XI-HQ—78 Wm Ft zoo mm (WET) 311%?! wW mmm m m'mwwwm am 31m!m . a? Wm Writ PetitiomC} NO. 299212008 Writ Petition Under Articlv 226(227 of the Constitution 'of India Dhiwar Yuva Manch. DhEemarpara Durg, ?ETITIONER Régistared Society No‘1081, through President Scva m Dhccmeu', son of Jccrakhau Dhccmar, aged bout 37 years, occupation fisher, residence cf Dh emarpara Durg, Chhattisgarh Ver$u$ RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretal‘v, Krishi (Machipalan) Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan,‘ Raipur, C—hha isgarh '2. Additi Hal Collector, Durg, Chha isgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Chha tisgarh ’l. Additi nal Tahsildar, Durg, District urg, Chha isgarh 5, Conn issioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, Distx‘i t Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. Durg Matasyodhog Sahkari Sanstha Limited, Math ara Durg, through President ‘Onkar Dhee 1ar, son of Ram Bagas. a Distric Durg, t Durg, District Durg, D 3.3. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRE 23.97.2008 Shri OMP Sahu, Advoc ate with Shn‘ C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for reSpondents No. 1 to 4iState. DRA MISHRA, J. Shri AS. Kachhawaha, Advocate for respondent No.5. 8111i N.S. Dhm‘andhar, Advocate for respondent No.6. g x .fV XI-HG—78 W’ 3a W, m, mm 1F: zoo mm (mu) WWW wmm Wmm WW fs€tW aiaifhm tted the disputed pond for stocking fishes for a‘pEriod of 5 yeam 011 16am by the Municipal Corporafion, Durg Vida AnnEXHrE P-S. T116: respondel tlm above pond to fhe resp Sanehta Limited and aecordinglv r€sp011de11ts No. 3 85 4 for e P-l. The. Additional Collector approved the propoeal of the ’ on lease to the respondent Nc Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh Vida notiJ‘ication of Annexure P-7, dated 751 April 1§99 referring to earlie' Clarified that the ponds/tee within the limits of local bod fisheries. A similar'circulai has also been issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 15th July 2003 (Annexure P—7), whereby the ponds situated in the urban areas bodiss. e parties submit that the instant dispute i has arisen betweenthe partias because of two parallel allotments were made by the Municipal Cor s -‘2‘ Hsard. The pafitioner was allo Lt No.74/ Tahsildar, Durg, granted lease of ondent No.6/Durg Matasyodhog Sahkari forwarded the matter to the xecution of the lease deed vide Annexure Durg vide order dated 14th March 2008, Fahsildar for gianting the pond in question .6. Learned counsel for ti same may be amicably settle aoration a, o Revenue Department and the d by the concerned Collector on the basi / Q4 I ?“ J '"V/i ‘ circular of the. State dated 9th May 1997 :rvoirs up to 100 hectares area situated Les were transferred to the local bodies for are to be allotted by the Concerned local mm In zoo mm (u) W WWW f2; WW§WW $ai‘Rmm of policy of The Government and Circulars issued from time to time bV the Government. . c011sent of the parties, The illstant petition is disposed o $11 Lo the Collector, Burg to decide the controversy raised expeditiously. ince there is no dispu te that after the allotment of the pond ill questioti on lease, the petitiorer has stocked fishes and the petitioner is in possession of the pond in question, the petitioner’s possession over?” the pond in question shall be maintained till the decision of the? i ,ir _Of’ 8d]- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Collector. gj'r. z - )My f