Nanhi Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10061 of 2025

Nanhi Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Misra, Avnish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 3

¶8

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Avnish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶10

In compliance of earlier orders passed by this Court, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lakhimpur Kheri is present before this Court.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel for the State has placed before this Court an order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lakhimpur Kheri on 24.11.2025, by which the representation submitted by the petitioner for completing auction of the fishery rights in pond on Gata No. 922, measuring 0.829 hectare, had been rejected.

¶12

The order dated 24.11.2025 alongwith its annexures is taken on record.

¶13

From perusal of the facts of the case, it transpires that in the year 2015, fishery rights in Gata No. 922, were auctioned in favour of the petitioner and an agreement was executed for the lease for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the lease period of the petitioner, the authorities proceeded to auction of fishery rights in the pond at Gata No. 922 by advertising it in the newspaper.

¶14

Later on, the exercise of grant of fishery lease was dropped on the pretext that adjoining to the pond, there exists a temple and if, in the pond fishery rights are auctioned and lease is granted in favour of any person, that may

¶15

WRIC No. 10061 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

somehow disturb the religious feelings of the people residing in the village.

¶18

This Court after hearing the parties' counsels directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass an order over the representation of the petitioner and pursuant to that direction, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after calling a report from a Committee comprising of Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal had passed the order on 24.11.2025, whereby the representation of the petitioner had been rejected.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed before this Court, certain photographs of the pond in question and has submitted that in the pond, the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned has sown the water chestnuts crop and that is why the revenue authorities under pressure of the Gram Pradhan, is taking a lame excuse of religious feelings of the villagers and are protecting the Gram Pradhan's crop in the pond.

¶20

Since the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is present before this Court, we have asked certain questions from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as to whose water chestnuts crop is lying in the pond in question. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate present before this Court has stated that the said water chestnuts crop is a self-grown crop and does not belong to anybody.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the water chestnuts crop over the pond in question, is of the Gram Pradhan concerned and authorities are hand in glove with the said Gram Pradhan and because of the same, fishery rights over the said pond are not being auctioned.

¶22

On questioning the Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, who is present before this Court, he has stated that certain villagers have given statements that the water chestnuts crop in question is a self-grown crop and does not belong to anybody but when we asked to produce those statements, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has conveniently changed his stance and stated that he has made these statements on his own assumption.

¶23

We have considered each and every aspect of the matter and we find that for the pond in question, fishing rights had been auctioned for the period from 2015 to 2025 and presently there is a huge water chestnuts crop over the pond in question, which as per the version of the petitioner is of the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned.

¶24

We prima facie find that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who is present

¶25

WRIC No. 10061 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

before this Court is not giving correct statements and has attempted to mislead this Court.

¶28

We are of the view that this matter requires inquiry by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶29

We, accordingly, direct the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri to conduct an inquiry in this matter by engaging with all the stake-holders, and thereafter, to submit a report before this Court within a period of two weeks.

¶30

List/Put up this matter after two weeks on 10.12.2025.

¶31

The District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to file her personal affidavit annexing therewith the copy of the report of inquiry directed by us.

¶32

On the next date, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri shall remain present before this Court.

¶33

This Court further finds that vide order dated 29.10.2025, we have directed the Director of the Department of Fisheries to file an affidavit explaining therein as to why only 49 ponds have been allotted and remaining 35 ponds have been put out of the auction proceedings and no fishery rights have been allotted in respect of the said ponds.

¶34

We find that the affidavit directed by us has not been filed till date. We take it seriously that in spite of categorical direction issued by this Court, Director, Department of Fisheries has not filed a proper affidavit.

¶35

Accordingly, on the next date, the Director, Department of Fisheries shall also remain present before this Court to explain his conduct.

¶36

November 25, 2025 Satish

¶37

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nanhi Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhi Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karmendra Narayan Tiwari vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 2 Others

Krishna Vati vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue and 3 Others

Green Python Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Co-Owners Ashutosh Vaish and Neeraj Kumar Maurya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Admini. Lko. and 6 Others

Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh vs M/S Arch Construction Thru. Partner Sri Santosh Kumar Singh and 3 Ohters

Prem Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 6 Others

Anupam Mehrotra vs High Court U.P. Thru. Registrar General Prayagraj and 3 Others