High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted a lease of a pond for the purposes of fish farming situated at Village Sarra, Pargana Bangar, Tehsil Sadra, District Hardoi. The lease was for a period of ten years commencing from 10.7.2023 to 9.7.2033. On being granted the lease the petitioner had deposited requisite lease rent for an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- and commenced fish farming and an agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and the respondents on 27.7.2023 in pursuance of Rul 57 (11) of U.P. Revenue Code. According to the said agreement the amount of lease rent has be deposited every year prior to 30th July but the lease rent with effect from July, 2024 on-wards was not deposited by the petitioner and accordingly he was asked to deposit the same vide letter dated 27.8.2024 and 5.2.2025 but despite reminders sent to him he did not deposit the lease rent and in the aforesaid circumstances a legal notice was sent to him on 3.8.2025 asking him to show cause as to why the lease be not cancelled in light of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease by not depositing the lease rent for the year 2024-25.

3. The petitioner did not respond to the notice and consequently another notice was sent to him on 28.2.2025. Then at that stage the petitioner filed his reply on 24.4.2025 stating that the authorities should measure the said pond and area was less than what has been prescribed and further prayed that the lease rent should be exempted. On receiving the reply of the petitioner a survey was got conducted by Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi, who submitted his reply on 17.5.2025 where it was found that area of the pond was exactly the Same as was mentioned in the lease deed entered into at the time of auctioning the said pond. After receiving the report and also considering the fact that the petitioner was not depositing the amount of lease rent for the second year his fishery rights were cancelled by means of impugned order dated 29.5.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order submitted that the petitioner is ready and wiling to deposit the said amount. It is relevant to notice that neither in the writ petition nor in the oral submissions any cogent reason has been stated for not depositing the lease rent for the second year.

5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the conditions of lease are governed by the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code as well as lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Land Management Committee. He submits that detailed conditions have been laid down in the lease agreement which includes the fact that the petitioner has to deposit the lease rent on 30th of June every year for the following year and failing to deposit the lease rent would entail cancellation of the lease. He submits that it is only in pursuance of the lease agreement that action for cancelling the agreement has been taken against the petitioner. He further submits that though it was not open for the respondents to have cancelled the lase without giving any notice in case the lessee does not deposit the lease rent but in the present case two reminders were sent to him on 27.8.2024 and 5.2.2025 and the request made to deposit the lease rent despite the request having been made the petitioner did not comply and neither did he deposit the lease rent and accordingly notices were sent to him on 28.2.2024 and 19.4.2025. Despite notice again the petitioner did not deposit the lease amount subsequent to which a survey was conducted by the Lekhpal, Sadar, Hardoi and by means of order the impugned order dated 29.7.2025 the lease was cancelled. He further submits that it is not disputed that more than one year expired since the petitioner did not deposit the lease rent and accordingly the respondents were left with no option except to cancel the lease in terms of the lease agreement entered into between the parties.

10. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records.

11. The facts of the case are not disputed in as much as the petitioner was granted fishing lease of a pond for the period from 10.7.2023 to 9.7.2033 i.e. for a period of ten years. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as the lase rent for first year but did not deposit any amount of lease rent for the second year which became due on 30.7.2024. Despite repeated reminders he did not deposit the said amount and even after legal notice was given to him as to why his lease be not cancelled. The petitioner did not deposit the lease rent. In his reply he did not submit any cogent reason or explanation for not depositing the said lease but made some other allegations with regard to area of the pond. The objection of the petitioner was looked into by the respondents who conducted inspection and survey of the pond and found that the are was the same as was mentioned in the lease agreement and it is only thereafter that by means of the impugned order that the lease was cancelled. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference and none has been submitted by the petitioner.

12. The respondents, on the other hand, have stated that the petitioner is responsible for breach of the essential condition of the lease agreement entered into between the parties which clearly provides that failure to deposit the lease rent within the stipulated time would lead to cancellation of the lease and accordingly there is no dispute that the petitioner did not deposit the lease rent from July, 2024 till passing of the impugned order. We find that the respondents have cancelled the lease in terms of the lease agreement when they found that the petitioner is in breach of the same and has not deposited the lease rent for the second year. Further, despite reminders and legal notices the lease rent was not deposited and after giving due opportunity of hearing the lease was cancelled. Accordingly, the respondents have acted in terms of the agreement and followed the principles of natural justice. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. The petitioner shall not be entitled to farm fish in the disputed pond.

13. This Court is also of the considered view that the respondents have suffered huge losses with the petitioner not depositing the lease rent as such the respondents would be at liberty to lock the fish farming in the pond and recover the losses suffered towards the pond it shall be open to recover any other loss caused at the hand of the petitioner by not depositing the lease rent.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, liberty is further granted to the respondents to auction the pond afresh. It is also surprising to note that a perusal of the agreement indicates that there is provision for taking security but it seems that no such security or earnest money was taken from the petitioner which is evident from clause 4 of the agreement. We do not see any reason as to why when provision exists for taking security the respondents have failed to take security from the petitioner. In case security had been so obtained the lessee would be prevented from proceeding to violate with impunity the provisions of the agreement.

15. Accordingly, unless and until there is any government order or rule which gives discretion to obtain earnest money/ security, they shall take earnest money and security in accordance with law. Considering the fact that there is no embargo as per the said rule for the petitioner to participate, he would be at liberty to participate in fresh auction in accordance with law in case he is so eligible. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025/RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted a lease of a pond for the purposes of fish farming situated at Village Sarra, Pargana Bangar, Tehsil Sadra, District Hardoi. The lease was for a period of ten years commencing from 10.7.2023 to 9.7.2033. On being granted the lease the petitioner had deposited requisite lease rent for an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- and commenced fish farming and an agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and the respondents on 27.7.2023 in pursuance of Rul 57 (11) of U.P. Revenue Code. According to the said agreement the amount of lease rent has be deposited every year prior to 30th July but the lease rent with effect from July, 2024 on-wards was not deposited by the petitioner and accordingly he was asked to deposit the same vide letter dated 27.8.2024 and 5.2.2025 but despite reminders sent to him he did not deposit the lease rent and in the aforesaid circumstances a legal notice was sent to him on 3.8.2025 asking him to show cause as to why the lease be not cancelled in light of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease by not depositing the lease rent for the year 2024-25.

3. The petitioner did not respond to the notice and consequently another notice was sent to him on 28.2.2025. Then at that stage the petitioner filed his reply on 24.4.2025 stating that the authorities should measure the said pond and area was less than what has been prescribed and further prayed that the lease rent should be exempted. On receiving the reply of the petitioner a survey was got conducted by Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi, who submitted his reply on 17.5.2025 where it was found that area of the pond was exactly the Same as was mentioned in the lease deed entered into at the time of auctioning the said pond. After receiving the report and also considering the fact that the petitioner was not depositing the amount of lease rent for the second year his fishery rights were cancelled by means of impugned order dated 29.5.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order submitted that the petitioner is ready and wiling to deposit the said amount. It is relevant to notice that neither in the writ petition nor in the oral submissions any cogent reason has been stated for not depositing the lease rent for the second year.

5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the conditions of lease are governed by the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code as well as lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Land Management Committee. He submits that detailed conditions have been laid down in the lease agreement which includes the fact that the petitioner has to deposit the lease rent on 30th of June every year for the following year and failing to deposit the lease rent would entail cancellation of the lease. He submits that it is only in pursuance of the lease agreement that action for cancelling the agreement has been taken against the petitioner. He further submits that though it was not open for the respondents to have cancelled the lase without giving any notice in case the lessee does not deposit the lease rent but in the present case two reminders were sent to him on 27.8.2024 and 5.2.2025 and the request made to deposit the lease rent despite the request having been made the petitioner did not comply and neither did he deposit the lease rent and accordingly notices were sent to him on 28.2.2024 and 19.4.2025. Despite notice again the petitioner did not deposit the lease amount subsequent to which a survey was conducted by the Lekhpal, Sadar, Hardoi and by means of order the impugned order dated 29.7.2025 the lease was cancelled. He further submits that it is not disputed that more than one year expired since the petitioner did not deposit the lease rent and accordingly the respondents were left with no option except to cancel the lease in terms of the lease agreement entered into between the parties.

10. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records.

11. The facts of the case are not disputed in as much as the petitioner was granted fishing lease of a pond for the period from 10.7.2023 to 9.7.2033 i.e. for a period of ten years. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as the lase rent for first year but did not deposit any amount of lease rent for the second year which became due on 30.7.2024. Despite repeated reminders he did not deposit the said amount and even after legal notice was given to him as to why his lease be not cancelled. The petitioner did not deposit the lease rent. In his reply he did not submit any cogent reason or explanation for not depositing the said lease but made some other allegations with regard to area of the pond. The objection of the petitioner was looked into by the respondents who conducted inspection and survey of the pond and found that the are was the same as was mentioned in the lease agreement and it is only thereafter that by means of the impugned order that the lease was cancelled. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference and none has been submitted by the petitioner.

12. The respondents, on the other hand, have stated that the petitioner is responsible for breach of the essential condition of the lease agreement entered into between the parties which clearly provides that failure to deposit the lease rent within the stipulated time would lead to cancellation of the lease and accordingly there is no dispute that the petitioner did not deposit the lease rent from July, 2024 till passing of the impugned order. We find that the respondents have cancelled the lease in terms of the lease agreement when they found that the petitioner is in breach of the same and has not deposited the lease rent for the second year. Further, despite reminders and legal notices the lease rent was not deposited and after giving due opportunity of hearing the lease was cancelled. Accordingly, the respondents have acted in terms of the agreement and followed the principles of natural justice. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. The petitioner shall not be entitled to farm fish in the disputed pond.

13. This Court is also of the considered view that the respondents have suffered huge losses with the petitioner not depositing the lease rent as such the respondents would be at liberty to lock the fish farming in the pond and recover the losses suffered towards the pond it shall be open to recover any other loss caused at the hand of the petitioner by not depositing the lease rent.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, liberty is further granted to the respondents to auction the pond afresh. It is also surprising to note that a perusal of the agreement indicates that there is provision for taking security but it seems that no such security or earnest money was taken from the petitioner which is evident from clause 4 of the agreement. We do not see any reason as to why when provision exists for taking security the respondents have failed to take security from the petitioner. In case security had been so obtained the lessee would be prevented from proceeding to violate with impunity the provisions of the agreement.

15. Accordingly, unless and until there is any government order or rule which gives discretion to obtain earnest money/ security, they shall take earnest money and security in accordance with law. Considering the fact that there is no embargo as per the said rule for the petitioner to participate, he would be at liberty to participate in fresh auction in accordance with law in case he is so eligible. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025/RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench