Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Lallan Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fisheries lease granted to petitioner since 1987. (Para 3) |
| 2. interference and disputes regarding fisheries rights. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner seeks interim protection due to pending stay applications. (Para 5) |
| 4. respondents argue concealment of material facts by petitioner. (Para 6) |
| 5. petitioner lacks valid lease and prior orders affect case. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court emphasizes no entitlement to interim protections. (Para 10) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 11 , 12) |
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
Court affirmed that without a valid lease, petitioners are not entitled to fisheries rights, allowing for ejectment and damages under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
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.
Certificate proceedings for unpaid bid amounts under OPDR Act require a valid registered lease deed; absence of such documentation renders proceedings invalid.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
The court held that interim relief should be granted in land disputes pending regularization, emphasizing that statutory rights are to be protected until final determination.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
In disputes over land title, interim injunctions are not maintainable if the title is highly disputed, necessitating resolution through comprehensive suits for declaration of title.
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
