ASHOK MACHHUA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT vs JAI LAKSHAMI MACHHUA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT

1

CGHC010151182023 2026:CGHC:39112

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA
WPC No. 2297 of 2023
Judgment Reserved On :19.08.2026 .
Judgment Delivered On : 07.09.2026.
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.07
18:10:06
+0530
Ashok Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Bhagirathi Sinha, President,
Aged 68 Years, S/o Late Itwari Ram Sinha, Address- Gram-Litiya, Block And Tehsil
Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Jai Lakshami Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through President Thakur Das,
Address- Gram- Litiya, Block And Tehsil- Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Jai Shiv Ganga Maiya Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through President
Gendlal Gram- Purda Block And Tehsil- Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Director, Department Of Fishries, District
- Durg (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Agriculture Standing Committee Through Its Chairman Janpad Panchayat
Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate.

2
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Amit Nayak, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Shri RL Rajak, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.3
: Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocate.
& 5
For State/respondent : Shri Abhuday Tripathi, PL.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of this Writ Petition, petitioner is challenging the legality and propriety
of order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner,
Durg Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh in case No.625/A-89/year 2021-22 by
which revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2022
passed by the Collector, Durg District Durg in Revenue Case No.8/A-89/year
2019-2020, has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered society under the
Chhattisgarh Sahkari Society Act, 1960, bearing Registration No. 3082.
Respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 19.06.2019 inviting applications
from Machhua Sahkari Samitis, associations and individuals for grant of
lease for a period of ten years in respect of Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 and
02, situated within Gram Panchayat Tekapar. Pursuant to the aforesaid
notice, a meeting of respondent No. 5 was convened on 19.07.2019, wherein
a proposal was passed for grant of lease in respect of the subject water
bodies in favour of respondent No. 2. Petitioner society, being aggrieved by
the proposed grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 2, submitted an
objection before the Collector, Durg, specifically contending that the subject
water bodies did not fall within the working area of respondent No. 2. The
petitioner specifically pointed out that Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 is

3
situated in Gram Panchayat Arsi and Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 02 is
situated in Gram Panchayat Dodki, both of which fall within the working area
of the petitioner society. Respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 29.07.2019
addressed to respondent No. 3, also stated that Tamakhurd Jalashaya No.
01 and 02 fall within the working area of the petitioner society, namely Gram
Panchayat Arsi and Gram Panchayat Dodki. Thereafter, another meeting of
respondent No. 5 was convened on 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/7) , wherein the
earlier proposal for grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 2 was
cancelled. However, in the same meeting, a fresh proposal was passed for
grant of lease in respect of the subject water bodies in favour of respondent
No. 1. Petitioner society, being aggrieved by the aforesaid proposal dated
28.08.2019, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Durg. However, the
said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2020 on the ground of
delay. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2020, the petitioner society
preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Durg. The Commissioner,
Durg, vide order dated 28.02.2022, allowed the revision, set aside the order
dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Collector, Durg, and remanded the matter to
the Collector, Durg, for rehearing and consideration of the matter on its
merits. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand, the Collector, Durg, took
up the matter for rehearing and called for a report from respondent No. 4.
Respondent No. 4 submitted its report dated 30.05.2022. Relying upon the
said report, the Collector, Durg, vide order dated 24.06.2022 rejected the
appeal preferred by the petitioner society. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Durg, the petitioner society
preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Durg. The Commissioner,

4
Durg, vide impugned order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P/1), dismissed the
revision petition and held that the proposal passed by respondent No. 5 on
28.08.2019 was justified and that no legal error had been committed by the
Collector, Durg, in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner society.
The petitioner society is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.03.2023
passed by the Commissioner, Durg, as the same has been passed without
proper consideration of the material facts, documents and objections placed
on record by the petitioner society. The authorities have failed to properly
appreciate the fact that the subject water bodies fall within the working area
of the petitioner society. Impugned order dated 24.03.2023, as well as the
consequential action arising out of the notice dated 19.06.2019 and the
subsequent proposal dated 28.08.2019, is therefore contrary to the facts and
circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed and set aside in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The present petition is preferred
by the petitioner society seeking appropriate relief against the impugned
order dated 24.03.2023 and the consequential proceedings relating to grant
of lease of Tamakhurd Jalashaya No. 01 and 02, which are as follows:-
i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the
present case for its kind perusal.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2023.
(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the present writ petition and thereby issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction to Respondents more particularly to
Respondent No. 3 to 5 by quashing/setting aside the
impugned notice dated 19.06.2019 as being untenable in
the eyes of law.

5
(iv) That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of
the present case may also kindly be awarded to the
petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.
(v) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded
to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice dated
19.06.2019 issued by Office of Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, District Durg
C.G., it has been stated that Tamakhurd Jalashay Nos.1 & 2 fall within the
purview of Gram Panchayat, Tekapar and as such, those two Jalashays are
within the working area of petitioner/Society. The authorities only in order to
facilitate the lease of 10 years to Respondent No.1 have ignored the fact that
both the jalashays fall within the working area of petitioner Society and as
such, the resolution dated 28.08.2019 issued by Respondent No.5 by which
lease of 10 years for fishery was allotted in favour of Respondent No.1 is
error apparent on the face of record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner made a complaint
dated 25.07.2019 before the Collector stating that the two jalashays do not
fall within the working area of Respondent No.2 stating that the same fall
within the Gram Panchayat Arsi and Dodki, which fall within the working area
of petitioner society. He submits that Deputy Director Fisheries, District Durg
also wrote a letter dated 29.07.2019 (Annexure P/6) to Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha stating that Tumakhurd Jalashay No.1
and 2 fall within Gram Panchayat Arsi and Dodki respectively and are under
the working area of petitioner Society. It was also directed by Deputy Director
Fisheries to act upon the said matter in accordance with law. On the basis of

6
aforesaid letter, the Committee has again reconsidered the aforesaid aspect
on 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/7) and dismissed the earlier resolution dated
19.01.2019 which was passed in favour of Respondent No.2 and granted the
lease in favour of Respondent No.1 on the ground that Samiti-Respondent
No.1 is having less water area in proportion of its members.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged the
resolution dated 28.08.2019 before the Collector who dismissed the appeal
of the petitioner on the ground of delay vide order dated 27.07.2020.
Thereafter, petitioner challenged the order of Collector dated 27.07.2020
before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg C.G. in which, the
Commissioner vide order dated 28.02.2022 set aside the order dated
27.07.2020 of Collector and remanded the matter to him for hearing on
merits afresh. Thereafter, the Collector again heard the matter and vide order
dated 24.06.2022 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Against which, the
petitioner approached the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh
who vide order dated 24.03.2023 rejected the revision of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the impugned orders
passed by the Collector as well as Commissioner are in accordance with law
which is not required to be interfered with.
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that cancellation of allotment
of Jalashyas in favour of Respondent No.2 is not in accordance with law.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 5 submits that the Petitioner has
challenged Notice dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P/3) before this Court,
without first challenging it before the Courts below. Hence this challenge is
not maintainable. Further, the Petitioner has not challenged Agreement dated

7
22.10.2019 and the Petitioner has also failed to disclose that Lease
Agreement dated 22.10.2019 for the impugned reservoirs was signed
between Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, whereby fishing rights have already been
granted to Respondent No. 1. Since the Petitioner has not challenged this
Order, challenge is not maintainable, because unless this Order is
challenged, no effective relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner
has not challenged the factual findings of the report dated 30.05.2022
(Annexure P/10 Colly.) of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Durg. The
Petitioner has not challenged the finding that the reservoirs fall within
Respondent No. 1's working area. Thus, there is no basis to the Petitioner's
present challenge, because the underlying premise has attained finality for
lack of being disproved. The Collector has clearly observed in their Order
dated 24.06.2022 that the two reservoirs fall within the area of Village
Tumakhurd, i.e. within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Tekapar, and
hence the impugned Notice dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P/3) is correct. The
Petitioner has neither challenged nor denied the contents of the report dated
30.05.2022, whereby it was established that the two reservoirs fall within the
area of Village Tumakhurd, i.e. within Gram Panchayat Tekapar. Hence, this
fact is admitted by the Petitioner. Vide the impugned Order dated 24.03.2023
(Annexure P/1), the Collector's Order dated 24.06.2022 has been affirmed.
Both the Commissioner and Collector are quasi-judicial authorities, who have
exercised their authorities with immense caution; and passed their orders
after considering both oral and written submissions of all involved parties.
Merely because the Collector called for and relied on a factual report rather
than relying solely on the submissions of the parties to pass its order, this

8
does not in and of itself vitiate their Order. Thus, neither the Collector nor the
Commissioner have committed any errors in passing the impugned Orders.
Hence, it is clear that the present petition is devoid of merit & substance, and
should be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has been
passed by the authority of respondents strictly in accordance with law while
exercising its quasi juridical powers conferred under the provisions contained
in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the rules made
thereunder as well as the Fisheries Policy framed by the State Government.
It is submitted that the impugned order is a well reasoned and justified order
passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Durg Division. It is further
respectfully submitted that the instant petition is a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and the scope of interference in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very minimal and the petitioner has
failed to make out any ground warranting interference by this Court while
exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
10.I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed
with the petition carefully.
11.In the case at hand, petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society claiming
that Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos.1 and 2 fall within its working area. Pursuant
to notice dated 19.06.2019 inviting applications for fishery lease, respondent
No.5 initially proposed allotment in favour of respondent No.2 and thereafter,
vide resolution dated 28.08.2019, granted the lease in favour of respondent
No.1. The petitioner challenged the said resolution before the Collector and,

9
subsequently, before the Commissioner. After remand, the Collector rejected
the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 24.06.2022, which was affirmed by
the Commissioner vide order dated 24.03.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, principally contending that
the authorities failed to consider the letter dated 29.07.2019 indicating that
the subject Jalashayas fall within the petitioner's working area.
12.The controversy which essentially arises for consideration in the present
petition is with regard to the location of Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos.1 and 2
and, consequently, the question as to whether the said water bodies fall
within the working area of the petitioner-society.
13.From the perusal of documents as well as letter dated 29.07.2019 issued by
Deputy Director, Fishery, District Durg C.G, there is no doubt that the
Tumakhurd Jalashay No.1 falls within the purview of Gram Panchayat Arsi
and Tumakhud Jalashay No.2 falls within the purview of Gram Panchayat
Dodki.
14.The aforesaid document assumes significance as it directly relates to the
principal objection raised by the petitioner regarding the working area of the
respective cooperative societies. The said material document has not been
appropriately considered while determining the entitlement of the respective
societies for grant of fishery lease.
15.In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the competent authority
after taking into account the letter dated 29.07.2019 and all other relevant
documents/material available on record.

10
16.Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the
Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, as well as the order dated 24.06.2022
passed by the Collector, Durg and resolution dated 28.08.2019 are set aside.
17.The matter is remanded to Respondent No.5 – Agriculture Standing
Committee, for reconsideration of the applications relating to grant of fishery
lease in respect of Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos.1 and 2, including the claim of
the petitioner-society, strictly in accordance with law and after considering the
relevant documents, particularly the letter dated 29.07.2019 issued by the
Deputy Director, Fisheries, District Durg.
18.The competent authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with
law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
ultimate entitlement of any of the parties for grant of fishery lease, and the
competent authority shall decide the matter independently on its own merits.
19.With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash

The date when the
The date when the
The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved
judgment is
uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
19.08.2026 07.09.2026 ------ 07.09.2026