1 2025:CGHC:42951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4399 of 2022 Sunil Kumar Dhruw S/o Lakhiram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Parsada, Block - Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Fishiculture Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Assistant Director Fishiculture Joint District Office And Collectorate First Floor, Room No, 52, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District - Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The Forest Officer Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Parsada, Block - Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL For Respondent No.5 : None though served ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned 2 order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner pursuant to impugned order for cancellation of pond allotted in favour of petitioner. 10.2 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide order dated 23.04.2020, respondent no.2 has granted approval for allotment of the Pond known as ‘Dabri Talab’ comprised over the land Khasra no.597 admeasuring area 3.76 hectares situated at Gram Panchayat, Parsada for the period of ‘10 years’ On the basis of said approval, respondent no.5 has allotted the said pond in favour of petitioner and an agreement was also executed between the petitioner and respondent no.5. All of sudden, without affording any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any notice to petitioner, vide impugned order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-1), respondent no.2 has directed respondent no.5 to cancel the allotment of pond which was granted in favour of petitioner, which is complete violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned State Counsel contended that present writ petition is pre- mature as till date no order has been passed against the petitioner neither by respondent No.2 nor by respondent No.5 regarding cancellation of his leas granted for the Pond. She further contended that Annexure P-1 dated 16.08.2022 is communication made by respondent No.2 with respondent No.5 regarding the cancellation of allotment of pond granted in favour of petitioner, which does not create any cause of action. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering facts of the case, nature of reliefs, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that Annexure P-1 dated 16.08.2022 is communication made by respondent No.2 with respondent No.5 and till date no order has been passed against the petitioner for cancellation of his lease, lease of petitioner is still alive, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition as it is pre-mature at this stage. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to revive the same if new cause of action arises in future. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-