HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34398 of 2026 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged notification dated 24.06.2026, whereby Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, Prayagraj has notified auction of various ponds for fishery lease. The petitioner is concerned with entry No. 53 pertaining to Village Bheski. 3. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that fishery lease in respect of Pond No. 589 was granted in his favour for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 28.07.2022 to 27.07.2032 with an indication that in case of default in making deposit of amount, the lease would be cancelled. Submission is that since the petitioner is ready to deposit the balance amount, the impugned notification is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. Further submission is that on account of physical ailment of the petitioner, he could not deposit the amount within time. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the order granting lease was conditional and the petitioner has not even deposited 25% of the amount in terms of Rule 57 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, as a result whereof as per sub-rule (8) of Rule 57 read with Section 189 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the respondents were justified in directing re- auction of the pond. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that 25% of the amount indicated in the order approving auction dated 28.12.2022 comes Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Sewak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lal Mani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) to Rs. 19,550/- out of which the petitioner had admittedly deposited only Rs. 7,820/-. The petitioner having not deposited balance amount and having challenged even the requirement of making deposit by filing an application dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence in favour of the petitioner. 6. The reason is that statutory scheme is explicit in nature and once, admittedly, the petitioner has failed to comply with the first condition contained in the order of auction and lease was not even executed, plea based upon physical ailment cannot be accepted, particularly when re- auction is being done after a period of four years in 2026. 7. This Court cannot go beyond the statutory provisions pertaining to deposit of lease rent amount otherwise it would amount to impermissible re-writing the terms of auction/grant of lease and, therefore, the petition does not have any substance. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. September 8, 2026 AKShukla/- WRIC No. 34398 of 2026 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad