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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. Suman Kumar Yadav, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Ranjeet Asthana, Counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, Counsel for respondent No.7-Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2020 an advertisement was issued in pursuance of the order dated 02.07.2020 passed by respondent No.1 in respect to plot No.919 area 0.835 hectare and plot No.908 area 1.063 hectare situated in village-Bairadih @ Gambhirpur alongwith other plot situated in other villages of the District for fisheries right by way of auction to take place on 30.07.2020. According to the petitioner as stated in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 8 and 9 appeared in the auction proceeding on 30.07.2020 and petitioner was the highest bider for Rs.30,000/- per year accordingly petitioner deposited requisite amount on the due dates but respondent No.4 denied the averment made in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition. Respondent No.3 allotted the plot No.908 area 1.063 hectare to the petitioner on 13.08.2020 for fisheries right for 10 years on rent of Rs.30,000/- per year. On 24.08.2020 an agreement was executed between Land Management Committee and petitioner for the period 13.08.2020 to 12.08.2030. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Rule 59 of U.P. Revenue Code Rule 2016 along with application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act before Collector against the allotment dated 13.08.2020 with respect to plot No.908 area 1.063 hectare (pond). State filed an objection in the aforementioned appeal. Petitioner also filed his objection before Collector stating that respondent No.4 has no locus to challenge the allotment of the petitioner due to reason that Respondent No.4 has not participated in the auction proceeding. Respondent No.2 heard the aforementioned appeal and vide order dated 31.10.2022 allowed the appeal and set aside the allotment dated 13.08.2020 which was made in favour of petitioner hence this writ petition.

3. This Court on 19.12.2022 passed the following order:-

“Heard Dr. Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ranjeet Asthana, who appears for respondent no. 4 and Sri C.B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 4 for cancellation of the patta while preferring an appeal is nothing but misuse of the process of law, particularly, when a lease for the fishery rights stood settled for a period of 10 years on 13.08.2010 till 12.08.2030. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph no. 23 of the writ petition as well as Annexure 19 at Page 91 so as to contend that his income is Rs.42,000/- per annum and thus, even in fact he cannot be termed to be an affluent person. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the auction was conducted as per the provisions of law and the petitioner also deposited the requisite bid amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from a bare perusal of the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by respondent no. 2, it reveals that the same proceeds towards wrong direction as the question of financial status does not find place in the provisions contained under sub Rule (5) of the Rule 57 of the 2016 Rules.

Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel who appears for the respondent no. 5 has sought time to complete his instructions from his client. Learned standing counsel also seeks time to seek instructions in that regard.

On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, include the matter in the list on 22.12.2022 as fresh.”

4. On 01.02.2023 following order was passed by this Court:-

“In compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.12.2022, the learned standing has placed instructions before this Court in which it is mentioned that responde