Chattisgarh High Court
Adarsh Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:17666
NAFR
SHYNA
AJAY HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.05.08
13:51:59 +0530 WPC No. 89 of 2021
Adarsh Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Village Ratanpur Through
Its President Sonuram Dhiwar S/o Shri Santram Dhiwar , Aged About 48
Years, R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur , Civil And
Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture And Fisheries
Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Director, Fisheries Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate ,
Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ratanpur , District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/ : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG State For Respondent Mr. RS Patel, Advocate No.4 2 SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders/notices dated 19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4-Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ratanpur, whereby, the Petitioner-Samiti has been directed to deposit the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th installments of lease rent concerning the ponds i.e. Ratneshwar pond, Rani Dulari pond and Panchdewari pond, which were allotted to them for fish farming by a lease agreement dated 22.6.2016 for a ten-year term w.e.f. 15.6.2016 to 14.6.2026.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the present petition :
10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the impugned order/notice dated 19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020(Annexure-P/1) issued by the Respondent No.4 as it is illegal and against the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.
10.3 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authority not to recover the installments as the petitioner is not sowing the fresh fish seeds in the subject ponds as per direction 3 issued by this Hon'ble court. Or if the petitioner will deposit the installments as directed, he may be allow to put fresh fish seeds in the subject ponds for fresh fish farming.
10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.
10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.
3. The relevant facts, briefly narrated, are that the Petitioner is a Samiti, duly registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act. The Petitioner is the oldest Machhuwa Samiti in the region registered on 10.10.1963. Its members are traditional fish farmers living below the poverty line. The petitioner had earlier filed WPC No.141/2016 before this Court challenging the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, whereby, the Additional Commissioner declined to interfere with the Collector's order, which resulted in setting aside of the allotment and the subsequent three-year lease execution. In the aforementioned Writ Petition, this Court directed vide order dated 21.6.2016 that if the petitioner is unsuccessful in freshly drawn proceedings, the deposited amount of Rs.3,29,202/- shall be refunded. Conversely, if successful, the petitioner may apply before the Municipal Council to have the aforesaid amount adjusted against the fresh allotment. Pursuant to a general notice 4 dated 9.6.2015, the petitioner participated in fresh allotment proceedings for a 10-year lease. After due verification, the petitioner was ranked at Sl. No.1. As per the State Government Circular of 2013, priority in pond allotment must be accorded to the oldest registered Samiti. Consequently, the subject ponds were allotted to the petitioner. On 15.6.2016, Respondent No.4 issued the allotment order. The Petitioner deposited the requisite amounts on 17.6.2016 and a formal Lease Agreement was executed on 22.6.2016, for a ten year term. After the execution, respondent No.4 handed over possession of the tanks (Talab) and the petitioner commenced fish farming. Further, the petitioner also paid the first installment of the lease agreement to respondent No.4. Subsequently, the Municipal Council Ratanpur passed a proposal dated 8.2.2016 pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.6.2015, for the allotments of ponds for fish farming. In that proposal, Mahamaya Machhuwa Sahkari Samiti Ratanpur was shown as the oldest Society registered on 1.2.1990. As the petitioner-Society was, in fact, the oldest (registered on 10.10.1963), it lodged a complaint. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Kota, conducted an enquiry and found that said proposal was not in accordance with the Government Circular(s). Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, set-aside the proposal dated 8.2.2016 vide order dated 16.5.2016, a decision later upheld by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 2.7.2016. A direction was issued to Respondent No.4 to make fresh allotment of lease of ponds as per the subject circulars of 5 the Government. Against the said order dated 2.7.2016, a revision was preferred by Bhoramdeo Machua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (the unsuccessful Samiti), which was also dismissed. Thereafter, Bhoramdeo Machhuwa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit initiated further litigation before this Court vide WPC Nos.2817/2016, challenging the allotment made by respondent No.4 and the order dated 16.5.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur. In the aforementioned writ petition, an interim order dated 16.11.2016 was passed staying the effect and operation of the order impugned therein with a direction that none of the parties would sow the fish seeds on the subject pond till the next date of hearing. However, subsequently, this Court, taking into consideration that if the ponds are not allowed to be used for rearing fishes and the season goes, nobody's purpose would be served, vide order dated 11.5.2017, vacated the interim order dated 16.11.2016 with the condition that the concerned respondents may rear fish and they shall submit monthly account before the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council giving the complete details of the quantity. Despite these restrictions, which effectively prevents the petitioner from conducting full-scale farming operations, respondent No.4 passed impugned orders/notices demanding 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th installments, totaling Rs.10,59,960/-. The demand of these installments is illegal. It is contended that since the petitioner has been legally barred from sowing fresh seeds and utilizing the ponds for fishing operations and are not rearing fresh fish by virtue of the interim order(s) 6 passed by this Court, respondent No.4 cannot demand full lease payments. Hence, this Petition.
4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while the Petitioner holds the possession of the ponds, they have been unable to conduct fish farming due to the interim order(s) passed by this Court. He submits that the petitioner had deposited the initial installment and other required amounts at the time of execution, however, the interim stay has prevented any income generation. He submits that the Petitioner- Society is financially incapable of depositing further installments as directed by respondent No.4 vide impugned orders/notices dated 19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020 respectively. He submits that if the Petitioner is permitted to resume fishing operations and seed the ponds, they undertake to pay the outstanding installments from the resulting revenue.
5. Per contra, Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, learned counsel for the Sate submits that the entire administrative exercise was conducted by respondent No.4--the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ratanpur, who possess the authority to pass the impugned orders. He lastly submits that the impugned orders are in accordance with law and is fully justified, as the petitioner has exercised fishing rights and derived profit therefrom.
6. Mr RS Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the impugned orders have been passed in compliance of the earlier order dated 21.6.2016 passed in WPC No.141/2016 and the common order dated 11.5.2017 passed in WPC No.2817/2016 7 and another connected petition i.e. WPC No.2833/2016 filed by a different Society i.e. Jai Maa Shakti Machua Sahakari Samiti Maryadit. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 21.6.2016 by this Court, the petitioner was allotted a 10-year lease for the subject ponds. The Petitioner has since occupied the ponds and has been rearing fish therein. Thereafter, notice dated 19.11.2020 was issued for the recovery of lease rent after adjustment of the amount mentioned in the order dated 21.6.2016 (Rs. 3,29,202/-). He submits that since the Petitioner was allotted the lease and has been in possession since 2016, the concerned Respondent has issued demand notices for payment of lease rent. These include Rs.2,40,900/- for the second year, Rs.2,64,990/- for the third year, Rs.2,64,990/- for the fourth year and Rs.2,89,080/- for the fifth year, amounting to an aggregate sum of Rs.10,59,960/-. After deduction of Rs.3,29,202/-, the total outstanding amount comes to Rs.7,30,758/-. He further submits that the petitioner by taking shield of the order dated 21.6.2016, is attempting to evade its liability to pay the lease rent. Furthermore, the petitioner has taken undue advantage of the order dated 11.5.2017 passed in WPC No.2817/2016 filed by Bhoramdeo Machua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, to continue fish rearing operations, whereas, the said order was intended strictly as a one-time arrangement on account of specific circumstances of that case. He further submits that on a complaint being received against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner has been continuously rearing fish in the subject ponds, which is not 8 possible without sowing fresh seeds. A Panchnama has also been prepared to record the fact that the petitioner is still rearing fishes from the pond. Therefore, to ensure compliance of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the impugned orders dated 19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020 respectively have been passed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection.
8. Evidently, the petitioner has obtained a lease for fishing operations on 22.6.2016. In pursuance of the said lease agreement, the petitioner began sowing fish seeds in three ponds namely Ratneshwar Talab, Rani Dulhari Talab and Panchdewari Talab on the basis of a lease agreement for a ten-year period w.e.f. 15.6.2016 to 14.6.2026. The lease agreement stipulates the conditions for the lease rent, including the schedule and mode of payment. The parties further agreed upon a graduated rent scale for the ten-year duration. The lease agreement was executed subject to certain terms and conditions that both parties agreed to uphold.
9. A further perusal of the record shows that the petitioner herein had previously approached this Court in WPC No.141/2016 to challenge the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, whereby the Additional Commissioner has refused to interfere with the Collector's order, which had set- aside the three-year allotment and lease. In the above Writ Petition, this Court directed vide order dated 21.6.2016 that in the event if the petitioner is unsuccessful in freshly drawn 9 proceedings, the deposited amount of Rs.3,29,202/- (Rs.2,25,000/- {installment amount} + Rs.50,000/- {security deposit} + Rs.54,202/- {e-stamping certificate}) be returned and in the event, the petitioner is successful, the petitioner may apply before the Municipal Council for adjustment of the aforesaid amount in the fresh allotment proceedings. Subsequently, another Society i.e. Bhoramdeo Machua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit lodged several complaints regarding the grant of lease. When these administrative complaints were not addressed, the said Society filed WPC No.2817/2016 challenging the validity of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. In those proceedings, this Court initially passed an interim order 16.11.2016, however the same was vacated vide order dated 11.5.2017. The said order permitted the concerned respondents to rear fish subject to submitting monthly accounts to the concerned Chief Municipal Officer. However, the parties were restricted from sowing fresh seeds, limiting them strictly to rearing of fish already present in the ponds. Consequently, the fishing activities granted under the lease were stalled and no fishing operations were carried out. Despite the period of inactivity caused by the stay, the Municipal Council, Ratanpur issued the impugned recovery notices to the petitioner-Society, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,30,758/-. The amount was calculated after adjusting the sum(s) already deposited by the petitioner. Aggrieved by these notices, the petitioner has filed the present petition contending, inter alia, that as the Petitioner-Society was prohibited from conducting fishing 10 operations, it is not liable for the recovery amount demanded under lease agreement. The petitioner asserts that fishing and rearing operations were impossible due to the litigation initiated by Bhoramdev Machua Sahakari Samiti Maryadit (WPC Nos.2817/2016) and the subsequent orders passed by this Court. As such, the petitioner-Society was unable to utilize the ponds, as intended, and therefore, was not liable for the amounts claimed by the Municipal Council.
10. According to the Municipal Council, Ratanpur, the petitioner took advantage of the order dated 11.5.2017 and continued to regularly rear fish from the subject ponds. The Council contended that the Petitioner-Society was restrained from fishing operations for only a limited duration after which it remained in continuous possession and actively reared fish by virtue of the lease agreement. Consequently, the petitioner-Society has been in uninterrupted possession of the ponds and has derived the full benefits of the agreement after the clarification provided by the orders passed by this Court. Furthermore, according to the respondent authorities, a Panchnama dated 10.10.2020 was prepared after the complaints lodged by another Society. This document confirms that the petitioner-Society was regularly conducting fishing operations. Based on these findings, it is clear that the petitioner is willfully evading the lease rent by falsely claiming an inability to conduct fish farming. The contention of the petitioner that no fish seeds were sown due to the interim order passed by this Court, appears to be a pretext to avoid liability for 11 the amount demanded in the recovery notices.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that subsequently, WPC No.2817/2016 (Bhoramdeo Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2024 with a direction to the concerned Municipal Council to take a fresh decision regarding allotment of ponds to the petitioner therein in accordance with the Chhattigarh Sashan Matsya Palan Niti, 2013. Furthermore, the connected petition i.e. WPC No.2833/2016 (Jai Maa Shakti Machua Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Vs. State of Chhattisgh and others) was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.1.2023.
12. Admittedly, this Petition was filed way back on 2.1.2021. By the interim order dated 16.11.2016 passed in WPC No.2817/2016 and another connected petition, the petitioner was prohibited from sowing fresh seeds. However, while vacating the stay order dated 16.11.2016, this Court permitted rearing operations vide order dated 11.5.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner-Society regularly conducted fishing operations, as reflected in the Panchanama and reports submitted by the respondent authorities. Considering the matter in its entirety, it appears that only for a specific duration, the petitioner was prohibited from both rearing and sowing, and for that particular period, the petitioner likely conducted no fishing operations.
13. For the foregoing reasons, in order to balance the equities between the parties, the impugned notices (Annexure P/1) are hereby set-aside. The respondent- Chief Municipal Officer, 12 Municipal Council, Ratanpur, is directed to recalculate the lease rent. This recalculation shall take into account that, for a specific and limited duration, the petitioner was precluded from fishing operations and had neither sowed fish seeds nor reared fish in the subject ponds on account of the stay order(s) passed by this Court.
14. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the recovery amount sought from the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This direction is issued in view of the lease agreement, which shows that the lease term is set to expire on 14.6.2026.
15. Furthermore, among the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, Relief 10.3 seeks a direction to the respondents to refrain from recovering lease rent installments on the ground that the petitioner was prevented from sowing fresh seeds in the ponds. Since these claims involve disputed questions of fact, they cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.
16. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay