Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.N. Singh, Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 10, Sri Anuj Kumar, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged between the parties, and therefore, the writ petition is being finally disposed of with their consent. The dispute relates to the settlement of a fisheries pond which is an area admittedly less than 2 hectares. The petitioner submits that the pond was settled in his favour after wide publication and after a decision having been taken by the Land Management Committee on 27th July, 2007. The petitioner's case is that several villagers participated but the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 did neither apply nor did they participate in the same. The petitioner having been found the highest bidder was granted the fisheries lease for 10 years, which was admittedly approved by the Competent Authority and the lease deed was also registered pursuant to the said auction, which fact is not disputed.
(3.) THE respondent Nos. 6 to 10 appear to have approached the Sub -Divisional Magistrate with a contention that they were entitled to have the settlement in their favour. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 belong to Dhimar community, which falls within the preferential category as provided for under the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995, that is entitled for allotment by way of preference under the said Government Order. They, however, did not participate in the auction proceedings in which the lease had been settled in favour of the petitioner. Their contention is that, as a matter of fact, they had no knowledge about the said proceedings, and therefore, they approached the Sub -Divisional Magistrate with a request for grant of allotment of the said pond.;