JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Asthana, holding brief of Sri Jamil Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he was granted fisheries lease on 8.9.1987 in respect to the pond, situated over plot nos.146, 149 and 179, which is alleged to be executed in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.9.1987 to 8.9.1997 for a period of 10 years. The Land Management Committee interfered with the right of the petitioner for fisheries, hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38365 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 14.5.1995, directed the authority concerned, not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot with respect to his fisheries right. The petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate on 19.11.1997 and prayed for extension of the fisheries lease for a further period of 10 years. The Addl. District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) submitted a report dated 26.9.1997 and recommended for extending the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 10 years. The petitioner alleged that he had deposited the requisite amount from time to time which was even accepted by the Land Management Committee without any objection and allowed the petitioner to carry out fisheries in the pond in question.

Petitioner further alleged that the local person started interference in the fisheries right of the petitioner with respect to the pond in question, hence, petitioner filed an Original Suit No.478/2016 for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli on 24.11.2016. The interim injunction granted by the civil court, according to the petitioner, is in operation, but a complaint was filed by one Mangla Upadhyay of the same village, accordingly, a report was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that petitioner has made encroachment on the aforesaid plots in dispute which is recorded as pond in the revenue records. The proceeding for ejectment under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.323/2022 (Computerized Case No.T202214180200323, State v. Lallan Upadhyay). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakiya, Chandauli vide order dated 24.2.2022, passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner from plot nos. 146, 149, 149kha as well as imposed damages of Rs.1,01,68,000/-. The Sub-Divisional Officer has recorded a finding of fact that after enquiry, it has been found that no fisheries lease was executed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is occupying the plot in question for the last 25 years which is recorded as pond. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 24.2.2022, petitioner filed Revision No.612 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.AL2022141800612, Lallan Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and Others), under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue along with stay application. During the pendency of the aforementioned revision before the Board of Revenue, an order of attachment was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.4.2022 as well as proclamation of sale under Section 184 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 5.5.2022. According to the petitioner