JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, District Hardoi dated 25.01.2021, by which the lease granted to the petitioner for exercising fishery rights over a pond on Gata No. 614ka, 611Ka and 619Gha on 14.06.2016 for five years has been cancelled on the ground inter alia that the petitioner has sublet the pond to villagers. Secondly, it had been given possession of the pond earlier, thirdly the agreement was not got executed by the petitioner, fourthly, the lease consideration had not been deposited by the petitioner for the past three years.

3. The petitioner's counsel says that he was never given possession of the pond, whereas the impugned order as also the report at page 66 says that it was given, therefore, this is a disputed question of fact.

4. Considering the fact that it is a dispute arising out of a contract between the petitioner and opposite parties and it is not possible for the writ court u