ACHHEY LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From perusal of counter-affidavit of Sri C. P. Singh, Deputy Collector, photostat copies of various orders filed by the learned standing counsel and file of Division Bench Writ Petition No. 36966 .of 2004 (pending) it is clear that petitioner is guilty of material concealment in this writ petition. There is no mention in the writ petition of several orders which are quite material for deciding the controversy involved in this writ petition. The petitioner is warned to be careful in future otherwise stern action may be taken against him.

(2.) Dispute in the instant writ petition relates to grant of fisheries lease in respect of pond comprised in plot No. 978 area 7.762 hectares situate in village Khairada Tehsil Sadar district Banda. The petitioner was granted fisheries lease in respect of pond in dispute for five years, w.e.f. 8.11.96 to 7.11.2001. On 15.10.2001 petitioner filed application for renewal of lease till June 2002. Thereafter he filed Writ Petition No. 37287 of 2001. Writ petition was dismissed on 21.11.2001 and petitioner was granted liberty to approach the authorities concerned for renewal of his lease according to the Government orders applicable on petitioner's case. The Court refused to pass any Order or direction to permit the petitioner to continue as lessee upto June, 2002 as claimed by the petitioner's counsel. Thereafter petitioner filed application for renewal before Deputy Collector which was rejected on 24.5.2002. Against the said Order he filed a revision before Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda being Revision No. 1005/347 of 01-p2. Against orders granting or refusing to grant fisheries lease no revision is maintainable as under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act revision can be filed against Order passed by a Court. While granting or refusing to grant/renew fisheries lease Deputy Collector or any other authority does not act as Court such orders are purely administrative in nature hence not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 333 of the Act (vide 1992 RD 392 (B.R.F.B.)), However, revision was allowed on 23.2.2004. Thereafter in pursuance of the said Order of Commissioner Deputy Collector, Banda on 7.8.2004 directed renewal of fisheries lease in respect of pond in dispute in favour of the petitioner till 6.8.2009 by increasing the previous annual rent by 20 per" cent i.e. on Rs. 2,000 per year. Lease was accordingly renewed/executed on 9.8.2004. In the instant writ petition absolutely nothing has been stated regarding the Order of this Court in the above mentioned writ petition and Order of the Commissioner dated 23.2,2004. The only thing which is stated in the writ petition is that on 9.8.2004 lease/agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter reaction was directed to be held on 25.1.2005. On 24.1.2005 when this writ petition was heard as fresh the Court got an impression that Deputy Collector had let out the pond in dispute to the petitioner for highly inadequate consideration hence Deputy Collector and Tehsildar were directed to be present in Court today, i.e., 27.1.2005. Today both the officers are present and counter; affidavit of Deputy Collector and copies of various orders have been filed by the learned standing counsel. Copy of interim Order dated 16.9.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 36966 of 2004 by a Division Bench of this Court has also been filed by the learned standing counsel. I have also perused the file of the said writ petition. The said writ petition was filed by the Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. In the said writ petition Achhey Lal the petitioner of the instant writ petition is respondent No. 6. In the said writ petition on 16.9.2004 a stay Order was passed to the effect that "until further Order of this Court renewal of lease of fisheries rights granted in favour of respondent No. 6 in pursuance of the approval Order dated 9.8.2004 granted by the S.D.M., Sadar, Banda filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition shall remained stayed. However, it shall be open to the respondents to hold a public auction for the grant of fisheries rights."

(3.) Achhey Lal petitioner filed his vakalatnama in the said writ petition on 19.10.2004 and stay vacation application dated 25.10.2004 was also filed by him along with counter-affidavit. On 1.11.2004, the said stay vacation application was directed to be listed with previous papers. No further Order has been passed in the said writ petition. In the instant writ petition petitioner concealed the said stay Order dated 16.9.2004 passed in the aforesaid Division Bench writ petition (In fact in this writ petition there is no mention of the aforesaid writ petition). If an Order has been stayed through Order passed in a writ petition, no other writ petition seeking enforcement of the said Order is maintainable. The concealment of the said stay Order in the instant writ petition is mala fide. In pursuance of stay Order dated 16.9.2004 passed in the aforesaid Division Bench writ petition Deputy Collector on 4.11.2004 accepted the recommendation of Tehsildar and directed that re-auction shall take place on 23.11.2004. This Order has also been concealed by the petitioner. There is absolutely no mention of this Order in the writ petition. Due to some reasons re-auction could not take place on 23.11.2004 hence on that date Tehsildar passed the Order adjourning the auction to 25.1.2005. Only this Order of Tehsildar dated 23.11.2004 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.