Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) An area of 0.153 hectares comprised in plot no. 82-M was alleged by the petitioner to have been allotted to him in 1992. In March 2008 the entire plot no.82-M total area 1.168 hectares including the aforesaid area of 0.153 hectares was given for ten years fisheries lease to respondent no.4 Smt. Kusum only for Rs. 1,400/- per year. Petitioner challenged the said patta through application which was registered as case no.6 of 2008-09 Karam Singh v. Kusum. Collector, Saharanpur rejected the said application. Copy of the said order dated 22.1.2009 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Collector categorically held that the portion of the plot over which petitioner claimed his right was a pond and entered as such in the revenue records. Petitioner's name was also never entered over any part of the said plot/pond. In the said order it is also mentioned that the said plot was of village Mukundpur however, petitioner claimed that the said plot was situate in village Sherpur which was obviously wrong. Against the said order petitioner filed revision which was dismissed on 13.8.2009 by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Saharanpur division Saharanpur hence this writ petition. I do not find least error in the impugned orders. Firstly, petitioner could not show that patta was granted to him. Secondly, even if some patta was granted, it was not for fisheries purposes hence it was void. Ponds may be let out only for fisheries purposes.
(2.) However, I find that the fisheries lease has been granted to respondent no.4 for extremely inadequate consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no advertisement in any newspaper for settlement of the lease was published. Proposal for grant of fisheries lease in favour of respondent no.4 was accepted by Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Rampur Maniharan District Saharanpur. This court has repeatedly held that fisheries lease in respect of ponds vested in Gaon sabha under Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act shall be settled only after due advertisement in the newspapers vide Ram Kumar v. State, 2005 (99) RD 823 (F.B.).
(3.) Accordingly in my tentative opinion the lease granted to respondent no.4 is liable to be cancelled on the grounds that firstly it was settled without due advertisement and secondly it was given for highly inadequate consideration. I have held in Babban Ram v. State 2004 (97) RD 675 that fisheries lease shall be settled at least at Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year.;