S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) In this case on 05.12.2009, following order was passed : "The allegation is that a pond having an area of 0.809 comprised in Plot No. 244 situate in Village Mujdeeha Tehsil Hata District Kushinagar was allotted to respondent No. 6, Narvada on whose behalf Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel, has filed vakalatnama today, on 25.5.2005 for Rs. 2,01,000/-. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 admits this fact and also submits that one fourth of the said amount was deposited by the respondent No. 6 on 13.6.2005. The copy of receipt is Annexure-I (4th receipt) to the writ petition itself. Some further amount was also deposited by respondent No. 6 subsequently copy of receipt of which is Annexure-ll to the writ petition. Now in July, 2009, the same pond has again been settled in favour of respondent No. 6 for only Rs. 10,000/- by the S.D.O. The Court is of the opinion that the S.D.O., who has done it, does not deserve to remain in government service. However, before recommending to the State Government to at once initiate disciplinary proceedings against him after suspending him, it is essential to provide an opportunity of hearing to the S.D.O. concerned. Accordingly, the officer who was holding the post of S.D.O. Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, in July, 2009, shall be present in Court and file his affidavit on 15.12.2009. Put up for further order on 15.12.2009 at 2 p.m. Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha is also present. Meanwhile, respondent No. 6 is permitted to exercise his fisheries right over the pond in dispute treating the pond in dispute to have been allotted to him in May, 2005 for Rs. 2,01,000/-. If any amount is due to be paid thereunder then the same shall also be paid by respondent No. 6. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the records pertaining to the settlement of fresh fisheries lease in respect of the pond in dispute in favour of respondent No. 6 in July, 2009. It must also be informed as to whether the amount of Rs. 50,250/- and the subsequent amount, which was deposited by respondent No. 6 pursuant to settlement of lease in his favour in May, 2005 is still in deposit or has been permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No. 6. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned Chief Standing Counsel today for sending the same to the Collector & the S.D.O. concerned."
(2.) Today, affidavit of Sri Birjnath Yadav, who was the Deputy Collector/ S.D.O., Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar has been filed. It has been stated in the said affidavit that Sri Yadav joined the post of S.D.O. Tehsil Hata on 7.2.2009, that concerned lekhpal had issued a letter on 17.1.2009 to the Land Management Committee for calling of meeting of Gaon Sabha for settlement of fisheries lease and a similar letter was sent by Tehsildar to the Chairman, Land Management Committee mentioning therein that some persons had submitted applications for allotment of fisheries lease. It is also stated in Para-7 that Munadi was done on 27.1.2009 and on 23.2.2009 only respondent No. 6, and one more person submitted applications. Thereafter, in Para-10, it has been stated that earlier proceedings of 25.5.2005 were not brought to the notice of the deponent/S.D.O. by concerned area lekhpal. It is also stated in Para-10 that deponent has started departmental proceedings against concerned area lekhpal and concerned revenue inspector. It is also stated in Para-12 that the amount of Rs. 50,250/- deposited by respondent No. 6 in 2005 is still in deposit.
(3.) The Court expresses its wonder over the manner in which records are maintained in the District. It is share common sense that before proceeding to auction fisheries lease in respect of a pond, it must be ascertained as to whether there is any continuing lease or not. If the records are maintained in such manner that new incumbent on the post of S.D.O. is not able to ascertain this fact then it depicts the entire office of S.D.O. in a very shabby form. Not only in the district in question but in all the districts of the State, records should be maintained in proper manner. The allegation of the present S.D.O. that he merely acted upon the report of lekhpal also shows that he does not bother about the details and does not apply his mind. It has not been stated that in what manner disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against lekhpal and the inspector.;