- (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri D.P. Tripathi holding brief of Sri P.K. Shukla for the respondent No. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the Gaon Sabha even though a counter-affidavit has been filed. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The matter has been heard in the light of the interim order passed on 20.4.2010 and 5.5.2010. The petitioner was a lease-holder of fishery rights over the disputed pond bearing Revenue No. 133 Area 1.569 hectares. The said pond is said to have been settled in favour of the petitioner, the period of lease being uptil 29th May, 2011. It is the said lease which came to be cancelled vide order dated 31st October, 2009 and the pond came to be resettled in favour of the respondent No. 4 on 8.1.2010 that became subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Mala fides were alleged against the Sub-Divisional Officer who had approved the said settlement in favour of the respondent No. 4 and had cancelled the lease of the petitioner.
(3.) Having noticed all the facts in detail, since the only challenge raised was against the order dated 8.1.2010 approving the lease in favour of the respondent, the following order was passed on 20.4.2010: Notices on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha. Two weeks' time is granted to them to file a counter-affidavit. Issue notice to respondent No. 4. Steps within a week. The dispute relates to gate No. 133 area 1.569 hectare which is a pond. The case of the petitioner is that the said pond was settled for pisciculture operation and the lease is going to expire on 29.5.2011. The said pond has been taken on lease at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per annum as per guidelines laid by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others,2009 107 RD 557. Grievance of the petitioner is that the said lease was cancelled and the matter is pending consideration before the revising authority in a revision wherein interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner. However, the respondents, being in collusion with each other, settled the lease of the said pond for a paltry sum of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly offered that the petitioner is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the remaining period i.e. for the year 2010-2011 ending on 29.5.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised certain grievances against the working of Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Dhampur District Bijnor and submits that the said officer in other matters has also acted arbitrarily. He further pointed out that an explanation was called from the said officer in writ petition No. 11898 of 2010-Janta Fish Mahigiri Matsyajii Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, wherein the earlier explanation furnished by the officer was not found satisfactory and he was asked to furnish better explanation. The matter is still sub judice before this Court. He also brought to the notice of the Court the judgement of this Court in the case of Harpal and others v. State of UP. and others,2010 AllCJ 201 wherein this Court made the following observations against the same officer: D.M./Collector Bijnore is directed to examine the working of all the S.D.Os. in his district particularly the S.D.O. who passed the order dated 16.1.2009. The District Magistrate is, therefore, required to submit an explanation as to what action has been taken against the concerned S.D.O. in the light of the observations made by this Court. Taking into consideration the work and conduct of the S.D.O. Tehsil Dhampur District Bijnor, it is desirable that he should be restrained till further orders not to accord any approval to the recommendations made for the purposes of granting lease of fisheries right to any person. The said power may be delegated to another officer or may be exercised by the Collector Bijnor himself. List on 5.5.2010. Till further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 8.12010 shall remain stayed. The respondents are restrained from interfering in the working of the petitioner with regard to pisciculture operation of the pond in question, provided he deposits Rs. 20,000/- within a period of three weeks. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Standing Counsel for communication to the officer concerned.;