Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard Sri Ram Ji Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed today, the same is taken on record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mihipurwa, Motipur, District- Bahraich by which the lease granted to the petitioner on 27.06.2013 for the period 17.06.2013 to 16.06.2023 has been cancelled on account of non-deposit of the requisite dues. It appears that after cancellation of the petitioner's lease, the fishery rights in respect of the pond in question were settled with opposite party no.5 vide lease deed dated 26.09.2017. The petitioner, apart from challenging the cancellation of his lease vide order dated 17.02.2017 has also challenged the lease deed dated 26.09.2017 executed by opposite party no.3 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned in favour of opposite party no.5. The writ petition has been filed on 17.08.2021. In our last order dated 19.08.2021, we had asked learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the delay, as also, the maintainability of this petition in view of Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner today. We have perused the same and we do not find any explanation much less an acceptable one as regards the delay in filing the writ petition. To say, as Sri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner did that relevant information was provided to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in December, 2020 does not, in our opinion, satisfactorily explain the delay. The impugned order was passed in February, 2017, thereafter, the fishery rights were settled with opposite party no.5 on 26.09.2017 but the petitioner did not approach the Court. Moreover, we find that against the grant of fishery rights by way of lease in favour of opposite party no.5, an appeal could have been preferred under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and the contention of Sri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, that such appeal lies only in respect of leases for agricultural purposes is absolutely misconceived. The lease for fishery rights is also to be treated as a lease for agricultural purposes. This is what has been stated in Rule 59 of the Rules, 2016 but the said recital has been misread by Sri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
For all these reasons, i.e. primarily delay in filing the writ petition and also not availing the remedy of appeal against the grant of lease for fishery rights to opposite party no.5, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. we, accordingly, dismiss the same.
(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Shanu/-