IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT‘BILAPU (C.G.) SR /2004 WRIT PETITION No. 99/ é/ \W \ 6“ 1 . Machhua Swa Sahayata Samuh, Sirsakhurd,‘ through Purushottam Dhimar, resident of village Sirsakhurd, Tehsil and Distt. Durg (CG 2. Posan Swa Sahayata Salnuh, ‘Sirs‘akhurd, through : Shri Poshan Dhimar, resident of Sirsakhurd, Tehsil and Distt. Durgt (CG) PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through, the Secretary, Department of Fish, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS “-2.:g‘ Saaja Rawoot Dewalay Mattashya Udyog, Sahkari Samiti, Resident of Sirsakhurd, The. And Distt. Durg (C.G.) ‘Sarpanch, Village Panchayat -— Sirsakhurd, Vikas Khand — Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat — Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) The Collector, Distt. Durg (CG) Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Additional Collector, ‘Durg & ) The Gram Panchayat, through : the Sarpanch, Sirsakhu'rd, Sirsakhurd, Distt. Durg (CG) Santosh Kumar Sahu, Up Sarpanch, Agrahij Ram, Panch, Dhaneeram Sahu, Panch Toranlal Sarve, Panch 14. Sabhanabai Apanch . Pramila Sahu, Panch Rampyari, Panch 17. ’ Kheduram Yadav, Panch 18. Bataram Yadav, Panch '19. Narendra Kumar Panch 20. Alakhram Panch 21. Punitram Sahu, Panch mz" Rupesh Kumar Panch S1.No. 1D to 22 are of village PancHayat Sirsakhurd, Distt‘ Durtg (Chlilatti'sgarh) g“:wk . ‘ / y/ TITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS. O l) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As per the cause title. O2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As per the cause title. 03)" PARTICULAR OF ORDERS .AGAINST WHICH THE PRESENT PETITION IS BEING MADE: k L\ E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATIJRE AT KIWI! CHEAT'I‘! ‘ Writ Petition “0.2161 of 2004 Machhuwa Swa Sahayata Samuh, Sirsakhurd and anothcr ~ Vsrsus ~ State of Chhnttisgarh and others POST FOR ORDER ON 3‘“ DECEMBER, 2004 . Sm- L.c.BHADOO Judge /a HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT. BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH ’ Writ Petition No.2161 of 2004 Machhuwa Swa Sahavata Samuh, Silsakhurd and anothar ‘ Versus - Stat: of Chhatu'sgarh and others Present: - Smt‘ Fouzia Mitza, Advocate: For the patitienets. Shr‘i Sumesh Bajaj, Deputy Gavt. Advocate: For the State/respondents No, 1, 4 m 8. Shri H. B. Agrawal, with Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocates: Far respondents Na.2, 3 & 9. oxnm g (Passed on 3rd December, 2004) LC. BHADOO, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been Elcd by the petitioners under Micle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the conecmess and legality of the order Annexme P—1 passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whemby the learned Director, Panchayat, has quashed the cider dated 28.1.2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Durg, whereby he dismissed the revision med against the decision of the Gram Panchayat, whereby the hshing rights were given to the peh'tioner in the two ponds ment‘oned in the order. 2. Brief facts leading to hling of this writ peh'tion are that Gram Panchayat: Sirsakhurd, Tehsil 8s District: vDurg, 'mvited ayplican'ons for grant of 10 years’ lease for hshing rights in various ponds situated under the jurisdiction o£ the said Panchayat’ In all, 58 applications Were received and those applicah'ons were divided into three groups. Respondent No.2 herein was mined lease of pond admeasuring 8.46 hectares, whereas, petitioner No.1 Samuh was gamed lease of pond admeasuring 6.20 hectares, and petitioner No.2 Samuh was granted lease of pond admeasuring 4.07 hectares. The said Pagc 2 of4 decisicn was fakrn by the Gram Sabha vide its msolution dated 22.9.2001. Being aggrieved by thc said order, respondent No.2 filsd an appeal bcforc thc Additional Collzctor, and in turn, thc Additional Coucctor vide its order dated 12.12.2001 dismissad the appeal and ammed the decision of the Gram Sabha dated 229.2001. Again aggrieved by that order respondent No.2 pmferred a mvision before the Court of the then Commissioner, Raipur, and the Commissioner vide its order dated 6.8.2002 held that then: is no provision under the Panchayat Act for a$rming the decision of the Gram Panchayat and them is a provision of’ appeal‘and xevision against the decision of the Gram Panchayat, and Sections 84, 85 8a 86 of the Chhath'sgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, am concerning the Gram Panchayat not the Gram Sabha. Ultimately, the oxder dated 12.12.2001 was set aside by the Commissioner and thereafter, the Gram Panchayat again started proceedings for grant of lease of the ponds for fishing rights and vide its resolution dated 18. 10.2002 the Gram Panchayat again gave the two ponds on ten years’ lease to the same persons. Being aggrieved by the said resolution of the Gmm Panchayat, respondent No.2 hled a revision before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector vide its order dated 28.1.2003 dismissed the revision holding that the resolution of the G Panchayat dated 18.10.2002 is valid. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Collector, lespondent No.2 nled revision before the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, who by the impugned order quashed the order of the Additional Collector and the Gram Panchayat. Being aggrieved by that, the petin'oners have preferred this Writ petition praying therein that the decision of the Gram Panchayat was in accordance with the circulars issued by the Government horn time to time as the Grain Panchayat divided all the applications into three youps; respondent No.2 being a registered Society lease of a pond admeasun‘ng area 8.46 hectares was granted and the lease of other two ponds was granted to the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, return has been med on behalf of respondent No.2 in which it has been mentioned that as per the Government order dated 15.1 1. 1999, the ponds which were of more than one ‘v..i i L h_ectaxe axe to be given on'lease only to the mgistmed Co- operau‘ve Society and the petitioners axe not entitled, therefore, the order of allotment in favour of the pen‘u‘oners is ill€ga1, as such, the impugned Older is in conformity withrthe Government orders and legal. 4. Having heani leamed counsel for the parties, I have perused the mlevant circulars. The Fisheries Department of the erstWhile State of Madhya Pradesh issued order Ahnexure R-2-1 datai 15.1 1. 1999 in partial modification of the earlier order dated 31“ October, 1996, and para 2-2-1 of the same envisages that when: the Sehkari Samiti does not exist and where it is impossible to constitute a Sehkali Samiti of sumcient number of persons, in that case, the ponds/tanks can be g'ven to the seliihelp groups for iishing tights. In the last it has been mentioned that in the following manner the ponds upto one hectme can be given to any person, and the ponds admeasuxing area of more than one hectare should be allotted in the following priority viz., (1) the ‘ Machhuwa Sehkan' Samin'; (2) the Samuh; and (3) the self-help group. in the note portion, it has been mentioned that in case of non-availability of Machhuwa Sehkaxi Samiti andtin’ order to consu'tute the same if sumcient members are not available, then the pond can be given on lease to the self—help group, but before giving the pond to self-help group on lease to such persons, the Fisheries Deparmient will obtain a certincate from the District OEcer that no Co-opexative Society is available in the area, and further that must be certined by the Chief Executive O$cer of the p Distrm‘t Panchayat. Therefore, it is evident hem the above Government order that in the hist instance, the ponds, the aiea ofwhich are mom than one hectare can only be allotted to the Co— operative Societies, no other persons * or self~help groups are entitled for the same. The ponds can be given to them on lease only when no Co-opexative Society is available, that too after obtaining non-availability certihcate h‘om the District Chirer, same must also be certified by the Chief Executive O$cer of the Panchayat. r gg '3. In View of the abov¢ guidelines/order of the Gavgrhment, thg petitioners were not entitled for lease of the pond, the area of which was 6.92 hectams and 4.07 hectares. Learned counsel foa‘ the petitioners is not able. to point out any illegalityror intimity in the impugned order passed by the Director, Panchayat, Raipur, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed anrlrit is aQccoWliri§Iy * dismissed. 6. However, dun‘ng the come of arguments, leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already put the seedsof hsh in the ponds and those ‘iishes are ripe for hailing; if ihe possession of the ponds is taken hum petitioners then they will suEer loss without any fault on their paxt, because they are in the possession of the ponds in pursuance of the decision of the Panohayat. The request of the counsel for the petitioners appears to be fair and reasonable, therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners for ushing in the ponds for a period of i5 days with eEect nom 6. 12.2004. It is made clear that no further p extension will be granted. . Parties are directed to bear their own cost. ..4