R.P.Singh - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27-4-1989, rejecting the revision and upholding the order passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) putting certain restrictions on the fishing rights of the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition as disclosed in the various affidavits filed in the case are that the petitioner was granted a lease for fishing for a period of ten years by Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandauli, Varanasi which was to expire on 30-6-88. Before the expiry of the lease the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the lease and the Sub Divisional Officer on 12-4-88 renewed the lease of the petitioner for a period of ten years. THE Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha then moved an application under section 198 (4) of the UP ZA and LR Act for cancellation of the said lease and the Additional Collector vide his order dated 1-12-88 permitted the petitioner to do the fishing on the condition that the petitioner deposits the sale proceeds of the fishing in a nationalised bank and further directed that a representative of the Pradhan would be present at the time of fishing and the petitioner was directed to maintain day-to-day accounts. Aggrieved against the imposition of these conditions the petitioner went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner who rejected the same as not maintainable THE petitioner then preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was also rejected. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court. Heard Sri S. N. Singh for the petitioner and Sri V. M. Sahai and K. B. Garg for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the conditions imposed by the Addl. Collector vide his order dated 27-4-89 are very arbitrary and the lease of the petitioner for fishing having been renewed for a further period of ten years, the petitioner was entitled to carry on the fishing without any interference by the Additional Collector and since the conditions imposed by the Additional Collector amounts to undue interference in the petitioner's right to carry on the fishing, the order passed by the Additional Collector is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that there is no provision for renewal of fishing rights and that the Sub Divisional Officer could grant a lease for fishing only if the Land Management Committee was not able to grant the lease. THE learned counsel contended that since there is nothing on the record to indicate that the Land Management Committee was not in a position to grant the lease for fishing and it is the Land Management Committee which is primarily entitled to grant lease for fishing in the pond and hence the Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction under the circumstances to renew the lease for a further period of ten years in favour of the petitioner and since there is no valid grant of lease in favour of the petitioner and hence the petitioner is not entitled to grant of any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution from this Court. The short question, therefore, for consideration before this Court is whether there is any valid renewal of lease in favour of the petitioner made by the Sub Divisional Officer Section 122-A (k) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that the Land Management Committee shall be charged for and on behalf of the Gaon Sabha with the powers of general superintendence, management and maintenance of fisheries and tanks. Section 28-B (e) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act also provides that the Land Management Committee shall, for and on behalf of the Gaon Sabha be charged with the control and management of fisheries and tanks. Hence the power to manage and control the fishery rights has essentially been conferred on the Land Management Committee.;