Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kaushalya vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad And ... on 2 February, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3964 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Kaushalya Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad And Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Petitioner was granted lease of a pond no. 1014 area 0.793 hectare situated at Village Lakhimatharuva for fisheries right on 6.8.2009 and the same was approved on 7.8.2009. On an application moved for cancellation of the aforesaid lease by the respondent no. 4, the lease has been cancelled, vide order dated 13.11.2009 ,passed by the Collector, and the petitioner's revision against the same has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 22.12.2009.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision has been dismissed by a non-speaking order and the Collector has erred in cancelling the auction as a camp was ogranised for the grant of lease on 3.8.2009 wherein five applications were considered and the lease was granted to the petitioner. All this was done after due publication of notice in the newspaper.
In the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (99) RD 823 , the Court has laid down stringent guidelines for the purposes of allotment of ponds and it has been provided that ordinarily allotment shall be made without advertisement and public auction/tender timely. In the present case, no auction date was advertised through newspapers nor any auction by inviting bids were conducted.The publication in the newspaper was only with regard to holding of camp and not for any auction.
In view of the aforesaid alone the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner cannot be maintained and if the same has been ordered to be cancelled, the order cannot be faulted with.
In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
It will , however, be open for the respondent authorities to grant lease of the pond in question strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Full Bench in Ram Kumar (supra).
Petitioner may lay claim for damages, if so advised, in case he has suffered any loss on account of cancellation. The security amount deposited by the petitioner is to be refunded at the earliest.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 RMY