Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5771 of 2021 Petitioner :- Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Sri Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8.
The learned appellate authority/Collector, Hamirpur by means of the impugned order dated 26.10.2020 cancelled the fisheries lease allotted in favour of the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 26.10.2020 records that the auction was conducted in violation of the Rules 57 and 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016. A specific finding has also been recorded that the auction camp meeting/auction proceedings were conducted in the absence of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, Secretary, and Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar as is contemplated in Rule 57(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016. The list of eligible persons to be prepared with the help of the representative of the fishermen community, who in turn was to be appointed by the Collector was also not created. The concerned officials, in whose presence the auction was liable to be conducted and finalized, namely, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, Secretary and Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar were never intimated in advance about the aforesaid auction proceedings. Their absence in the aforesaid proceedings vitiates the fisheries lease.
No illegality in the aforesaid findings or in the impugned order could be established from the pleadings of the writ petition. The burden was upon the petitioner to show that the findings are contrary to the record or otherwise perverse. The petitioner has clearly failed to do so.
No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction against the impugned order is made out.
It is open to the petitioner to participate in the fresh auction.
The petitioner claims that he had deposited the entire amount of the auction bid as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
It is open to the petitioner to make an application for refund of money deposited which shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of such application.
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Ashish Tripathi