Allahabad High Court
LAL MANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The statutory scheme is explicit; the petitioner's failure to deposit the required 25 % amount makes the re‑auction valid and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Lal Mani, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated 24 June 2026 ordering the re‑auction of Pond No. 589 in Village Bheski, Prayagraj. He claimed that a fishery lease had been granted to him for ten years starting 28 July 2022, and that he was ready to pay the balance amount but could not due to physical ailment, thus the re‑auction should be quashed. The respondents argued that the lease was conditional on the payment of at least 25 % of the lease rent as required by Rule 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, read with Section 189 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and that the petitioner had deposited only Rs 7,820 of the required Rs 19,550. The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the first condition of the lease and that the requirement of deposit is mandatory and not subject to discretion. The court held that the petitioner's physical ailment could not excuse non‑compliance, especially after a four‑year lapse, and that allowing indulgence would amount to rewriting the statutory scheme. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the re‑auction proceeded.
Issues considered
- Whether the re‑auction notification is valid despite the petitioner's claim of inability to deposit the required amount due to physical ailment.
- Whether the statutory requirement of a 25 % deposit under Rule 57 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, read with Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is mandatory and non‑discretionary.
- Whether the court can grant indulgence to the petitioner and set aside the re‑auction.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 189
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 57
Subjects
- fishery lease
- auction
- re‑auction
- deposit requirement
- U.P. Revenue Code
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules
- writ petition
- statutory compliance
- physical ailment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34398 of 2026
Lal Mani
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Sewak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
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
WRIC No. 34398 of 2026
2
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.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
September 8, 2026
AKShukla/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…