HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32250 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) issue and order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 4.7.2025 issued by office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar bearing Patrank No. 3204/Ra.Ka. whereby advertised the list of fishery lease of several Gram Panchayat pond including the village Mohammadpur Mafi (Sl.no.15, 16 and 17) which was allotted in favour of the petitioner and notice dated 22.8.2025 bearing Patrank no. 3318/Ra.Ni. issued by office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as notice dated 25.8.2025 bearing Patrank nо. 71/Shi.Saha. issued by office of District Magistrate, District Muzaffar Nagar (Annexure no. 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition) (ii) issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3, District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding providing the compensation of the petitioner which was expensed for maintaining the pond in question within stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble court." 2. It is contended that the petitioner was granted fisheries rights way back in the year 2015, and the agreement was executed on 01.03.2016 which was for the period commencing from 18.09.2015 to 17.09.2025 i.e. for 10 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some encroachment was done by the private persons, for which, he has already made a complaint. On the intervention of the revenue authorities, the encroachment was removed with a warning to the encroachers. He has invited the attention of this Court Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dilip Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani Harimohan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) to the spot memo dated 30.11.2020. He further contends that earlier petitioner had approached this Court through Writ-C No.6558 of 2025 which was disposed of on 12.03.2025 directing the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar to decide the representation, within a period of three weeks. 4. As the representation was not decided, petitioner had filed a Contempt Application, and after issuance of contempt notice, the said representation was decided. He further submits that petitioner could not complete the entire period peacefully after investing such a huge amount for the pond as the encroachment was made by the private persons. He further submits that fresh advertisement has been made for auction of pond in question on 04.07.2025 and notice has been issued on 22.08.2025 for vacating the pond. 5. Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to para 12 of the agreement executed between the parties which provides for renewal of the agreement for further period. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in case of Mohd. Yasin Vs. State of U.P., 2002 (93) RD 790, and a decision of Board of Revenue in Reference No.130-130-A of 1995-96 (Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P.). 6. Instructions from the State side was placed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Abhishek Shukla, which are taken on record. 7. Sri Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the period of 10 years is coming to an end on 17.09.2025, and the District Magistrate is proceeding to auction the fisheries rights afresh and there is no provision for renewal under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. He further submits that Rule 57 (12) of Rules, 2016 clearly prohibits any renewal of such lease. 8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was granted fisheries lease for the period of 10 years commencing from 2015, which is coming to an end on 17.09.2025. The renewal application was moved by the petitioner which has not been accepted by the revenue authorities on the ground that there is no provision for renewal of the fisheries rights in view of Rule 57 (12) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. 10. Moreover, the encroachment, as claimed by the petitioner, was cleared WRIC No. 32250 of 2025 2 by the authorities which is evident from spot memo dated 30.11.2020. Petitioner has a remedy of appearing in the auction bid which is going to take place pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.07.2025. 11. Reliance placed upon the decision rendered in case of Mohd. Yasin (supra) is distinguishable in the present dispute, as the question of enhancement of period after suitably enhancing the rent was there and the Court had directed to decide the representation moved by the person who was granted fisheries rights by the revenue authorities. 12. In the instant case, after the enforcement of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, Rule 57(12) completely bars the renewal of fisheries rights. Similarly, the order of the Board of Revenue clearly shows that the challenge therein was as to the power of the Sub Divisional Officer to withdraw the renewal order or not. Both the cases are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 13. No case for interference is made out. 14. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. September 16, 2025 SK Goswami WRIC No. 32250 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad