Allahabad High Court
RAM DULAREversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The court will not interfere with the auction proceedings at this stage but directs the Board of Revenue to consider the stay application with the revision and any auction held on 11‑09‑2026 shall not be finalized.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Dulare, challenged the scheduled auction of plot no. 362 (a pond) on the ground that his fishery lease, granted after an auction in January 2023, had been cancelled by an order dated 13 June 2026. He filed a revision petition before the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue on 12 August 2026, seeking a stay of the auction pending the revision, arguing that he had invested heavily in developing the pond and that eviction would cause irreparable loss. The High Court noted that the revision was filed within the limitation period and that the petitioner had a legitimate right arising from his investment, but cautioned that intervening in the auction would pre‑empt the Board’s pending decision. Consequently, the Court declined to stay the auction at this stage but directed the Board to hear the stay application along with the revision on its next date and held that any auction conducted on 11 September 2026 shall not be finalized. The petition was therefore disposed with directions to the Board of Revenue.
Issues considered
- Whether the auction of the pond plot should be stayed pending the outcome of the revision petition challenging the cancellation of the fishery lease.
- Whether the petitioner’s investment and development of the pond confer a right that warrants interim relief.
Subjects
- fishery lease
- auction
- stay order
- revision petition
- Board of Revenue
- irreparable loss
- property rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4076 of 2026
Ram Dulare
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girish Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sri Sudhir
Bharti, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Gaon
Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the auction proceeding
scheduled to be held on 11.09.2026 in respect of plot no. 362 recorded as
Pond in the revenue records relating to Village Belawa Bujurg Tappa
Kathara, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganj.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the
order of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Maharajganj, dated
13.06.2026, the fishery lease granted in favour of petitioner in pursuance
of the auction held on 10.01.2023, as approved by the Deputy District
Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj, dated 28.03.2023, has been cancelled.
The petitioner has already challenged the order dated 13.06.2026 in
revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj, which is pending
consideration since 12.08.2026, in which the first date fixed is
14.09.2026. It is also submitted that the revision was filed within the
prescribed period of limitation, but as the first date on the revision has
been fixed after one month, it could not be taken up, and now the auction
of plot in question has been scheduled on 11.09.2026, which is required to
be stayed till the disposal of the aforesaid revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that as the petitioner
WRIB No. 4076 of 2026
2
has invested huge amount in development of pond and put fries in it by
making investment, his eviction from the plot in question would cause
irreparable loss to him. It is further submitted that as the stay application
filed alongwith revision is going to be considered on 14.09.2026, till then
auction proceeding may be stayed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner had challenged the order
cancelling his fishery lease in revision before the Board of Revenue, well
within prescribed period of limitation and having utilized the pond
allotted to him by putting fries in it, a legitimate right has been created in
his favour, which requires to be considered in light of huge investment
made by him. However, interfering in the auction proceeding or making
any observation on merits of the case would preempt the orders to be
passed by the respondent no. 2 in revision. It would not be appropriate to
interfere with the matter, at this stage.
7. As the petitioner has already challenged the order dated 13.06.2026 in
revision before respondent no. 2, which is listed on 14.09.2026, the
present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 2 to
hear and pass necessary order on the stay application filed by the
petitioner alongwith Revision No.3694 of 2026 on the next date fixed
before it. It is further clarified that if any auction proceeding is held on
11.09.2026, pursuant to notification dated 13.08.2026, it shall not be
finalized in respect of the plot in question.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 10, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…