RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The aforesaid writ petitions are posted today for admission. The learned standing counsel, Sri L.P. Tewari is raising preliminary objections of general importance in these writ petitions inviting my attention to conflicting decisions rendered by learned Judges constituting Division Benches of coordinate jurisdiction of this Court staring to each other. I am of the view that disposal of these writ petitions either at admission stage or at final hearing is not possible unless conflicting opinions of different Division Benches of this Court are resolved by a larger Bench under Chapter V, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court. In such a situation, this Court has no alternative except keeping in view judicial decorum and propriety to refer the questions involved in these writ petitions to a larger Bench for consideration and resolving conflicts between different Division Benches of this Court relating to grant of fishery leases, its renewal and jurisdiction to cancel such fishery lease by Sub-Divisional Officer. Collector and Civil Courts for the reasons given herein below.

(3.) By way of filing the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners are either questioning the legality and validity of patta granted in favour of respondents relating to fishing rights in ponds and tanks vested in gaon sabha under Section 117 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act [hereinafter referred as Act No. 1 of 1951) or refusing renewal of their leases under Paragraph 60 (2) Kha of Gaon Sabha Manual, which is based on statutory direction issued by the Government from time to time in exercise of its power under Section 126 of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.