2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 5 granted a fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner group on 18.11.2014. Earlier the lease was granted in favour of respondent No. 7, which is a registered group (Samooh). He would further submit that the lease granted in favour of respondent No. 7 came to an end and thereafter the petitioner's group was awarded the fisheries lease and an agreement was also executed on 19.11.2014 to this effect. He would also submit that respondent No. 7 in collusion with the President of the petitioner group approached the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Bemetara who rejected the lease granted in favour of the petitioner group vide order dated 09.09.2019. He would further argue that due to inadvertence, the petitioner group preferred the Second Appeal before the Collector, Bemetara and the same was allowed vide order dated 02.11.2015. Against that order, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Bemetara and the same was allowed vide order dated 17.11.2016 whereby the order passed by the Collector dated 02.11.2015 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Collector to decide it afresh. The Collector, Bemetara vide its order dated 30.07.2018, dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and against that order, this petition was preferred. He would also argue that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner group by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), and the order against the interest of the petitioner group was passed on 09.09.2015. Therefore, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), and the Collector dated 09.09.2015 and 30.07.2018 respectively are liable to be quashed. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner group comprises the poor farmers, who after taking a loan from the bank have started the work of pisciculture on the allotted pond.
