Rajes Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 4.
(2.) LEARNED standing counsel has produced the record. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.9.2008, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur, by which the pond No. 440 area 4.177 hect, situated in village Kohda Block Suitha Kala Sahganj, district Jaunpur has been allotted to the respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur has allotted the pond in question to the respondent No. 4 on the ground that no other application was available on record on 11.7.2008. He submitted that the petitioner has moved an application for the allotment of the pond on 19.7.2008, which is clear from the record as well as the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur, dated 30.7.2008, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He submitted that on 11.7.2008, the pond in question has not been allotted to anyone. It appears that the respondent No. 4 has moved application on 11.7.2008 for the allotment of the pond but no allotment was made in his favour on that day. He further submitted that respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 41081 of 2008, in which this Court has directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur to intimate the decision taken on the application of the petitioner for the grant of lease within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of this Court. In pursuance thereof, on 3.9.2008, the allotment of the pond in question was made in favour of the respondent No. 4. In fact no decision has been taken on the application of the respondent No. 4 on 11.7.2008 or prior to 3.9.2008, therefore, the question of informing any decision on the application does not arise. He submitted that for the first time the allotment was made on 3.9.2008 when the application of the petitioner was also available on record and, therefore, while making the allotment application of the petitioner should have been considered by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur, while to provide the benefit to the respondent No. 4 the application of the petitioner has been ignored and procedure for the allotment has not been followed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 submitted that as per the advertisement, application for the allotment of pond in dispute was to be made on 11.7.2008. The advertise-ment was claimed to have been published in the various news paper, photocopies of which is at page No. 26 of the Writ Petition No. 41081 of 2008. Therefore, the application for the allotment should have been filed by 11.7.2008 and since the petitioner has admittedly not filed any application by 11.7.2008 and filed on 19.7.2008, therefore, the petitioner's application for the allotment has not been considered by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur. He submitted that in pursuance of the allotment order dated 3.9.2008, respondent No. 4 has deposited the required money and has also started fishery rearing operation. He further submitted that in case, if the claim of the respondent may not be accepted the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahganj, district Jaunpur may be directed to refund the amount deposited and allow some time to take out the fishes from the pond in question. Learned standing counsel admits that there is no official advertisement for the allotment of the pond in dispute for 11.7.2008 on record. No proceeding for the allotment has taken place on 11.7.2008 and in fact no allotment was made on 11.7.2008. He submitted that the petitioner filed the application on 19.7.2008, which was available on 3.9.2008 and, therefore, the application of the petitioner should have been considered for the allotment of the pond.;