- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 15. 2. 2008, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order dated 31. 8. 2006 by which order fisheries lease has been approved in favour of respondent No. 6. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; an advertisement was published in, daily newspaper 'dainik Jagaran' fixing 21. 7. 2006 for settlement of fisheries lease in accordance with the relevant Government Orders by organizing a camp in Tahsil Salempur, district Deoria for various ponds mentioned therein. One of the ponds which was to be settled was pond No. 25 Ka area 0. 458 hectare village Dhanauli Lala. Six persons appeared and made applications for grant of fisheries lease. The applicants were directed to produce their income certificate and caste certificate. The committee considered five applicants including the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6, Vinod Sahni. The income of petitioner was shown as Rs. 30. 000/-, whereas income of respondent No. 6 was shown as Rs. 21,000/ -. Recommendation was made in favour of respondent No. 6 for grant of Patta at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. The Sub-Divisional Officer on 31. 8. 2006 approved the lease in favour of respondent No. 6 against which order, the petitioner filed a revision before Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue rejected the revision holding that settlement was made by Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the income certificates. It was also held that there was no illegality in settling the lease other than by auction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders con-tends that the procedure adopted by the respondents for settlement of the lease, is incorrect and against the Government Orders issued by the State Government for regulating the grant of lease. He further contends that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kumar and others v. State of U. P. andothers, 2005 (4) ESC 2617 (Ali) (FB), when there are more than one person in one category, the settlement is to be made only by auction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the premium on which the lease has been granted, has been fixed without any basis and is inadequate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ready to take the pond at the premium of Rs. 10. 000/- per annum. This Court in its judgment in the case of Babban Ram v. State of U. P. and others, 2005 (1)AWC122, held that average premium for granting fisheries lease has to be Rs. 10. 000/- per hectare per year. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, refuting the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that settlement of fisheries lease made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was on the basis of income certificate of the applicants, which is in accordance with Government Order dated 17. 10. 1995. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 submitted that Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) has upheld the procedure for grant of lease as laid down by the Government order and has disapproved the judgment of this Court which had held that fisheries lease could only be settled through public auction. Learned Counsel for the respondents referred to Annexures-4 and 5 to the counter affidavit in order to show that amount of Rs. 1000/- per hectare is the amount as intimated by Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari, Deoria hence, the amount fixed was in accordance with orders of the Collector of the District, which is adequate. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Counsel for the Gaon Sabha has supported the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 6 and has contended that such settlement is in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Government Order dated 17. 10. 1995, which has been issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 126 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. ,u. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder regulate the grant of lease of Gaon Sabha property as well as fisheries lease. Section 126 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue orders and directions to the Land Management Committee as may appear to be necessary for the purposes of this Act. Rule 115-S (1) provides that no lease or licence in respect of any property vested in the Gaon Sabha shall be made for a period exceeding one year except with the specified permission of the Government in the Revenue Department and no lease or licence shall be made in favour of a person except by a public auction. However, the proviso to Rule 115-S sub-rule (ii) provides that provisions of Rules shall not apply in cases for which State Government has issued directions under Section 126 of the Act read with Rules 115-A and 115-B. Proviso to Rule 115-S (ii) is quoted herein below: "provided that provisions of this rule shall not apply to (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) Cases in which the State Government issues direction under Section 126 of the Act read with Rules 115-A and 115-B. ";