Radha Krishna Swa Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:23086

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1619 of 2022

¶6

1 - Radha Krishna Swa Sahayata Samuh Through The President Smt. Mamta Bai Yadav Wife Of Basna Yadav Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Beltukri, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Beltukri, Block Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Kanchan Karwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, GA for the State.

¶16

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

11/06/2025

¶19

Challenge in the present petition under Article 226 of the

¶20

2

¶21

Constitution of India is against the order dated 20.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby the learned Collector/respondent No.3 had terminated the lease deed of the Khambha pond situated at Khasra No. 311 Rq. 2.09 hectare, granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner is a registered society and the present petition has been filed through the President of the said society. On 19.11.2019, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Beltukri for allotment of Khambha Pond for 10 years after conducting proclamation in the said Gram Panchayat area in favour of the petitioner society. On 03.07.2020, the Assistant Director (Fisheries) had granted permission to execute the lease deed in favor of the permission a per Section 65(1) read with Section 95 of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and as per direction of the Assistant Director Fisheries (respondent No.4), the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belturkri had passed an order for execution of lease deed for fisheries in favor of the petitioner vide letter fated 04.07.2020. by the said letter, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Beltukri (respondent No.5). After execution of the sale deed the petitioner had brought the fish seeds on 24.07.2020 and sowed them in the Khambha pond. On 19.05.2021, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Beltukri (respondent No.5) had filed an application (Annexure P/7) before the Collector for cancellation of lease deed executed in favor of the petitioner as there was paucity of water in the village and the ponds which are situated in the village Beltukri are not suitable for villagers.

¶23

3

¶24

Learned Collector/respondent No.3 without giving opportunity of hearing had stayed the effect and operation of the lease until further orders. On 14.06.2021, the Collector, Bemetara respondent No.3 called the report from the Assistant Director, Fisheries-respondent No.4 as well as the spot inspection report from the Tahsildar Nawagarh. On 17.06.2021, the Assistant Director-respondent No.4 had filed the report in which it has been mentioned that since the petitioner had already sown the fish seeds and deposited the lease amount, therefore they can be allowed to to the fishery in the pond. Thereafter on 15.07.2021, the Assistant Director Fisheries had again written a letter in which it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner had sown the fish seeds on 22.07.2020 which are not appropriate for breeding therefore fishing can be ordered. However, the report was not received by the Collector, Bemetara and therefore the case was listed on 02.08.2021 and it was directed to the respondent No.5 to produce the copy of the writ petition and further the case was fixed for 02.09.2021. On 07.08.2021, the Collector had taken the case without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor issued notice and without considering the application for vacating stay. Being aggrieved the said order, the petitioner had filed the present petition.

¶25

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders impugned dated 20.01.2022 is bad in law, perverse, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further contended that the learned Collector while passing the order dated 20.02.2022 had completely ignored that a proper

¶26

4

¶27

agreement was executed between the petitioner society and the gram panchayat, Beltukri therefore before passing of the order of cancellation of lease deed, proper opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner society. She submits that as per procedure of Fisheries policy, the Collector had no authority to stay or cancel the legally executed lease agreement as per clause 1.19 of the policy. It is envisaged that if the society had not followed the terms and conditions of the State Government, only under those circumstances the lease deed can be cancelled with the permission of the prescribed authority. In the present case the Collector without going through their own policy came to the conclusion that since the Assistant Director Fisheries/respondent No.4 has not followed the Rule 14 of the said policy, therefore the lease executed in favour of the petitioner deserves to be cancelled.

¶28

5 . She submits that while cancelling the lease deed, the Collector had completely overlooked clause 19 of the said deed, which clearly envisages that under what circumstances the lease deed can be cancelled. If the society had not followed the terms and conditions of the State Government, only on those circumstances, the lease deed can be cancelled with the permission of prescribed authority. The learned Collector /respondent NO.3 had completely failed to comply the principle of natural justice “ Audi Altarem Partem” as the petitioner had already sown the fish seeds and deposited the lease amount, therefore the petitioner may be permitted for fishing. Lastly, she submits that if the lease deed was not proper the recourse available with the respondent authorities was to cancel the lease deed in accordance with the terms

¶29

5

¶30

and conditions stipulated between the parties.

¶31

Learned State counsel submits that the respondent No.3 has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, therefore the orders are legal and sustainable under the law.

¶32

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the order dated F-11/11/2/36/2002/985/M/Raipur dated 24.03.2003, issued directions and provided for procedure to be followed for compliance of fishing policy. Clause 1.19 and 2.9 of the policy is as follows:-

¶33

“1-19 iVV/kkjd iathd`r eNqvk lgdkjh lfefr @eNqvk lewg vFkok eNqvk O;fDr ;fn eNyh ikyu foHkkx Onkjk fu/kkZfjr ek=k esa eRL; lap;u ugha djrk gS vFkok eNyh mRiknu esa mRrjksRrj izxfr ugha ykrk gS vFkok ‘kklu Onkjk fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa & ’krksZa dk ikyu ugha djrk gS] rks ,sls izdj.k dks Hkh eNyh ikyu foHkkx ds ftykf/kdkjh lacaf/kr iapk;r Onkjk ,d nwljs dh tkudkjh esa yk;k tkosxk ,oa iVVk/kkjd dh okafNr dk;Zokgh gsrq 1&1 ekg ds varjky esa 3 uksfVl fn;k tk;sxkA rRi’pkr~ fofgr izkf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls iV~Vk fujLr fd;k tk ldsxkA

¶34

2-9 rkykc @tyk’k; dh 8 fdykehVj dh ifjf/k esa vkus okyh LFkkuh; iathdr eNqvk lgdkjh lfefr;ksa dks izkFkfedrk jgsxh ;fn ,d gh {ks= esa ,d ls vf/kd LFkkuh; iathdr eNqvk lgdkjh lfefr;kW gS fu/kZkfjr le;kof/k esa vkosnu nsus dh fLFkfr esa lcls iqjkuh iathd`r eNqvk lgdkjh lfefr dks izkFkfedrk gksxhA”

¶35

These directions of the fishing policy of the State Government does not include the ground on which the respondent No.5 had filed application for cancellation of lease deed. Further the petitioner had never been given opportunity to explain and no notice was served upon it before passing of the impugned orders. The petitioner was granted rights for fish farming on the pond and it had made investment and waiting for the harvest. The lease has been granted for a period of 10 years. As per Clause 5 of the policy, in the case of default of the lease

¶36

6

¶37

holder in payment of premium, before cancelling the lease deed, the lease holder shall be required to be given three notices of 30 days each. The terms of the lease deed also do not include any such ground which has been made the basis by respondent No.5 for cancellation of the lease deed. Hence, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Collector, Bemetara (Annexure P/1) is arbitrary and is without following the principle of natural justice and also against the terms of the lease deed as well as the fishing policy. Hence the order impugned is not sustainable. The petition is thus, allowed. Impugned order dated 20.01.2022 is hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶40

Digitally signed SUGUNA by SUGUNADUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.06.24 10:59:49 +0530

Radha Krishna Swa Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Krishna Swa Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramgulal Nagvanshi Vs Pardeshi Siddharth Komal

Manharan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Muthoot Finance Private Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bisahin Bai Bharti Vs Raipur Development Authirity

Bibhas Das ( in Person ) Vs the Union of India

Montfort School Ambikapur Vs the State of Chhattisgarh