RAM JANAM SINGH, J. - (1.) SUBHAS Chandra has filed this revision under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act against the order dated 27-12-2004 passed by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and gone through the papers carefully. It is evident from the record that the present revisionist has no locus standi in the present case. Fisheries lease once renewed and again recalled that order dated 25-1-2004 on 19-2-2004 on the ground that no fishing activity is going on. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the revision on two grounds that no inspection was made and once the lease was renewed then the SDO has not power to recall it. The order dated 19-2-2004 reveals that the recalling order was passed after spot inspection was done. Inquiry proceedings in this case looks to be suspicion which needs a thorough inquiry by the Collector because when the lease was renewed on 25-1-2004 it was not mentioned in the judgment whether it is a fresh lease or it is being renewed on the basis of the lease granted earlier for ten years and if renewed it is for how many years. The orders are vague in nature. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner kept in abeyance till the completion of the inquiry and after the inquiry the facts of the case found otherwise then the matter should be referred to the Board of Revenue for further necessary action. The inquiry must be conducted by a senior officer under the supervision of the district Collector within a month's time.
(3.) WITH this observation revision is not found fit for admission and is disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of.;