JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State respondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent Gram Sabha.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that pursuant to the previous order the respondent 2 is present in Court in order to explain the factual inconsistencies noticed in the affidavits filed earlier.

3. Indulgence is sought to file a fresh affidavit along with an application in order to explain the stand of the State respondents with regard to the settlement of the fishery lease in favour of the petitioner.

4. Affidavit, along with application, filed in court, is taken on record.

5. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no.3/ Sub­Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District­ Mirzapur, to complete the formalities for grant of fishery lease to the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to exercise fishing rights in respect of pond bearing Gata No. 970 area 0.2400 hectare, situate in Village Gonaura, Tehsil­ Sadar, District­ Mirzapur.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has primarily sought to contend that the petitioner being the sole bidder in the auction held by the State respondents and having deposited one­fourth of the bid amount, would acquire a right for settlement of fishery lease in his favour.

7. Learned counsel has also contended that the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the affidavit filed earlier that the pond in question was proposed for the 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' could not be accepted for the reason that for the purposes of the said scheme the area of the pond was required to be at least of one acre and the pond in question is having a much lesser area.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn attention to the Government Order dated 27.04.2022, a copy of which has been appended along with the affidavit filed today, to point out that the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' was launched as part of celebration of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75 years of independence of the country. It is pointed out that as per directions issued by the Government, 'Amrit Sarovars' are to be developed in each district and the responsibility of maintaining them, would be of the concerned Gram Panchayats.

9. It is pointed out that in furtherance of the aforestated Government Order, a D.O. letter dated 12.05.2022, was issued by the Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttar Pradesh containing the guidelines in regard to the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' which provide that for the purpose of the scheme, ponds having in a minimum area of one acre (0.4 hectares), would be considered; however, in case a pond of the required area is not available then ponds of lesser area may also be utilised for the purpose after undertaking their rejuvenation and desilting.

10. As regards the factual aspects of the case, it is submitted that the auction proceedings were initiated in terms of a public notice dated 02.07.2022. Soon thereafter, the Gram Sabha of the concerned village passed a resolution on 25.07.2022, in terms of which the pond in question along with two other ponds, were proposed for 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana'. The officials of the Revenue Department being unaware of the aforesaid proposal held the auction on 25.07.2022 and one­fourth of the bid amount was deposited.

11. It is pointed out that the Gram Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat submitted an application dated 25.07.2022 annexing a copy of the proposal dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Gram Panchayat which was with regard to the proposal for allocating the pond for the purposes of the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme'.

12. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that a physical inspection was carried out by the Area Lekhpal and a report dated 26.08.2022 was submitted with the approval of the Revenue Inspec