RAJIV KUMAR SHAHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. This dispute relates to the claim of the? parties and their right to harvest the fish in respect of a pond said to be? consisting of? several? plots? in village Gajedar Tehsil Barhaj? District Deoria. The pond was subject of? an auction and the proceedings of the auction have been brought on record indicating that the petitioner and the President of the respondent no.4 both participated in the auction proceedings. The bids were individually made by the petitioner and the president of the respondent no.4 Samiti? that are recorded on the bid sheet.

(2.) THE 1/4th amount? as per the conditions prescribdd was deposited and the receipt was issued in the name of the petitioner. The said auction was approved by the Sub -Divisional Officer vide order dated 24.07.2004,? which records? that the money has been deposited by the petitioner? on behalf of respondent no.4 Sewa Samooh. The approval order was granted on the report? dated 23.7.2004 where after a lease deed was executed on 6 September,2004, copy whereof is Annexure no.8 to the writ petition. The lease deed indicates that it is in the individual name of the petitioner but against the parentage of the petitioner, the name of respondent no.4 the society has also been transcribed.

(3.) AFTER 5 years in 2009, it appears? a dispute arose and an order was passed on 4.07.2009 by the Sub -Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector, Barhaz and allowing the society collectively to operate the pond and police force was also provided. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order contending that auction had been finalized only in favour of the petitioner and not in favour of the society, as such the? said order, which was ex -parte without putting the petitioner notice deserves to be set aside. The writ petition was entertained and an interim stay order was passed on 17 September 2009 . The petition was finally allowed on 8.7.2013 directing the Sub -Divisional Officer to pass an order after hearing the party concerned. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate has now passed an order recording that the petitioner?s claim of his right to individually operate the pond is unfounded as the auction has been approved in favour of the society. Reliance has been placed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on the recital contained in the lease deed as well as the approval order.