>-, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. N0. S-'hS. OF 2005 fARISING OUT OF W.P.NO. 4612/2005) ^^' ^^6£f-/cl<~ APPLICANT : RESPONDENTN0.7 RESPONDENTS: PETITIQN£R 8. President, Mahamritunjay Mahila, Machhua Sahkari Samiti Village Panchayat Bacchoud, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Director, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Upper Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Chief Execufive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir (C.G.). Fishery Inspector, Baloda, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Gram Panchayat Bachhoud, Vikas Khand Baloda, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bachhoud, Vikas Khand Baloda. Mohammed Sultan Son of Shri Mohammed Hanif Khan, aged about 45 years, Resident of Link Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Assistant Director, Fishery Industry, Janjgir-Champa. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DTD. 07.11.2005. PASSED IN WRIT PETITION N0. 4612/2005. "MOHAMMED SULTAN V/S. STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS" XI-HC-22 'S^ ~-^Wv\^, ^illy'ls, fayiyy 'TO'qiI I^IRi'31^31 gniwgre^ ^CG.....^o. ^ sn^; wnw :a1%g 13-2-2006 (In chamber) Mr. U.K.S. Chandel with respondent No.7 - President, Mahi Mr. J'.O; Bajpayee, 6ovt. and8. Mr. Prakash Mishra, Bachhoud. . AArs. Renu Kochar, counse Sultan. I.A.No.611/2006, applicat] &ocuments are taken on record. Heard on M.C.C.No.; No.4612/2005 has requested fo| 2005. While dismissing Writ Pet] •the statement made by counsel put •the seeds, the petitioner Februapy, 2006. At that timej W.P.No.4612/2005, Ihepefore, President, Mahamritunjay W.ah\ application (M.C.C.No.276/2005). | Vide order dated 3-2-20( 6ram Panchayat; Bachhoud was 4 whether respondent No.7 herein| in the tank in question in theyeot) of one week. In pesponse to t^ =f>i<4[(r!4iTf 'RW^ff ^ 1^^ ^n^p ^T sipgir si'^M Mr. ^shok Soni, counsel for the applicant/ imrituryay Mahila Machhua Siihkari Samiti. idvocate for the State/non-applicants No.l to 5 coui^sel for non-applicant No.6 - Sram Panchayat, for non-applicant No:7/writ petitioner - Mohd. ~^ • • • • - jon for takir^ documents on record, is allowed. 274/200S, whereby respondeht No.7 in W.P. h modification of the earlier order dated 7-11- jtion No.4612/2005 of petitioner Mohd. Sultan on flor- the petitioner •that the petitioner has already <»as allowed to take fishes from the tank •t'ill notice was not issued to respondent No.7 in iggrieved by thatorder, respondent No.7 i.e. la Machhua Sahkori Samiti has moved this )6 passed in tt.C.C.No.276/2003, ttie Secre-tary, irected +o ascer+ain the correctness of the fact Kpetitioner in W.P. No.4612/2005) put the seeds 2004 or not and SiAmit his report wi-thin a period lat order, awritten response has been filed on XI-HC-22 ~s's( ?ip(Rra, ^•dly're, an^i^ ft;ti?i'3TI^I %!|WBf%^ SarTi^ aii^i ^Rnwafer ^ ttie beholf of respondent No.6 6ram mentiQned •Hiot initially six tanks of herein (respondent No.7 in the wril order dated 11-2-2004 tanks urere q| in this application, but he has not three notices by the Panchayat, Panchayat was held and the tahk] petitioner (respondent No.7 herein] not given to •the writ petitionet' by AArs. Renu Kochar, letirned whe+hep leose money was deposited is not in possession of any Pakka pec( amount has been deposi+edin 1he a4 fisheries policy and instructions, purchased from ihe Sovernment In the given situation, when AAohd. Sultan has not deposited Iherefore, no question of puttin9 se^ In vjew of 'the above, the or<ji allowed to tnke out the fishes till 7-11-Z005 whereby the wri+ petitiofj M.C.C.No.276/2005 is In view of this order, AA.( Parties ape entitled for ait/ dispos^d «biifc<<frt•v^. f. fs^S ifSnzre •^STPmsn^ [Panchayat! Bachhoud in which it has been IVil^e! Bachhoud mere given to the appticant petjtion) for ten years and thereafter, vide |ven to the writ petitioner i.e. respondent No.7 de|)osited the lease money even after isauahceof Ba|shhoud, and on 10-9-2004 meeting of Village in question altotted in fayour of the writ was cancelled. Even •ttie possession was also Panchayat. . kounsel for Molwl. Sultan was asked to show |or not, then she has stttted -rtiat ffiohd. Sultan :^ipt, a Kachha receipt was given, that means no jcount of the Ponchayat. Moreover, as per the be'fjore putting the seeds, same was required to be Defjartment. |is per the reply of Sfom Panchayat: Bachhoud, money and no possession was given to him, .<<-.. i^by him drose. jer passed in favouf of rtohd. Sultan that he be F)ebruary, 2006 is recalled and the order dated was disposed of is modified to ttiat extenf. of accordingly. .(C.)t1.No.l764/2005 also stands disposed of. cert(fied copyof thisopder. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge v