TAZI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition petitioner has challenged order of Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut dated 26.8.2003 through which Revision No. 49 of 2001-2002 filed by respondent No. 5 has been allowed and order dated 21.6.2002 passed by A. D. M. Ghaziabad in Case No. 1 of 1999-2000 has been set aside. The A. D. M. by his order dated 21.6.2002 had cancelled patta of a pond granted in favour of respondent No. 5 dated 20.7.2000.

(2.) By my orders dated 13.9.2004 and 15.9.2004 I directed the learned counsel for both the parties, i.e., respondents No. 5 as well as petitioner to offer their bids for the lease of pond in question for fisheries purposes in open court. This unusual practice was adopted in view of the fact that the pond in question having an area of 10 bigha, 11 biswa had been given to respondent No. 5 on extremely insignificant premium of Its. 1,200 per year for ten years through lease deed dated 20.7.2000. The Court proposed to adopt that procedure following the similar procedure adopted by Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147. In the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court highest bid of appellant of Rs. 3.87 lacs per year for three years lease was not approved by the Government. However, later on on the letter of respondent No. 4 addressed to the Chief Minister the lease (under Haryana Minor Mineral Act) for Rs. 4.5 lacs per year was granted to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had stated in his letter that he was prevented from participating in the auction. The Supreme Court auctioned the lease hold rights in Court in between appellant and respondent No. 4. Appellant ultimately raised the bid to Rs. 25 lacs and appeal was allowed. Order granting quarry lease to respondent No. 4 was set aside and State of Haryana and Director of Industries were directed to grant right to the appellant in the form of contract at the rate of Rs. 25 lacs per year for a period of five years. During auction in Court what happened has been mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. Concluding portion of paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 of the aforesaid authority are quoted below :

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 started the bid with Rs. 6,000/- per year. Learned counsel for the petitioner enhanced it to Rs. 8,000/- per year. Thereafter, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 10,000/- learned counsel for the petitioner enhanced it to Rs. 15,000 per year and thereafter learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 16,000/- per year. In response learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his Inability to enhance the bid from Rs. 16,000/-.