Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.
By means of this petition, a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to execute the lease in respect of fisheries rights in a pond comprised in Gata No. 289-Ga, having an area of 0.246 hectare, situate in Village Annawan, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the auction notice dated 03.08.2018, the petitioner had participated in the said auction and being the highest bidder had also deposited the entire amount. However, despite depositing the entire amount the lease could not be executed in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the claim of the petitioner is that the respondents may be directed to execute the lease in her favour.
From the averments made in this petition and the documents annexed, what emerges is that prior to the auction held on 03.08.2018 in respect of the pond in question, fishing rights were being enjoyed by one Dharm Raj. However, before the term of said lease executed in favour of Dharm Raj came to an end, he unfortunately died. As per the provisions contained in Section 61 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 57 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, such lease in respect of fishing rights in a pond are inheritable and as such after demise of the earlier lease holder Dharm Raj, the fishing rights ought to have devolved upon his legal heirs. In respect of the claim, the legal heirs of late Dharam Raj filed a writ petition bearing no.5939(MB) of 2019 wherein an order has been passed on 07.03.2019 whereby respondents of the said writ petition were restrained from interfering in the fishing rights of the legal heirs of late Dharam Raj.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that term of the lease executed in favour of Dharam Raj has now come to an end on 27.05.2020, as such the petitioner is now entitled to be given the lease on the basis of the auction held on 03.08.2018.
The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner though appears to be attractive, however, the question which emerges in this case for consideration of this Court is as to whether on 03.08.2018, the auction of fishing rights could have been held in respect of the pond in question or not. Admittedly, the lease rights in respect of fishing rights are inheritable as observed above, by operation of Section 61 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 57 of the Rules framed thereunder. It is noticeable that on 03.08.2018 term of the earlier lease had not come to an end. In fact, lease was in subsistence and accordingly during the period when the earlier lease was in subsistence, no auction, in our considered opinion, for settling the fishing rights could have been held. Hence, only on the basis of participation of the petitioner in the auction held on 03.08.2018, no right can be said to have been conferred on her or vested in her.
The writ petition is, thus, misconceived, which is hereby dismissed.
At this juncture, we may, however, direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar to return the entire amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of her participation in the auction held on 03.08.2018. The amount shall be returned to the petitioner under this order within four weeks from today through RTGS or any other permissible mode of transaction. We also provide that now since the term of the earlier lease has come to an end, the Sub Divisional Officer concerned shall take appropriate steps to settle the fishing rights afresh as per law. The said settlement of fishing rights shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021 Sanjay