Allowed

Jai Bajrang Machhuwara Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jan 2016WPC/1756/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition challenging the lease of fishing rights in two tanks exceeding one hectare to individuals. Setting aside the impugned order confirming the grant to respondents 7 & 8, the Court quashed the resolution and directed fresh proceedings. However, allowing time for respondents to rear existing stocks without adding new seeds.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.9.2015 and resolution dated 30.7.2012 set aside. Fresh lease proceedings directed. Respondents allowed one month to rear existing fish stocks but prohibited from adding new seeds.

Jai Bajrang Machhuwara Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1756 of 2015

¶5

Jai Bajrang Machhuwara Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Through The President Diwaker Singh S/o Jawahar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned As Jawahil In The Cause Title Of Impugned Order), Aged About 55 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Kaurakanpa, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Fishery Department, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶10

Sub Divisional OfÏcer(Revenue) Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶11

Gram Panchayat Kaurakanpa, Through The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kaurakanpa, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶12

Balaram S/o Ramnath Lodhi, R/o Village Kaurakanpa, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶13

Pardeshi, S/o Pancham Yadav, R/o Village Kaurakanpa, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶14

Kedar, S/o Niranjan Lodhi, R/o Village Kaurakanpa, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶15

8. Makhan, S/o Goverdhan Lodhi, R/o Village Kaurakanpa, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri PK Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents 7 & 8 : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board

27/01/2016

The petitioner is a society registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It has preferred the present writ petition to challenge the order dated 21.9.2015 (Annexure-P/8) passed by the Collector, Bemetara whereby the order passed by the SDM, Bemetara on 28.1.2014 has been set aside and as a consequence, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Kanwarakapa on 30.7.2012 for grant of lease of rishing rights in favour of respondents 7 & 8 has been maintained.

¶23

Indisputably, when the area of any tank which is to be leased out for rearing of fishes is less than one hectare, the Gram Panchayat is not obliged to grant it to the Cooperative Societies but the same can be granted in favour of any individual also.

¶24

In the present case, the subject tanks settled in favour of respondents 7 & 8 are known as Juna Talab, Kanwarakapa and Ramsagar Talab, Village Nawagaon.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that both the tanks are having areas more than one hectare, therefore, it could not have been settled in favour of respondents 7 & 8. The Collector has passed the impugned order on the premise that the said tanks are having areas less than one hectare.

¶26

On 3.12.2015, this Court had directed Tehsildar, Nawagarh to submit a report along with revenue records and the map mentioning the area of both the tanks. The report received from Tehsildar would indicate that both the tanks are having areas more than one hectares.

¶27

In view of the above report, the Gram Panchayat appears to have committed illegality in settling the tanks in favour of respondents 7 & 8. The resolution and the impugned order passed by the Collector deserve to be and are hereby set aside. Let the Gram Panchayat

¶28

¶29

initiate fresh process for grant of leasing of fishing rights/rearing of fishes for the abovenamed tanks and complete the same at the earliest in accordance with law.

¶30

At this stage, learned counsel for respondents 7 & 8 would submit that the respondents have sown fish seeds for cultivation, therefore, they may be allowed to rear fishes.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would object to the prayer on submission that the respondents have been granted benefit in an illegal manner, therefore, they should not be allowed to rear fishes.

¶32

Having considered the entire fact situation of the case, since it is not in dispute that respondents 7 & 8 were granted rights to rear fishes and they appears to have sown the seeds, they are allowed one month time to rear fishes. It is made clear that respondents 7 & 8 shall not put any fresh seeds in the tanks.

¶33

10.The writ petition stands allowed subject, however, to the above observations.

¶34

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶35

Barve

Jai Bajrang Machhuwara Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bajrang Machhuwara Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Kumar Katzhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Sandipan Mazumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jai Ma Samlai Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bali Nagwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chaturbhuj Savariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savitri Gendley Vs State Of Chhattisgarh