Back
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Raj Kumar Bind – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
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, T
The eligibility criteria for fishery lease allotment as per Rule 57 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 must be met for a valid allotment.
Point of law: provisions of Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016 are ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution is concerned, that is completely misconceived because fishery lease is obtained not merely to ....
The judgment established that alleged customs or usages from the erstwhile state of Travancore-Cochin are not protected by the laws prevailing in the transferred territory, as per the Tamil Nadu (Tra....
Exercise of fishery rights without approval is illegal, and lack of approval for the bid results in the absence of an enforceable right.
Point of Law : A certificate issued by such an authority carries with it a presumption under Section 114 III.(e) – “That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
The paramount consideration for settlement of a fishery is public interest, and the court emphasized the importance of transparency, fair play, and compliance with previous court orders in such matte....
The court emphasized that any auction is conducted in public interest to get the best possible revenue and that the action of the respondents in initiating the auction did not seem to be arbitrary or....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
