Back
RAJAN ROY, VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV
Jainendra Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Principal Secretary Fisheries U. P. Civil Secretariat Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Rajive Ratan Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. The petitioner herein claims that he had participated in an auction held in 2018 for settling fishery rights in respect of a pond situated at Gata No. 347 area 1.212 hectares Village -Balapur, Tehsil -Bikapur, District-Ayodhya. He was the only bidder and had deposited Rs.12,500/-at that time, however, he admits to the fact that the lease was never executed in his favour and the said auction and the bid was never approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as is mandatory under Section 61(b) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 57(9) and (10) of the Revenue Code Rules, 2016. He however claims that he was allowed to exercise fishery rights in respect of the said pond and also deposited the requisite money for each year. However, in 2020 the said Pond was re-notified for auction whereupon the petitioner raised an objection and the matter was shelved.
3. Now, again vide impugned notification dated 12.05.2022 the pond in question has been notified. He says that the advertisement, in pursuance to which he had participated in auction in 2018, w
Exercise of fishery rights without approval is illegal, and lack of approval for the bid results in the absence of an enforceable right.
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.
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....
When as per auction, highest bidder could not deposit the 25 per cent of bid amount which was required to be deposited by him then there was no other option left with authorities but to re-auction po....
The court's decision was based on the principle that disputed questions of fact would not be entertained when the concerned party did not come forward to dispute the resolution.
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
