# Bhagwan Deen v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 646
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 9124 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-deen-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51312
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code
Rules,2016-Rule
57-lease
of
fishery
rights-validity of Advertisement-recovery
proceedings-the Petitioner participated in
an auction for fishery rights in a village
12 All. Bhagwan Deen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
647
pond and submitted the highest bid of Rs.
2,53000/- which he believed covered the
entire lease period of ten years-the
Tehsildar later issued a recovery notice
treating the bid amount as an annual
lease rent-The court observed that the
auction
advertisement
itself
was
erroneous, as it pre-determined the lease
rent
without
clarifying
whether
the
highest bid would apply annually or for
the full lease period-Rules 57(7) of the
Rules2016 prescribes a minimum and
maximum lease rent only when a single
eligible participant is found, not when an
auction is held-Since no lease agreement
was executed with the petitioner and an
earlier recovery notice was withdrawn,
the impugned recovery notice was stayeddirections
issued
to
prevent
future
ambiguity in lease auctions(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
understood
to
encompass
the
familial origins of a person [ See,
Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v.
State of A.P., 1960 SCC OnLine SC
39 : (1961) 2 SCR 931 : AIR 1961
SC 564] . Familial origins include
the validity of the marriage of the
parents
of
a
claimant
of
compassionate appointment and the
claimant's legitimacy as their child.
The policy cannot discriminate
against a person only on the ground
of descent by classifying children
of the deceased employee as
legitimate and illegitimate and
recognising only the right of
legitimate descendant. Apart from
the fact that strict scrutiny would
reveal that the classification is
suspect, as demonstrated by this
Court in V.R. Tripathi [Union of
India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14
SCC 646 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 768
: (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 301] , it will
instantly
fall
foul
of
the
constitutional
prohibition
of
discrimination on the ground of
descent. Such a policy is violative
of Article 16(2)."

12. This then being the position of
the law, it is idle for the respondents to
contend that the petitioner has no valid
candidature to assert for compassionate
appointment under the Rules of 1974.
Therefore, in the present case, the Head of the
Department or office faced with the rival
claims of the petitioner and respondent No.3
has to regard both claims as maintainable and
then judge the suitability for appointment on
merits in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules
of 1974.

13. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 02.07.2017 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to
the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj,
ordering him to consider both claims, that
is to say, the petitioner's and that of
respondent
No.3,
to
compassionate
appointment in accordance with Rule 7 of
the Rules of 1974, within eight weeks of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
interim order dated 05.07.2024 is hereby
vacated.

14. There shall be no order as to
costs.

15. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Superintendent of
Police, Maharajganj by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 646
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ -C No. 9124 of 2024

Bhagwan Deen ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Mateen, Vikas Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code
Rules,2016-Rule
57-lease
of
fishery
rights-validity of Advertisement-recovery
proceedings-the Petitioner participated in
an auction for fishery rights in a village
12 All. Bhagwan Deen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
647
pond and submitted the highest bid of Rs.
2,53000/- which he believed covered the
entire lease period of ten years-the
Tehsildar later issued a recovery notice
treating the bid amount as an annual
lease rent-The court observed that the
auction
advertisement
itself
was
erroneous, as it pre-determined the lease
rent
without
clarifying
whether
the
highest bid would apply annually or for
the full lease period-Rules 57(7) of the
Rules2016 prescribes a minimum and
maximum lease rent only when a single
eligible participant is found, not when an
auction is held-Since no lease agreement
was executed with the petitioner and an
earlier recovery notice was withdrawn,
the impugned recovery notice was stayeddirections
issued
to
prevent
future
ambiguity in lease auctions(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. &
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit on behalf
of petitioner filed today in Court is taken
on record.

2. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Tehsildar,
Sadar, District Balrampur is present.

3. Heard.

4. We have perused the original
records pertaining to auction of fishery
rights in respect of the pond in question.
The advertisement which is in the records
of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Tehsildar reads as
under:

"करयरनलय त सीलदरर बलररमपुर - सदर
सांख्यरः 96/र.कर. ( गरांवसभर/मतस्त धशधवर)/
2016 धदर्रांकः 28.9.16

विज्ञवि
सवासािारण को सूदचत दकया जाता है दक उ०प्र०
राजस्व सदहंता दनयमावली 2016 दनयम-57 छोटे तालाबों का
पट्टा (िारा-61) के उपदनयम -(7) के अनुसार पट्टा राज्य सरकार
द्वारा समय-समय पर दनयम वादषाक भाटक की िनरादश जो प्रदत
एकड़ 1000 रूपये से कम और 2000 रूपये से अदिक नहीं
होगी मेंंं वदणात वरीयता िम एवं प्रादविानों के अनुसार गांवसभा
में दनदहत ताल पोखरों मानी गयी दजसका दववरण दनम्नवत है
का5वषीय मतस्य पालन आवंटन /नीलामी की समाचार में दिनांक
7.10.16 को सुबह 10.00 बजे से 2.00 बजे तक आवेिन
पत्रों को प्राप्त दकया जायेगा। इच्छुक एवं पात्र व्यदि इस दशदवर में
उपदस्थत होकर फोटोयुि प्राथाना पत्र िे सकते हैं। प्राथाना पत्रों की
वरीयता एवं पात्रता के आिार पर आवंटन /नीलामी दकया जायेगा।
दनयत समय के बाि प्राप्त प्राथाना पत्रों पर दवचार नहीं दकया जायेगा।
िं.
सं.
म का
नाम
गाटा
संख्या
क्षेत्रफल
राजस्व
दनरीक्षक क्षेत्र
1
3
4
5
2-
रमैती
1235
0.817
हें
रा.दन. मथुरा

शतेः- 1. दशदवर में मछुवा समुिाय के लोगों को
शासनािेश के अनुसार पात्रता के आिार पर वरीयता िी जायेगी। 2.
2 हे. से अदिक क्षेत्रफल वाले तालाबों का आवंटन रदजस्टडा मछुवा
सदमदत के दलये अनुमन्य होगा। 3. आवेिन करते समय मछुवा
समुिाय के सिस्यों द्वारा स्वयं उपदस्थत होकर आवेिन पत्र प्रस्तुत
करें। दजसके साथ जादत एवं दनवास प्रमाण पत्र से सम्बदन्ित शपथ
पत्र आदि आवश्यक हैं।
तहसीलिार
बलरामपुर - सिर "

5. The advertisement itself is
erroneous so far as the lease rent payable
by the person in whose favour the auction
is to be settled. Sub Rule (7) of Rule 57 of
the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 reads
as under:

"If the list of eligible
persons prepared under sub-rule
(4) consists of more than one
person, then an auction shall be
held on the spot in which only those
shall be allowed to participate
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whose names are included in such
list. If there is only one person
eligible for the lease aforesaid, the
lease shall be granted on the
annual rent of the amount fix by the
State Government from time to time
which shall not be less than Rs.
1000/-
and
shall
not
exceed
Rs.2000/- per acre."

6. The minimum amount of
Rs.1000/- and the maximum amount of
Rs.2000/- per acre is payable only in a case
if there is only one person eligible for the
lease in pursuance to the auction, however,
there is no way that the Tehsildar could
have decided at the stage of issuance of the
advertisement itself that there would be one
person and mention the aforesaid amount.
In the case of an auction it should have
been
clearly
mentioned
in
the
advertisement that this condition would
apply where only one person is found
eligible for the lease but where an auction
is held and there are several participants, in
that case, the highest bid would be the
annual rent payable or would be the rent
payable for ten years as the case may be.
None of
this
is
mentioned
in
the
advertisement. The petitioner participated
in the auction with the highest bid amount
of Rs. 2,53,000/-. He deposited the
aforesaid amount in two installments; first
on
13.07.2016
and
the
second
on
09.07.2018. He was under bonafide belief,
as claimed, that the bid money was for the
entire lease period of 10 years. The
Tehsildar, however, issued a recovery
certificate for recovery of the due amount
treating the aforesaid bid money as payable
annually. However, we do not find any such
stipulation in the advertisement. In fact
sub-Rule (7) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016
when it speaks of the minimum and
maximum amount payable per acre as lease
rent in the eventuality where only one
person is found eligible though the specific
amount has to be fixed by the State but Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar, Tehsildar could not place
before us any such decision where the State
Government may have fixed the amount.

7. At this stage, counsel for the
State says that there is a stipulation in the
lease agreement. He has placed before the
Court
a
proforma
lease
agreement,
however, no such lease agreement was
entered into by the Tehsildar or the Sub
Divisional Magistrate as the case may be
with the petitioner, nor has the bid been
cancelled at any point of time. It is
submitted that a notice was issued to the
petitioner for getting the lease executed and
for deposit of lease rent on annual basis
which is dated 04.11.2019 annexed as
Annexure-6.
The
said
notice
was
challenged by the petitioner by means of
Writ Petition No. 32660 (MB) of 2019.
During its pendency the notice dated
04.11.2019 was withdrawn. Accordingly,
Writ Petition No. 32660 (MB) of 2019 was
dismissed as infructuous vide order dated
12.12.2019. The said order reads as under:

"
1. Learned
Standing
Counsel submits a notice for
deposit
of
lagan
has
been
withdrawn.
A copy of the written
instructions are taken on record.
2. In the light of the
aforesaid, the writ petition has
been infructuous.

3. The petition is dismissed
as having rendered infructuous."

8. In spite of it a fresh notice has
been issued, as stated by the petitioner's
counsel,
which
is
impugned
herein.
12 All. Rajeev Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
649
9.

The
matter
requires
consideration.

10. As of now, apparently, so far as
the payment of lease rent by the petitioner
is concerned, the advertisement was not
very clear on this count and the notice
dated 04.11.2019, as claimed by the
petitioner, has been withdrawn, presumably
because the opposite parties themselves
thought it to be incorrect. We, therefore,
stay the impugned recovery notice and
direct the opposite parties to file a counter
affidavit in the matter within four weeks.
Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if
any, within two weeks thereafter.

11. List thereafter.

12. In order to avoid any such
confusion as to the lease rent payable, it would
be better if in future whenever such auction
notices are issued, it is specifically mentioned
therein that if an auction takes place with more
than one person participating in it, the bid
money would be the lease rent payable and also
as to whether it would be payable annually or
for a period of ten years. For example, if the
highest bid which is accepted is Rs.2.00 lacs
then it should be made clear as to whether it is
payable annually or it is the lease rent payable
for the entire lease period of ten years as
everyday we find such dispute coming before
the Court. We also make it clear that so far as
the
minimum
and
maximum
amount
mentioned in sub-Rule (7) of Rule 57 of the
Rules, 2016 is concerned that applies where
only one person is found eligible for grant of
lease and this would happen only after the
exercise has been completed and not at the time
of of advertisement.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the Collector, Balrampur for ensuring
compliance.
14. Considering larger interest of
State revenue involved, if this aspect is
looked into by the State Government and
necessary remedial measures whether it be
in the form of issuing a circular to all the
Collectors and other Revenue Authorities
who issue such auction notices is circulated
in the light of the observations made
hereinabove or necessary changes are made
either in the Revenue Code, 2006 or the
Rules made thereunder, if required, so that
the confusion as to the lease rent payable
under Rule 57 is removed.

15. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned
Standing Counsel shall communicate our
order
to
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Revenue,
Government of U.P. for necessary action.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 649
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 9481 of 2023

Rajeev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Madhusudan Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Forest
Act,1927Section 11(2)-the petitioner challenged
the
orders
passed
by
the
Forest
Settlement officer-the dispute concerned
khasra no.8 which was recorded in the
name of the petitioner's ancestors-the