, the lease of the pond in question, was executed in favour of the petitioner, even during the subsistence of the lease granted in favour of the Respondent No. 7 and also apprise the Court, as to whether the petitioner was in possession over the pond in question and carrying out fishery activities and further whether fresh advertisement in respect of granting fishery rights had been issued or not.

¶14

Pursuant to the order of this Court, instructions have been received, which are taken on record.

¶15

A perusal of the instructions reveal that the petitioner has deposited only 1/4th of the lease rent against the allotment of 10 years lease granted on 05.03.2020. No further amount has been got deposited. The instructions further reveals that the pond is not in possession of the petitioner or anyone. No fishery activities is being carried out in the pond as on date. A fresh advertisement has been issued for holding the auction of the pond.

¶16

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, which is taken on record.

¶17

In the supplementary affidavit it has been averred that the petitioner is still in possession over the pond. The petitioner has also averred that the authorities have received the rent for the period 2024-25 from the petitioner amounting to Rs. 5,500/-. A receipt dated 16.07.2024 has been filed as Annexure SA-2 to the Supplementary Affidavit.

¶18

A perusal of the receipt reveals that it is a receipt of the fish seeds purchased by the petitioner and not the receipt of the lease rent. It has also been stated that the respondent authorities are taking the rent of every year from the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to do the fishery activities. However, the petitioner has failed to produce the receipts of the lease rent for the periods 202021, 2021-22, 2022-2023 (of the deposit challan), 2023-24 and 2024-25.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records and taking note of the above, the Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

The dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to participate in the auction of the pond for grant of Fishery Lease as and when the same is held and the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria.

¶21

No order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 VS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nand Lal v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nand Lal v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brij Kumar vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mahatam Gupta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Keshav Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Zahid vs State of Up and 9 Others

Gayasuddeen vs State of Up and 29 Others

Dhani Ram Deceased and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others