Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38741 of 2010 Petitioner :- Surjeet Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.N. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Connect with writ petition No. 22031 of 2010.
Notices on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have been accepted by the
learned standing counsel and on behalf of respondent No. 4 by Shri Mahesh
Narain Singh, Advocate.
Three weeks time is granted to them to file counter affidavit.
One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s lease is existing
in respect of pond no.503 but was sought to be canceled on the ground that
the said pond has been given to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,250/- per
annum. The said amount is inadequate in view of the order passed by the High
Court in another writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to
pay the lease rent as per the decision given by the High Court in the case of
Ram Lal and another versus State of U.P & others referred in the
impugned notice. The petitioner has offered a sum of Rs.4000/- per annum
which is more than the rate fixed in the aforesaid case of Ram Lal.
In this view of the matter, the effect and operation of the impugned notice
dated 8.3.2010 in respect of pond in question shall remain stayed provided the
petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.4000/- per annum for the remaining period of
lease with the authority concerned.
In case of default, the stay order shall stand vacated.
The respondent shall not re auction the pond in question for the remaining
period of the lease deed. The above order has been passed on the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pond in question has not re
auctioned so far.
It is made clear that if the pond has been auctioned in pursuance of the
impugned notice, this order shall remain in abeyance.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010
IB
(Prakash Krishna,J)