"c c ^, \0< IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. N0.4-^|2-/2005 PETITIONER ^ .•?»•'•' ,.v6'' Wi fiy'^v' J^ }sf A.--" y RESPONDENTS ;<^ Mohamad Sultan S/o Mohd. Hanif Khan aged about 45 years R/o LinK Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) VI^SUS y^l. State ofC.G. Through Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur ^2. Director Panchayat & Gramine Vikash Vibhag D.K.S. Bhawaa Raipur (C.G^ /3. Upper eollector,Janjgir Champa Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Qfficer, Janapad Panchayat, Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Chanipa 5. Fishery Inspector,Baloda ^ Tahsil Janjgir, Dist..Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ^6. Gram PanchayatBachhpud, Vikashand, Baloda Through Sarpanch, Graniranchayat Bachhoud Vikashkhand , Baloda President Mahamrityunjay Mahila Maehhua Sahkari SamitiVillage-Panchayat BachhoudJanpad Panohayat •^ ^. Baloda District Janjgir— Champa ; .^ Assistant Director, Fishery IridustiyJanjgu--Chan:ipa WRIT PETITIONUNDBRARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA. 1.7 <iiH«ia»»TT?p V3-CTI •-ql«irt«,u>-a1<(i<i<s, ftriW^ .^:.^±^^•^•—Wt200£r 3ii^?rqiTRafy cI2IT3Ilt?T*li* 3ir$9T (RR? (ljc|f^E|<g) <ni«[n<Ilt*)l*l»ll'tt'fet^l•(Rl+jN ^ari^T.m^CT Mrs. Rsnu Kochar, cpuns^i for The peTitioner. Mr. y.S. TTiakur, Soyt. ^dvoco^a for the Sttste/respondents No.l, ?. A "^ ^ Ut •>/• Heard on admission. The petitioner has pref^rred thjs writ petition undsr .Articie 226/ 227 of The Constitutior. of Inpia, questioning the iegaiity, propriety and correciness of order dated 5-17-2005 pcased by the &irector, Psanchayat in Appeat No.159/8-121/03-0^ whereby iearned Oirector allowingltie appeal quashed the order of ojiotment of the tanks in questiun s'n favour of •rii®petitioner and furth^r passsd -rtie order that •rfis lease of respondent No.7 has been a^nceiied witiiout giving due epporTunity to him to representhis case. The case of the petiti^ner ss tfiat 1+ie petitioner is a fishermon and he was allotted the tanhfs in Questior! for fishing purpows by the Sram Panchayeit situsted at Ihe other tank situated at hectare and the third tank si-i area 8.503 hectares 6n'11-2-1 Khasra No.754 totdl arec 2.&66 hectsres. Khasra No. 729 admeasurinci orea 0.87 isated dt Khasra Nos.4.391, 43912 &439/2 2004 at the rate of 5s.l9,030/'- per year. OR aliotment of The Three tarjks, Ifie petiTJQner aineady put The seeds of^ fish of vaiue Rs. 18.000/- in |ait •rtie three tonks.ss the,.saisi earlier altoTted in favour of| respondent No,7 which wte^ewceUed by -^-^ SP/FS/2005-20,000 tl*lc9l^TT^ yoq '-«i«i««, t9tTl'i-i<i(j, fidi^iy'< ...'X^.^;.<fcfc.[2^. 48 3II^STWfelW tCT3n^?T!ii*[ro ^Ft200^ STI^ST iwp ('i^fg^B) B^iKR^fcT an^?r ^ respondent No.3 upon which petsTioner. Rsspondent No.7 Panchayct, who quaehsd the <ni<i[»<i1iii*i»T^'"Rs*<i|'iRi+(;i'i _, ^'nf^Tsn^?! the same'una&^atfotted in fwour of the prsferred sn qipeai before. ths Director, order by the impugnsd ordsr, whteh is perverse, and same has been ^aissed without flppreciating the facts and ci.rcuilistanc«s. 1 I have perused the imp[jgned ordei*. In 1+ie lcist paragniph of •rtie impugned order learned birs^tor, ParichcyaT hds mentioned tiiat all tiie three tanks in question have (seen aiktted in favour of the petitioner in contravention of the order paras 2 & 9 of the said ordei^ of the Fisheries Department, 6ovt. of Madhya Pradesh (No.2886/9^/36 dated 30-10-1996) and the allotment has been mad®in contraventi|in of tfae poticy and directions contdined in . Moreover, 1+ie aliotment order dated 11- 2-2004 passed in favour of 1^ie petitioner is bosed upon the dscisioh of only five Panchas out or 13 panchas of the Panchayat. AAoreover, the aiiotment in fasvour of resdondent No.7 has been cancelled without followino 'Ae principlss of respondent No.7 to expiam fhe aliegaTions against him. No doubt the pstitioner is an individual p^ policy giving pr-iority iist a purposes cre To be dlotTed. tanks m question 'sr, favour haturat justics arsd giving opportunity to rson and tiie &?ver"ment has laid down ct ;cording +o which the toinks for- fishing No doubT The Pdndiayat has aiiorred 1+ie cf ths setitioner in contraventign of 1+is ©overnwentpoljcy. Thefefo^e, I do not find ony jllegdlity or infirmity in J:-^^ ~ ' . B KS EslII• B SP/FS/2005-20,000 *im<»t?ew \awi •Tyi<<i««,WCTl'<l''l<e,R|0t'dy'< ^<P,</-6f2_/ 43 W^ 2005" SII^tiBTftqR? ciaiTsn^STiCTJW ^yt^s< 3lT^?1irac|»(yctijd^) tha order impugned. On this interference by 1+iis CourT. (-towever, iearned coun; aitetment of^the ttiree tank; se«ds of 'fisii in t+is y1sar fishes rfiail be ripe for fishing to Take ouT those fishes Then fcult on his^ar't. In view of the above f< the.petitioner to take out fisi' c^unt, th$ order impugnect does not reqwre. 4®1 for 'rfie petitioner ar9ued •tiia* aftsr the petitioner had air®idyspread -ttie 20p4, and within a period of ti-sree months purposes. If the pe+itjoher' is not aliowed |he wili suffer irreparabis ioss wiThout any •riiree months i;e. up to the er^d the petitioner-shaiS hand ov^ Panehoyutfor furtiier aetion, The writ petition stanij the isbove terms. In view sf this order. stand dispo%d of. Partfes are entitied for «'iiIo)<Ili«ti*tni"^ffe<^)'(Rl'h;f'( ^Slf^H3I[^?I :t, the respondents are directed to allow .s from the'three tanks within aperiodof of Februory, 2006. On 1st March, 2006, the possession of .-ftmks To the 6ram accordonce with taw. s disposed df, at the ndmission STnge, in I.A.Nos.8298/2005 and 8299/2005 aiso artified cooy of •Aid order. l.^au ^'^ SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^.^- ^/ ^<v' '^ , ^- • ISB