The provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act, namely sections 4, 6, and 117, only take away the rights, title, and interest of the intermediaries including fisheries. They do not take away the right of fish in respect of Government owned river or other State properties as no question of their vesting in State would arise.

K. P. Singh, J.

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the auction notice dated 23-7-1986 notifying an auction to be held on 25-8-1986 for settlement of fishing rights in the portion of river Ganga adjoining districts Badaun and Bulandshahr. Another prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the fishing rights in favour of the petitioner cooperative society in accordance with the Government Orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-81 with regard to the portion of river Ganga adjoining Tahsil Anupshahar.

2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. It consists of members belonging to Mallah and Machhuwara communities. According to the petitioner its members are residents of district Bulandshahar and are fishermen by profession. The petitioner claims settlement of fishing rights in its favour on the basis of Government Orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-81.

The writ petition was presented on 21-8-1986 and a bench of this Court asked the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit and to explain which authority could auction the fishery rights in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case. By agreement of the parties we proceed to decide the writ petition at the stage of admission.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties a question arises whether the petitioner can get relief claimed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The basis of the petitioner's claim is the Government orders dated 30-5-1981 and 22-10-1981. The petitioners has only to satisfy us that the aforesaid Government orders apply to the present petitioner. The petitioner claims right of fishing in river Ganga. The real question in the present case is whether the river Ganga ever vested in the Gaon Sabhas under the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act. The Government orders relied upon by the petitioner relate to the rivers vested in Gaon Sabha and it has been contended that the provisions of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual will govern the Thekas regarding fishery rights in the river in question.

4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted before us that river Ganga was the property of the Crown in good old days and it did not vest in Gaon Sabhas after the enforcement of UP ZA Act. The provisions of U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual will not at all be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The second submission made on behalf of the State is to the effect that the Theka of fishing rights claimed by the petitioner is in the hands of opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition i.e. the Executive Engineer, Narora Division Lower Ganga Canal, Aligarh and the opposite party has been auctioning the fishery rights since many years back, therefore, a dispute has arisen whether the opposite party no. 2 would auction the fishery rights in river Ganga or the opposite party no. 3. We have been informed that the opposite party no. 1 is considering the claim of the opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present writ petition regarding auction of fishery rights in river Ganga. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel the petitioner should approach the opposite party no. 1 regarding his claim and that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived because the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner are not at all attracted to the inter State river Ganga which belongs to the Union of India and previously belonged to the Crown. Reliance has been placed upon a ruling reported in 1946 AWR 155 PC, Rani Prabhawati Sahiba v. Secretary of State.

5. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to items nos. 56 and 57 of List I or VII Schedule as well as item no. 21 of List II of VII Schedule and it has been contended that the management of fishin