LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-41

BABBAN RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On October 06, 2004
BABBAN RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute in the instant writ petition relates to grant of fisheries rights in respect of a pond comprised in plot No. 220 area 1.06 Hectares situate in village Seuwara, Tahsil Machhalishahr, district Jaunpur. Initially petitioner was lessee of the said pond at an annual rent/premium of Rs. 300. Lekhpal, Naib Tahsildar and Tahsildar recommended that the lease of fisheries rights in respect of the said pond might be given to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for Rs. 250 per year. S.D.O/Deputy Collector on 14.11.2003 passed a patent order, "accepted as proposed". On 23.3.2004 I passed an order indicating that on the next date pond might be auctioned in the open court. Today both the parties, i.e., petitioner on the one hand and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the other hand through their learned counsel offered their bids in the following manner : Petitioner Respondents Rs. 6,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 20,000 Rs. 22,000 Rs. 25,000 Rs. 27,000 Rs. 35,000 Rs. 37,000

(2.) By judicial intervention annual rent/premium has been enhanced from Rs. 250 to Rs. 37,000 (i.e. 148 times).

(3.) I have followed this procedure with very good results in several cases drawing inspiration from an authority of Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147. In the said authority Supreme Court settled mining lease through auction in court wherein annual premium was enhanced from Rs. 4.5 lacs to Rs. 25 lacs, i.e., about five and half times by judicial intervention, which according to para 6 of the said authority visibly shocked and surprised each one in the Court. "Shock was induced by the fact that public property was squandered away for a song by persons in power who hold the position of trust. Surprise was how judicial intervention can serve larger public interest. One would require multilayered blindfold to reject the appeal of the appellant on any tenuous ground so that the respondent may enjoy and aggrandize his unjust enrichment. On this point we say no more." (Para 6 of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court).