Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) There is no such law that poverty of the claimants for grant of fisheries lease must be compared and the poorer person shall be granted preference for allotment. Accordingly reasoning given by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad in the impugned order dated 12.11.09 in revision no. 71 of 2008-09 Ram Bali v. State of U.P. and others is not correct. Through the said order revision was allowed. Revision was directed against approval order dated 3.7.09 through which fisheries lease in respect of plot no. 416 Area 0.810 hectare granted to the petitioner was approved. The pond is situate in village and Post Office-Matihania Sumali, Tappa Kewatali, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the lease was granted without any advertisement in any newspaper and it was for Rs. 2000 per year. In view of following authorities firstly, lease could not be granted unless an advertisement in some such newspapers which has got wide circulation was issued and secondly lease could not be granted for less than Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year i.e. Rs. 8100/- per year in respect of the pond in dispute. Ram Kumar v. State 2005 (99) RD 823 (F.B.). , Babban Ram v. State 2004 (97) RD 675. , Ram Kumar & others v. State of U.P. & others 2009 (107) R.D. 557 .
(3.) Accordingly on these grounds the allotment of lease of the petitioner was liable to be set-aside and ultimate order of Board of Revenue could be sustained on these grounds, even though not taken by Board of Revenue.;