BRIJ RAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The dispute in the instant writ petition relates to fisheries lease in respect of pond comprised in plot No. 349 area 0.9293 hectares situate in village Barauli Sultan Singh, Tahsil Zakhaniya, district Ghazipur.

(2.) AFTER advertisement in daily Hindi Newspaper Amar Ujala auction was held on 23.7.2004 in which petitioner's bid of Rs. 19,000 for ten years was highest. On the same date petitioner deposited one-fourth of the amount, i.e., Rs. 4,750. Thereafter Land Management Committee passed resolution on 1.7.2004 for cancellation of the aforesaid auction and for grant of lease to respondent No. 5 Sri Ram. Naib Tahsildar gave a report on 5.8.2004, copy of which is Annexure-S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit in which it was mentioned that according to the resolution of Land Management Committee dated 1.7.2004 fisheries lease was proposed to be given to respondent No. 5 Sri Ram on a premium of Rs. 1,000 per year, however, respondent No. 5 was ready to take the fisheries lease on Rs. 2,000 per year, Tahsildar accepting the' said report submitted his recommendation to Deputy Collector on 17.8.2004. The recommendation had been given in pursuance of earlier order of Deputy Collector dated 24.7.2004. Tahsildar recommended that the resolution of Land Management Committee dated 1.7.2004, might be accepted. Deputy Collector passed three words order on 23.8.2004 to the effect, "Accepted as proposed", which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It was not clear from the said order that for how much amount the lease had been granted to respondent No. 5 hence by order dated 21.9.2004. I directed the Deputy Collector to file an affidavit stating therein the circumstances under which such cryptic order had been passed. Affidavit of J. Ram, Deputy Collector/S.D.O. sworn on 27.9.2004 has been filed. In para 4 it has been stated that the lease has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 5 at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per year. In para 5 of the affidavit it has been mentioned that patta in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the amount offered by the petitioner (Rs. 1,900 per year) was less than the amount for which it was given to respondent No. 5 (Rs. 2,000 per year) and that it was done on the basis of report submitted by Chairman, Land Management Committee and report of Tahsildar. S.D.O. has not explained as to why he did not ask the petitioner whether he was ready to enhance the amount from Rs. 2,000 or not. No auction can be set aside on the ground that some other person who did not participate in the auction has offered about 5% higher amount. In any case it was essential to hear the petitioner before cancelling the auction. Auction held by Deputy Collector cannot be set aside on the request or recommendation of Land Management Committee. In the affidavit of Deputy Collector absolutely no regret has been expressed regarding the manner in which auction in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It is no doubt true that sometimes genuine persons are unable to participate in the auction. However, if after an auction some person offers a substantially higher amount, the proper course is to call the person in whose favour auction was finalized and ask the complainant and previous highest bidder to bid again. In this regard officer concerned must keep in mind judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147. In several cases I have found that leases are cancelled by Deputy Collector on flimsy grounds without even issuing notice and hearing the person to whom the lease was granted. In future if such contingency arises then the procedure indicated above shall be followed by the Deputy Collectors. Revenue Secretary, Government of U. P. is directed to instruct all Deputy Collectors accordingly.

(3.) WITH the above observation writ petition is disposed of.