K. J. Shetty, C. J. - (1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the validity of the order dated 20-1-1982 made by the Additional District Magistrate (R. A.) Allahabad for reauctioning of the fisheries right in certain tanks situate in plot nos. 116, 369 and 546. THE said plots undisputedly belong to Gaon Sabha. Originally, that fisheries right was brought to auction and the highest bid accepted thereon was of Rs. 6275/-. It was in favour of Pyare Lal son of Dwarika, Bachchalal and some others. THE validity of the said auction was called into question before the Tehsildar, Karchhana by Khilodhar who is none other than the petitioner before us. In that proceeding the said auction was nullified but the Tehsildar by agreement accepted the offer of the petitioner of Rs. 10,000/-. THE Tehsildar also directed Land Management Committee to grant the required lease accordingly.
(2.) AGAINST the said order of the Tahsildar, nullifying the auction, Vindalal and others preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. That appeal was dismissed and a review petition preferred thereon was also dismissed. The Additional District Magistrate, however, directed the reauctioning the fisheries right since there was no auction of that right in favour of the petitioner. The validity of that order of the Addl. District Magistrate has been called in question in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was urged for the petitioner that when the appeal filed by Vindalal and others was dismissed affirming the order of the Tahsildar, it was not open to the Additional District Magistrate to direct the Tahsildar to auction the fisheries right This contention would have been accepted provided if there had been proper procedure followed by the Tahsildar in leasing the fisheries right in favour of the petitioner. It is not disputed and indeed cannot be disputed that the fisheries right was first auctioned only for Rs. 6275/- in favour of Pyarelal and others. But that auction sale was nullified by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, the Tahsildar by entering into bilateral agreement with the petitioner accepted the offer of Rs 10,000/-. We do not think that the Tahsildar after nullifying the auction sale could have accepted the bid of the petitioner without taking the procedure for reauctioning. Rule 115 S of the UP ZA and LR Act 1950 provides :- " 115 S. (1) No lease or license in respect of any property vested in the Gaon Sabha shall be made for a period exceeding one year except with the specific permission of the Government in the Revenue Department and then no lease or license shall be made in favour of a person except by the public auction held in accordance with the procedure given below.........". It will be seen from the above provision that the lease or license in respect of property rights vested in the Gaon Sabha shall not be made for a period exceeding one year except by public auction. The Additional District Magistrate, therefore, was right in stating that the Tahsildar after nullifying the auction ought not have accepted the unilateral offer of the petitioner. When the statute prescribes particular procedure for disposing of certain rights the authorities should not be permitted to circumvent that procedure. The disposal of any right by public auction is a wholesome procedure. It is advisable to follow that procedure even if it has not been specifically prescribed but when prescribed it must be faithfully followed. It must not be disregarded.
(3.) IN the circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Before parting with the case, we, however, observe that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 2500/- as part of the offer which he had made before the Tahsildar. It is needless to state that that sum should be refunded to the petitioner forthwith with liberty to the authorities to reauction the fisheries right in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.;