A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Kalpnath Bind, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THE matter has been taken up in the revised call but no counsel has appeared either on behalf of the respondent no. 3 or on behalf of the respondent no. 4, even though the case has been listed on the listing application filed by the respondent no. 4. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the auction of fishery lease rights in respect of a plot no. 3 area 0.632 hectare situated in Gram Sabha Bhaktapur, Tehsil Aurai, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi). The petitioners claim that on 28th June, 2003 the settlement had been made in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- for a period of 10 years. The petitioners had deposited the necessary requisites for the lease as approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In between, it appears that on 13th August, 2004 the settlement on a strength of alleged resolution in favour of the respondent no. 4 by the Gaon Sabha, is stated to have been made settling the fishery rights in their favour for a period of 10 years at a rate of Rs. 1500/- per year. The said settlement was approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 20.08.2004 and the lease was also executed in favour of the respondent no. 4 on 11.10.2004.
(3.) THE petitioners, who had earlier claimed settlement on the strength of the proceedings dated 28.06.2003, moved an application before the District Magistrate on 30th September, 2004 alleging that their lease should be approved as the proceedings dated 28th June, 2003 has been completed in accordance with law. The same application, which was moved before the District Magistrate, was placed on 1st October, 2004 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The proposal of the petitioners dated 28th June, 2004 was approved on 19.11.2004 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent no. 4, they moved an application alleging that the fishery lease rights had already been excuted in their favour in August, 2004 itself and, therefore, the approval of the petitioners on 19.11.2004 was erroneous. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate recalled his order dated 19.11.2004 vide order dated 29.11.2004.;