1 2025:CGHC:3654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1523 of 2019 Amal Rai S/o Pholchand Rai Aged About 58 Years President Of Matsogya (Matasya Udyog) Sahkari Samiti Ambikapur R/o Subhashnagar In Front Of Gandhinagar, Police Station Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Shri R.K. Sen Chief Inspector Through Chief Executing Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Shri B.R. Kujur D.I.O. Through Chief Executing Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Shri I.D. Mstri Senior Taxation Officer Through Chief Executing Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Shri Jawahar Tiwari Taxation Officer, Bada Damali Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 21/01/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division dated 18.03.2019 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the pisciculture lease of the subject pond/reservoir situated at Village Bada Damali, Ambikapur was granted in favor of the petitioner for a period of seven years from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2018. He further submits that after the expiry of seven years, the petitioner moved an application for the extension of the lease period for one year and on 18.05.2018, the application was considered and the lease period was extended for one year. He contends that the petitioner deposited the lease amount of Rs. 20,919/- with respondent No. 1 and also invested a huge sum of about Five Lakhs for the purchase of seeds and other articles. He further contends that before the expiry of the extension period of one year, respondent No. 1 granted the lease of the subject pond in favor of respondents No. 2 to 5 vide order dated 30.07.2018. He prays that the order passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division may be quashed and respondent No. 1 may be directed to grant the lease for one year to the petitioner and also to compensate for the losses incurred. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that after the expiry of the lease period of seven years, the subject pond has been leased out to some other group for the purpose of pisciculture. He further submits that the petitioner has no case on merits and that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the 3 documents/material available on the record. 5) Initially, the lease was granted for a period of seven years from 01.07.2011 till 30.06.2018 in favor of the petitioner and later on, the lease was extended for a further period of one year. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 with regard to the extension of the lease in favor of the petitioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner deposited Rs. 20,919/- as the lease amount. During the pendency of the extended period, respondent No. 1 granted the lease of the subject reservoir to other persons/group. Though the petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he has invested a huge sum of Five Lakhs for fish seeds and other articles but no document in this regard is available on the record except for a receipt of Rs. 20,919/- dated 11.06.2018. 6) As before the expiry of the extended lease period, respondent No. 1 has granted control of the pisciculture activity of the subject reservoir to some other group, the decision taken by respondent No.1 appears to be erroneous. Thus, the order dated 30.07.2018 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. As a result, subsequent orders passed by the Collector, Ambikapur as well as the Commissioner, Sarguja Division also stand quashed. 7) Since the period of one year has already elapsed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to carry out pisciculture activities on the subject reservoir as per the lease agreement. However, he would be entitled to get the refund of the lease amount of Rs. 20,919/-. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the lease amount of Rs. 20,919/- to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. 4 8) The petitioner would be at liberty to claim the amount spent in the purchase of fish seeds and other articles by taking recourse to civil litigation and respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to conduct a fresh auction of the subject reservoir as per the Fishing Policy, 2013. 9) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya