GAON SABHA KATARIYA BABU Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The pond known as Levedtal in village Katariya Babu Post Office Sikta, Block Bhanwapur, Tehsil Dumeriyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar was auctioned on 20-12-1976 and lease was granted in favour of highest bidder. On expiry of the period of lease, the same was renewed on 9-3-1987 for a further period of ten years. Before expiry of period of said lease the respondent No. 3 moved an application on 7-12- 1996 for renewal of lease for further period of ten years and in the said application a report was called by the Sub-Divisional Officer from the Tehsildar. The lease was further renewed for a period of ten years in favour of respondent No. 3 without even knowledge of the petitioner Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee. The petitioner Gaon Sabha filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 5-4-1997 for cancellation of renewal of lease stating relevant materials. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner Basti Division, Basti challenging the aforesaid order dated 4-3-1997 granting renewal of lease in favour of the respondent No. 3. The Additional Commissioner (Administration) by order dated 12-8-1998 stayed the operation of the order challenged in the revision and issued appropriate direction for making interim arrangement of leasing out the said pond on daily rent basis during the pendency of revision. The revision was taken up on 6-10-1998 and ultimately by order dated 13-10-1998 the revision was dismissed as not maintainable and stay order was vacated. Challenging the same, present writ petition was filed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed counter affidavit and petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit.

(3.) AFTER considering the contentions of the respective parties, I find that the said judgments by several Division Benches of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are having binding effect. It has been held in those judgments categorically that without proper advertisement in newspapers and without holding public auction such fishery, lease are not to be granted. In the present case apparently the same has not been complied with. In such circumstances, absence of such provision in the relevant Rules will not help the respondents particularly when the said judgments did not prescribe a procedure contrary to the said Rules.