Dismissed

Anuruddha Lal Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 May 2017WPPIL/15/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Writ Petition (PIL) challenged the lease of fishing rights granted to Respondent No. 8. The Court observed that while the petitioner lacked a rival claim as an individual, the official respondents confirmed six local ponds exist, with only two leased out. Finding no exclusive public right over the specific pond, the Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No interference with the impugned action granting fishing rights was found.

Anuruddha Lal Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 15 of 2017

¶5

Aniruddha Lal Verma S/o late Shri Uderam Verma, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Parsada (Remand) Post Sonsari, P.S. Mulmula Block Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Krishi (Machali Palan Vibhag), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Sanchalak, Machali Palan, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶12

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara Dirstrict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶13

Sahayak Sanchalak, Machali Palan, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶14

Gram Panchayat Parsada (Re.), Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Parsada (Re.), Block Akaltara District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶15

Machhuva Swa-Sahayata Samooh Parsada (Re.), Block Akaltara District JanjgirChampa (C.G.)

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner	: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Advocate
For State	: Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur,
	Addtitional Advocate General

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

Per, Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice

¶21

03/05/2017

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.

¶23

The Petitioner is a villager of village Parsada (Remand). He filed a writ petition challenging the lease of fishing rights granted to Respondent No.8.

¶24

¶25

The Single Judge held that the Petitioner was not a rival candidate while the lease was finalized, but had left open the right of the Petitioner, if any, to seek relief by instituting a public interest litigation; since according to the learned Single Judge, there is no justiciable personal right for the Petitioner as an individual.

¶26

In answer to this public interest litigation where the Petitioner contends that the pond in question is the only pond available for the public to use, the official respondents have placed return stating that there are six ponds in the area in question, of which four are kept apart for use of public and fishing rights have been farmed out by the Gram Panchayat only as regards the other two ponds. The 8^th Respondent is granted to fishing rights in relation to one among those two ponds. There is no allegation by the Petitioner that the pond will be adversely affected by the fishing activities. The pond will be intact, while the 8^th Respondent will carry out his activity in conformity with the fishing rights given to him. We do not see any exclusive right for the public at large to use the pond in question on the facts situation. We say so because the official respondents have clearly stated that four out of six ponds in the area are made available for the public and two alone have been identified for generating income by providing lease hold rights of fishing. We accept the plea of the official respondents. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned action whereunder the 8^th Respondent has been granted fishing rights in the pond in question. The writ petition fails.

¶27

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/Sd/-

¶29

(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) Chief Justice

¶30

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶31

vatti

Anuruddha Lal Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuruddha Lal Verma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Asgari Khatoon and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dayaram Bhagwani Vs Ashok Kumar Bhagwani

Abhishek Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Rituraj Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation

Krishna Kumar Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh