Allahabad High Court
REENA DEVIversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court held that no relief can be granted to operate the fishery lease as the petitioner was never granted the lease, though a refund application may be entertained.
Summary
The petitioner, Reena Devi, sought to operate a fishery lease that had originally been granted to another individual, Ram Hari, who never utilized it. She deposited the required amount after obtaining permission to do so, but her subsequent application to operate the lease was rejected on the ground that she had never been granted a lease. The petitioner challenged this rejection through a writ petition, arguing for the right to operate the lease or, alternatively, a refund of the deposited amount. The Court held that since the petitioner was never the legal leaseholder, she could not be granted the lease or any related relief. However, the Court indicated that a separate application for refund of the deposited money could be considered under the applicable law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a person who was never granted a fishery lease is entitled to relief to operate the lease or to a refund of the amount deposited.
Subjects
- fishery lease
- lease grant
- refund
- writ petition
- revision
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 2791 of 2024
Reena Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari, Devraj Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that fishery lease was
granted to one Ram Hari, who did not operate lease and thereafter the
petitioner, who was not granted lease, moved an application for
permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount for which permission was
granted and the amount was deposited. Thereafter, petitioner approached
the authorities to permit her to operate fishery lease. The said application
was rejected on the ground that petitioner was never granted lease.
Revision against the said order has also been dismissed.
3. Since the petitioner was never granted lease, no relief can be granted to
the petitioner. However, in case petitioner moves an application for
refund of money deposited by her, the same shall be considered and
decided, in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 5, 2026
Rishabh
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…