1 CGHC010151182023 2026:CGHC:39112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2297 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On :19.08.2026 . Judgment Delivered On : 07.09.2026. Ashok Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Bhagirathi Sinha, President, Aged 68 Years, S/o Late Itwari Ram Sinha, Address- Gram-Litiya, Block And Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jai Lakshami Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through President Thakur Das, Address- Gram- Litiya, Block And Tehsil- Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jai Shiv Ganga Maiya Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through President Gendlal Gram- Purda Block And Tehsil- Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Director, Department Of Fishries, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Agriculture Standing Committee Through Its Chairman Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.07 18:10:06 +0530 2 For Respondent No.1 : Shri Amit Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri RL Rajak, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.3 & 5 : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. For State/respondent : Shri Abhuday Tripathi, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this Writ Petition, petitioner is challenging the legality and propriety of order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh in case No.625/A-89/year 2021-22 by which revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Durg District Durg in Revenue Case No.8/A-89/year 2019-2020, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered society under the Chhattisgarh Sahkari Society Act, 1960, bearing Registration No. 3082. Respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 19.06.2019 inviting applications from Machhua Sahkari Samitis, associations and individuals for grant of lease for a period of ten years in respect of Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 and 02, situated within Gram Panchayat Tekapar. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, a meeting of respondent No. 5 was convened on 19.07.2019, wherein a proposal was passed for grant of lease in respect of the subject water bodies in favour of respondent No. 2. Petitioner society, being aggrieved by the proposed grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 2, submitted an objection before the Collector, Durg, specifically contending that the subject water bodies did not fall within the working area of respondent No. 2. The petitioner specifically pointed out that Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 is 3 situated in Gram Panchayat Arsi and Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 02 is situated in Gram Panchayat Dodki, both of which fall within the working area of the petitioner society. Respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 29.07.2019 addressed to respondent No. 3, also stated that Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 and 02 fall within the working area of the petitioner society, namely Gram Panchayat Arsi and Gram Panchayat Dodki. Thereafter, another meeting of respondent No. 5 was convened on 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/7) , wherein the earlier proposal for grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 2 was cancelled. However, in the same meeting, a fresh proposal was passed for grant of lease in respect of the subject water bodies in favour of respondent No. 1. Petitioner society, being aggrieved by the aforesaid proposal dated 28.08.2019, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Durg. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2020 on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2020, the petitioner society preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Durg. The Commissioner, Durg, vide order dated 28.02.2022, allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Collector, Durg, and remanded the matter to the Collector, Durg, for rehearing and consideration of the matter on its merits. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand, the Collector, Durg, took up the matter for rehearing and called for a report from respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 submitted its report dated 30.05.2022. Relying upon the said report, the Collector, Durg, vide order dated 24.06.2022 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner society. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Durg, the petitioner society preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Durg. The Commissioner, 4 Durg, vide impugned order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P/1), dismissed the revision petition and held that the proposal passed by respondent No. 5 on 28.08.2019 was justified and that no legal error had been committed by the Collector, Durg, in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner society. The petitioner society is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg, as the same has been passed without proper consideration of the material facts, documents and objections placed on record by the petitioner society. The authorities have failed to properly appreciate the fact that the subject water bodies fall within the working area of the petitioner society. Impugned order dated 24.03.2023, as well as the consequential action arising out of the notice dated 19.06.2019 and the subsequent proposal dated 28.08.2019, is therefore contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner society seeking appropriate relief against the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 and the consequential proceedings relating to grant of lease of Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 and 02, which are as follows:- i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2023. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and thereby issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents more particularly to Respondent No. 3 to 5 by quashing/setting aside the impugned notice dated 19.06.2019 as being untenable in the eyes of law. 5 (iv) That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity. (v) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice dated 19.06.2019 issued by Office of Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, District Durg C.G., it has been stated that Tamakhurd Jalashay Nos.1 & 2 fall within the purview of Gram Panchayat, Tekapar and as such, those two Jalashays are within the working area of petitioner/Society. The authorities only in order to facilitate the lease of 10 years to Respondent No.1 have ignored the fact that both the jalashays fall within the working area of petitioner Society and as such, the resolution dated 28.08.2019 issued by Respondent No.5 by which lease of 10 years for fishery was allotted in favour of Respondent No.1 is error apparent on the face of record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner made a complaint dated 25.07.2019 before the Collector stating that the two jalashays do not fall within the working area of Respondent No.2 stating that the same fall within the Gram Panchayat Arsi and Dodki, which fall within the working area of petitioner society. He submits that Deputy Director Fisheries, District Durg also wrote a letter dated 29.07.2019 (Annexure P/6) to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha stating that Tumakhurd Jalashay No.1 and 2 fall within Gram Panchayat Arsi and Dodki respectively and are under the working area of petitioner Society. It was also directed by Deputy Director Fisheries to act upon the said matter in accordance with law. On the basis of 6 aforesaid letter, the Committee has again reconsidered the aforesaid aspect on 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/7) and dismissed the earlier resolution dated 19.01.2019 which was passed in favour of Respondent No.2 and granted the lease in favour of Respondent No.1 on the ground that Samiti-Respondent No.1 is having less water area in proportion of its members. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged the resolution dated 28.08.2019 before the Collector who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay vide order dated 27.07.2020. Thereafter, petitioner challenged the order of Collector dated 27.07.2020 before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg C.G. in which, the Commissioner vide order dated 28.02.2022 set aside the order dated 27.07.2020 of Collector and remanded the matter to him for hearing on merits afresh. Thereafter, the Collector again heard the matter and vide order dated 24.06.2022 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh who vide order dated 24.03.2023 rejected the revision of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the impugned orders passed by the Collector as well as Commissioner are in accordance with law which is not required to be interfered with. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that cancellation of allotment of Jalashyas in favour of Respondent No.2 is not in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 5 submits that the Petitioner has challenged Notice dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P/3) before this Court, without first challenging it before the Courts below. Hence this challenge is not maintainable. Further, the Petitioner has not challenged Agreement dated 7 22.10.2019 and the Petitioner has also failed to disclose that Lease Agreement dated 22.10.2019 for the impugned reservoirs was signed between Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, whereby fishing rights have already been granted to Respondent No. 1. Since the Petitioner has not challenged this Order, challenge is not maintainable, because unless this Order is challenged, no effective relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not challenged the factual findings of the report dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/10 Colly.) of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Durg. The Petitioner has not challenged the finding that the reservoirs fall within Respondent No. 1's working area. Thus, there is no basis to the Petitioner's present challenge, because the underlying premise has attained finality for lack of being disproved. The Collector has clearly observed in their Order dated 24.06.2022 that the two reservoirs fall within the area of Village Tumakhurd, i.e. within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Tekapar, and hence the impugned Notice dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P/3) is correct. The Petitioner has neither challenged nor denied the contents of the report dated 30.05.2022, whereby it was established that the two reservoirs fall within the area of Village Tumakhurd, i.e. within Gram Panchayat Tekapar. Hence, this fact is admitted by the Petitioner. Vide the impugned Order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P/1), the Collector's Order dated 24.06.2022 has been affirmed. Both the Commissioner and Collector are quasi-judicial authorities, who have exercised their authorities with immense caution; and passed their orders after considering both oral and written submissions of all involved parties. Merely because the Collector called for and relied on a factual report rather than relying solely on the submissions of the parties to pass its order, this 8 does not in and of itself vitiate their Order. Thus, neither the Collector nor the Commissioner have committed any errors in passing the impugned Orders. Hence, it is clear that the present petition is devoid of merit & substance, and should be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has been passed by the authority of respondents strictly in accordance with law while exercising its quasi juridical powers conferred under the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the rules made thereunder as well as the Fisheries Policy framed by the State Government. It is submitted that the impugned order is a well reasoned and justified order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Durg Division. It is further respectfully submitted that the instant petition is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the scope of interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very minimal and the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference by this Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10.I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 11.In the case at hand, petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society claiming that Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos.1 and 2 fall within its working area. Pursuant to notice dated 19.06.2019 inviting applications for fishery lease, respondent No.5 initially proposed allotment in favour of respondent No.2 and thereafter, vide resolution dated 28.08.2019, granted the lease in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner challenged the said resolution before the Collector and, 9 subsequently, before the Commissioner. After remand, the Collector rejected the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 24.06.2022, which was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 24.03.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, principally contending that the authorities failed to consider the letter dated 29.07.2019 indicating that the subject Jalashayas fall within the petitioner's working area. 12.The controversy which essentially arises for consideration in the present petition is with regard to the location of Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos.1 and 2 and, consequently, the question as to whether the said water bodies fall within the working area of the petitioner-society. 13.From the perusal of documents as well as letter dated 29.07.2019 issued by Deputy Director, Fishery, District Durg C.G, there is no doubt that the Tumakhurd Jalashay No.1 falls within the purview of Gram Panchayat Arsi and Tumakhud Jalashay No.2 falls within the purview of Gram Panchayat Dodki. 14.The aforesaid document assumes significance as it directly relates to the principal objection raised by the petitioner regarding the working area of the respective cooperative societies. The said material document has not been appropriately considered while determining the entitlement of the respective societies for grant of fishery lease. 15.In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the competent authority after taking into account the letter dated 29.07.2019 and all other relevant documents/material available on record. 10 16.Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, as well as the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Durg and resolution dated 28.08.2019 are set aside. 17.The matter is remanded to Respondent No.5 – Agriculture Standing Committee, for reconsideration of the applications relating to grant of fishery lease in respect of Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos.1 and 2, including the claim of the petitioner-society, strictly in accordance with law and after considering the relevant documents, particularly the letter dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Deputy Director, Fisheries, District Durg. 18.The competent authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of any of the parties for grant of fishery lease, and the competent authority shall decide the matter independently on its own merits. 19.With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 19.08.2026 07.09.2026 ------ 07.09.2026