- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition was nominated to me by Hon'ble the Chief Justice through order dated 2. 08. 2004. Thereafter on 4. 8. 2004, I passed the following order on the writ petition : "this is a writ petition through which a prayer has been made that respondents must be restrained from letting out or granting Patta for fishery rights over the land which belongs to the petitioner. Earlier also similar Patta was granted regarding part of the land which has not been challenged by the petitioner anywhere. It appears that the Patta-holder society has filed some suit against the petitioner which is pending according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and no injunction has been granted therein. Through this writ petition prayer of the petitioner is that respondents/. e. State of U. P. , District Magistrate and Tehsildar should be restrained from allotting other land of the petitioner in plot Nos. 281 and 339 for fishery rights to any one else. Only ponds can be allotted for exercising fishery rights. As far as pond is con cerned no person can be permitted to occupy the same. Ponds are lifeline of the village. Collector, Allahabad is directed to immediately make inspection of the spot and if it is found that pond is occupied by any person then the inquiry shall be make as to how it happened. The report of inquiry shall be sent to this Court. Shri S. R. Jalil learned Standing Counsel is directed to send a copy of this order to the Collector, Allahabad who shall send a compliance report to this Court within a month. This writ petition must be listed along with report of the Collector on 7th September, 2004. Copy of this order may be supplied to Shri S. R. Jalil, learned Standing Counsel free of cost by 9. 8. 2004. "
(2.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 281 area 16 bighas 1 biswa and Plot No. 339 area 18 bighas 8 biswas corresponding to old plot Nos. 1607 and 862/1 situate in Village Sirhir, Post Silaudhi, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad. THE prayer in the writ petition is that respondents may be restrained from auctioning or ex ecuting any patta of the disputed plots for fisheries purposes to any one else. Earlier a part of the plots in dispute had been let out for fisheries purposes to respondent No. 4- Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti, Sirhir, Allahabad. A civil suit (O. S. No. 481 of 2002) filed by respondent No. 4 regarding his fisheries patta is also reported to be pending. The main contention of the petitioner is that in consolidation proceedings in the year 1976-1978, plots in dispute, which were earlier recorded as pond (talab) had been held to belong to the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that Consolidation Officer passed order in his favour however the said order was set aside in appeal by S. O. C. and against the order of S. O. C. , petitioner filed revision being Revision No. 359/425 of 1978, Smt Shamii Devi and others v. Gaon Sabha, which was allowed by D. D. C. , Allahabad on 28. 10. 1978 and through the said order, it was directed that the property in dispute should be entered as Bhumidhari of the petitioner. Through the said order, order of S. O. C. was set aside. D. D. C. further mentioned in his order that on his spot inspection, he found that crops sown by the petitioner were standing on major portion of the plots in dispute. It was also mentioned that Pradhan was present on the spot, who admit ted the case of the petitioner. Photostat copy of the certified copy of the said judgment has also been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(3.) ANNEXURE-2 to the writ petition is alleged C. H. Form No. 45. In the said Form, at the top, it is clearly mentioned that previously the property was men tioned as Shreni-VI (Category-VI), non-agricultural land; talab (pond ). Thereafter, it is mentioned that by order dated 28. 10. 1978 passed by D. D. C. , the name of Gaon Sabha should be expunged and petitioners' name should be entered. On both the pages of copy of C. H. Form No. 45 (ANNEXURE-ll), word "talab" is men tioned. Learned Standing Counsel has filed several affidavits annexing therewith copies of records. Original records were also summoned by me. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that no such order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition (Revisional Court's order dated 28, 10. 1978) was ever passed and that in the records no such file is available.;