Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46926 of 2010 Petitioner :- Tirath Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Shailesh Kumar Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition has been filed challenging the lease dated 8.4.2010
executed in favour of respondent no. 3 for fishing rights in the
pond in question as well as notice issued for recovery of an
amount of Rs.50,900/- from the petitioner.
Petitioner claims to be highest bidder in proceedings held for
settlement of fishing rights in the pond in question. However, the
said bid was not approved and the pond was re-auctioned in favour
of respondent no. 3. The settlement of fishing rights in favour of
respondent no. 3 has been challenged on various irregularities and
illegalities. However, the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 on
the subject contains a detail provisions for challenging and
cancellation of fishery lease. A Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others {2005} (99) RD 823
has held that Collector when considers an application for fishery
lease, it decides a lis between parties and act as Revenue Court. It
has further been observed in paragraph 34 that according to the
scheme of the directions under Section 126 of 1950 Act itself,
Collector has been given power to cancel the lease. As per the
scheme of the Government Order any aggrieved person can
approach the Collector for cancelling the lease.
Since the petitioner has efficacious statutory alternative remedy of
approaching the Collector challenging the lease granted in favour
of respondent no. 3, the writ petition in this regard is not liable to
be entertained being barred by principle of alternative remedy.
In so far as the second relief is concerned, it has been urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that since he has never been put
in possession as such no recovery can be made against him and the
impugned notice is bad in law. The argument is against the own
pleadings of the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it
has been categorically stated on oath that petitioner was highest
bidder against other person so he received pond no. 746 area 0-287
Hectare. Reference may also be made to the application filed by
the petitioner before the Collector with the prayer not to re-auction
the pond wherein it has been clearly mentioned that after
depositing 1/4th of the bid amount, the petitioner was put in
possession and he has put fish seeds in the pond. Since the
petitioner had unauthorizedly occupied the pond without approval
of the auction and execution of lease, there is no illegality in the
impugned notice seeking to recover the amount from him.
In view of the above, the second prayer is also not liable to be
allowed.
The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 11.8.2010
Dcs