- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Shri Manish Kumar Nigam for the petitioners, Shri P. K. Chaurasiya for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as under. A resolution dated 15. 7. 2007 was passed by Land Management Committee for grant of lease for fishing rights in Pond No. 813 to petitioner No. 1 for a period of 10 years. By the same resolution. Pond No. 490 was proposed to be allotted in favour of petitioner No. 2. The proposals were duly forwarded for approval to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 7. 8. 2007. When no decision was taken by respondent No. 3, the petitioners approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 46413 of 2007, which was disposed of with the direction to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within two months. A notice dated 5. 11. 2007 was issued by Tehsildar for organising a camp on 14. 11. 2007 for settlement of fishing rights in all the ponds of village of more than 0. 05 decimal area. Thus, the two ponds in dis pute were also included. Since no decision of either approving or disapproving was taken by the authorities in respect of the settlement made in favour of the petitioners vide resolution dated 15. 7. 2007, the notice dated 5. 11. 2007 was challenged before the Board of Revenue by filing Revision No. 23 of 2007-08. However, in the meantime, the camp was held and settlement of the two ponds was made in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 which was duly approved as well on 19. 11. 2007. The settlement in fa vour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was chal lenged by the petitioners by filing another Revision No. 73 of 2007-08. The represen tation of the petitioners pending before re spondent No. 3 came to be decided on 23. 11. 2007 and was rejected mainly on the ground, that resolution dated 15. 7. 2007 in favour of the petitioners has already been cancelled and fresh settlement has been made. Revision No. 23 of 2007-08 filed by the petitioners challenging the notice dated 5. 11. 2007 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 1. 7. 2008 for the reasons that representation of the petitioners, in pursu ance to the orders of this Court, has already been decided. Vide order of same date, Revision No. 73 of 2007-08 was also dis missed.
(3.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that Revision No. 23 of 2007-08 was filed challenging the notice dated 5. 11. 2007 mainly on the ground that without deciding the represen tation of the petitioners as directed by this Court, the two ponds in dispute were wrongly being included in the said notice and since by the time, revision was taken up for hearing fresh settlement had already been made, the revision had virtually be come infructuous but Revision No. 23 of 2007-08 could not have been dismissed for the same reason. IT has further been submit ted that the Board of Revenue has wrongly and illegally dismissed the Revision No. 73 of 2007-08 without recording any reason and without adverting to the ground raised therein challenging the settlement of rights in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the v respondents has tried to justify the im pugned orders.;