1 2026:CGHC:23677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2602 of 2021 Order Reserved on: 16.4.2026 Order Delivered on: 15.6.2026 1 - Adarsh Machhua Sahakari Samiti Ghivri Through The President Maulendra S/o Yuvraj Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kandai, Police Station Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Fishiculture Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Assistant Director Fishiculture, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 and 01.06.2021 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue fishiculture work in allotted ponds, in accordance with law. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a duly registered Machhua Sahakari Samiti bearing Registration No. 28, which had applied for allotment of ponds situated within Gram Panchayat Kandai for the purpose of pisciculture, and after following the due process of law, upon obtaining the requisite proposal from Gram Panchayat Kandai, pattas in respect of Budti Talab, Budti Paithu Talab, and Naya Bada Talab were granted in favour of the petitioner society for a period of ten years; the proposal of the Gram Panchayat, Nistari Certificate. Pursuant thereto, a lease agreement was executed between the competent authority and the petitioner on 28.07.2017, and ever since execution of the agreement, the petitioner has been regularly depositing the lease amount, including the lease amount for the year 2021–2022, and the relevant covering letters, lease agreement. A bare perusal of 3 the terms and conditions of the lease agreement clearly reveals that only the Collector is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints relating to alleged violation of any condition of the lease agreement; that since allotment of the ponds, the petitioner society has been continuously carrying out fishery activities by investing substantial amounts for development and maintenance of the ponds. Respondent No. 5 had initially lodged a complaint dated 19.06.2020 before the Fishery Inspector, Bemetara seeking cancellation of the pattas granted to the petitioner society, however, the said complaint was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.08.2020 on the ground that the pattas had been granted for a period of ten years and the petitioner society was regularly depositing the lease amount, and the complaint, Gram Panchayat proposal. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 once again submitted a complaint before the concerned Minister, who in turn forwarded the same to respondent No. 3 for taking action. Subsequently, vide note-sheet dated 23.03.2021, respondent No. 3 recommended cancellation of the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner and forwarded the note-sheet for approval of respondent No. 2, and the note-sheet, letter dated 16.03.2021, statements. Upon obtaining approval from respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 cancelling the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner society without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any notice to the petitioner, and on vague and extraneous grounds for which 4 no complaint had even been made by respondent No. 5; that being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with an application for grant of stay, however, vide impugned order dated 01.06.2021, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the order dated 31.03.2021 had itself been approved by respondent No. 2; that thereafter the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding the proceedings and notice allegedly issued prior to cancellation of the lease/patta, and vide letter dated 11.06.2021 it was informed that no such notice was available on record. The petitioner further sought copies of the note-sheet/order-sheet of the concerned Minister under the RTI Act, and it was informed that no such note-sheet/order-sheet was available in the records. The impugned actions of the respondent authorities are arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, passed under political influence, and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice despite the petitioner having continuously complied with all terms and conditions of the lease agreement and having regularly deposited the lease amount without any default whatsoever. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 are wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and liable to be set aside, inasmuch as respondent No. 3 had no authority under the lease agreement or under law to adjudicate upon or decide any complaint relating to 5 alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, as the said power exclusively vests with the Collector; it is further submitted that earlier, on the basis of the very same allegations made by respondent No. 5, respondent No. 3 had already rejected the complaint vide order dated 28.08.2020 after recording a categorical finding that the pattas had been granted for ten years and that the petitioner society was regularly depositing the lease amount, however, due to subsequent political pressure exerted through the intervention of the concerned Minister, the respondent authorities arbitrarily proceeded to cancel the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner; it is contended that before passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2021, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded, which fact is further fortified by the information supplied under the Right to Information Act clearly stating that no notice or proceeding exists on record; learned counsel further submits that the petitioner society has invested substantial amounts in fishery development activities and has continuously complied with all obligations under the lease agreement, and therefore cancellation of the pattas on vague and extraneous grounds, without any adjudication or finding of violation, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the settled principles of law; it is thus prayed that the impugned orders dated 31.03.2021 and 01.06.2021 be quashed and appropriate relief be granted in favour of the petitioner society. 6 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Act by approaching the Commissioner, and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was subject to certain mandatory conditions, including registration of the agreement, which the petitioner failed to comply with, and there were several irregularities found during enquiry relating to fish production and compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement; it is contended that the Gram Panchayat itself had made a complaint seeking cancellation of the lease, and after considering the enquiry report and other material available on record, the competent authority rightly cancelled the lease vide order dated 31.03.2021, and therefore no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court in the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 is not maintainable either on facts or in law, inasmuch as the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam against the order dated 31.03.2021, and the said appeal has rightly been rejected on the ground that the order impugned therein had already been approved by the competent authority; it is further submitted that an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy is available to the 7 petitioner under the relevant provisions of law, however, without exhausting the same, the petitioner has directly approached this Court, and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy alone. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 28.07.2017 executed in its favour, and on account of such violations. He further submits that a complaint before the competent authorities, pursuant to which a resolution dated 06.03.2020 was also passed in the village meeting in the presence of the members of the Gram Panchayat. He further submits that, on the basis of the complaint and the resolution passed by the Panchayat, the respondent authorities conducted a detailed enquiry, and during the course of such enquiry, the allegations raised by respondent No. 5 were found to be true and correct, whereafter the competent authorities rightly proceeded to cancel the lease/patta granted in favour of the petitioner. It is thus submitted that there is no illegality, arbitrariness, or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. He further submits that that the petitioner has failed to establish any prima facie case in its favour and, therefore, not only the writ petition but also the interim application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8 7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner society for carrying out fishing operations in respect of Budti Talab bearing Khasra No. 678, Budti Talab Paithu bearing Khasra No. 631, and Naya Bada Talab bearing Khasra No. 288 has been cancelled on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No. 5, namely the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara; however, the records do not disclose that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner society prior to cancellation of the said lease; once a legal right has accrued in favour of a person, adherence to the principles of natural justice becomes mandatory, particularly where cancellation of such lease adversely affects the civil rights and interests of the concerned party; furthermore, it appears that the Assistant Director, Fisheries was not the competent authority to pass the order of cancellation, as such power vested with the prescribed authority under the relevant provisions of law; it is also significant to note that the very same authority had earlier passed the order dated 28.08.2020 holding that there was no violation of any condition of the lease agreement, that the patta had been granted for a period of ten years which had not expired, and that the petitioner society was regularly complying with the lease conditions and depositing the lease amount in time; however, subsequently and contrary to its earlier stand, the same authority proceeded to pass the impugned order of cancellation without assigning any justifiable reason; thus, 9 since the petitioner society was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, this Court is inclined to interfere notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy before the concerned Commissioner. 8. Considering the clear violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the failure to afford the petitioner society an adequate opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of the lease, the present writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed, consequently, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2021 and 01.06.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the concerned respondent authorities to proceed afresh and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner society, including issuance of notice, calling for and considering the petitioner’s reply, and conducting a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat