Shri Kalim Rannu Reghiwale vs Fishery Commissioner (Registrar) Maharashtra State & Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Fishery Commissioner (Registrar), Maharashtra State i.e. Respondent No. 1, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed, as well as the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries), Maharashtra State i.e. Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner further seeks quashing and setting aside of the No-Objection Certificates (N.O.C) dated 22.06.2007 and 30.06.2007 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries Department (Technical), Washim i.e. Respondent No. 4, and the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Amravati i.e. Respondent No. 5, in favour of Respondent No. 6 i.e. Janbhavana Matsyavyavasay Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.

The brief facts giving rise to the present Petition are that the State Government acquired land admeasuring 23.49 H.R. for the construction of the Mirzapur Tank. In respect of the said project, awards were passed on 19.01.2009 and 19.12.2014 by Land Acquisition Officer. The Tank was ultimately completed in the year 2018.

After completion of the Mirzapur Tank, the Petitioner submitted a proposal dated 29.05.2018 seeking issuance of an N.O.C. The said proposal was rejected by order dated 21.07.2018 on ground that Respondent No. 6 had already been registered in respect of the Mirzapur Tank and that, in view of the State Government policy dated 30.06.2017, a second society could not be registered in respect of the same Tank.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No.2 on 18.08.2018, along with an application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.2, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation by order dated 22.03.2019. The Petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before Respondent No.1. By order dated 09.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 condoned the delay, cancelled the registration of Respondent No. 6 and directed the concerned authorities to issue an N.O.C in favour of the Petitioner.

Thereafter, Respondent No. 6 challenged the said order before this Court in Writ Petition No.7210 of 2019. By judgment and order dated 20.12.2021, this Court partly allowed Petition and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration, holding that the issue regarding cancellation of the registration had not been properly dealt with by the appellate authority.

Upon remand, Respondent No.2 heard the parties and, by order dated 02.09.2022, held that the N.O.C issued in favour of Respondent No. 6 was lawful and had been issued in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 06.04.2000. Respondent No.2 further held that the subsequent completion of the Tank in the year 2018 would not invalidate the NOCs issued in the year 2007.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred a revision before Respondent No.1. After hearing the parties, Respondent No.1 dismissed the revision by order dated 10.04.2023, principally holding that the N.O.C. had been issued in the year 2007 and had not been challenged within the prescribed period. Subsequently, Petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking quashing and setting aside the orders dated 02.09.2022 and 10.04.2023, as well as the N.O.C dated 22.06.2007 and 30.06.2007 issued in favour of Respondent No. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for parties, learned counsel for petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appreciate that the N.O.C. dated 22.06.2007 and 30.06.2007 were issued before completion of the land acquisition proceedings and before the Mirzapur Tank was completed or made operational. The Tank was completed only in the year 2018, and the gorge filling and handing over of the Tank were communicated by the Minor Irrigation Department on 13.06.2018 and 02.08.2018, respectively. The authorities therefore failed to examine whether the concerned officers had Jurisdiction to issue the N.O.C. in the year 2007.

He further submitted that the impugned orders are based on a mechanical reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 06.04.2000, without considering its applicability to the present case and the subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.06.2017, which prescribed the procedure for issuance of an N.O.C and registration of a society in respect of a Tank.

He further submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to consider that the original proposal dated 14.02.2007, on the basis of which the N.O.Cs were issued, was subsequently altered and a fresh proposal was submitted on 11.01.2008. Respondent No.6 was registered on 15.01.2008, without obtaining fresh NOCs or conducting the necessary verification. The registration was therefore granted in violation of the prescribed procedure.

Lastly, it is submitted that Petitioner and the members of the proposed society are project-affected persons whose lands were acquired for the Mirzapur Tank and who are dependent upon fishing activities for their livelihood. The Petitioner had submitted her proposal after completion and handing over of the Tank and was the first eligible society to apply in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 30.06.2017.

The learned counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the Mirzapur Tank was under construction from the year 2001 and was in existence when the NOCs were issued in the year 2007. Respondent No. 6 has been operational since the year 2008, and the fishing rights in respect of the Tank were subsequently allotted to it on lease up to 30.06.2024.

He further submits that the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department issued the relevant communication dated 13.02.2007, recording that the construction work of the Mirzapur Tank was proposed to be completed by the year 2008. This establishes that, although the Tank was under construction, it was already an existing and identified reservoir in the year 2007. The communication dated 18.03.2017 issued by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur, further records that construction of the Mirzapur Tank had commenced in the year 2001. The said document was produced by the Petitioner herself in the proceedings before the revisional authority. Thus, the contention raised by petitioner are misconceived and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.6 submits that subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.06.2017 cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate the registration of Respondent No.6 granted on 15.01.2008, and the Government Resolution dated 03.07.2019 protects registrations and allotments validly made under the earlier guidelines. The impugned orders dated 02.09.2022 and 10.04.2023 were passed after considering the relevant material and applicable Government Resolutions.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.6 has placed reliance on order passed in Writ Petition No.6543 of 2008, which held that the registration of a society in respect of a reservoir cannot be invalidated merely because the formal handing over or completion of the Tank took place at a later stage, particularly when the reservoir had already been identified and was under construction at the time of registration.

Before proceeding to analyze the matter, it would be better to reproduce order dated 8-7-2024 passed by this Court.

It is thus clear that this Court vide order referred to supra had directed the petitioner to show nexus between issuance of no objection certificate with that of registration of the society. When the matter was heard and the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the said order he did not choose to answer the same and proceeded to argue the matter on merits.

I have perused the impugned orders. The Respondent No.2 in the order dated 02.09.2022 has recorded a finding that the Respondent No.6/Society is in operation since the year 2008 and has been granted fishing rights in Mirzapur lake from the year 2018 till 30^th June 2024. It has further recorded a finding that as per Government Resolution dated 06.04.2000 and more particularly clause 3 thereof. It would be presumed that all the lakes belonging to Irrigation Department would be presumed to be transferred to the Fisheries Department. It has also recorded a finding that the Assistant Commissioner (Fisheries) has granted no objection certificate in accordance with the Rules which were in vogue at the relevant time and there is a condition that the fishermen in the locality would be granted membership of the said Society. Furthermore, the respondent No.6 also showed its willingness in writing to grant such membership to the said fishermen. It has also relied upon order of this Court of Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.653 of 2008 passed on 3.4.2008 and went on to dismiss the appeal.

In the review petition filed by the petitioner, the reviewing Authority i.e. the respondent No.1 has also concurred with the findings of the original Authority. It has taken into consideration the entire material as has been considered by the original Authority while rejecting the appeal by the petitioner. In addition, it has also recorded that the contention regarding the members of the proposed Society being rendered jobless is not correct since the respondent No.6 has already showed its readiness to admit the said persons as members of the said respondent No.6/ Society and has accordingly filed an affidavit in that regard. The revisional Authority also record a finding that such a condition is also found in the No Objection Certificate granted in favour of Respondent No.6. It has, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the revision.

After considering the entire facts, it can be seen that the order of the original Authority as also the Revisional Authority is on the basis of Government Resolutions and the relevant legal provisions which are in vogue. Furthermore, as has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for respondent No.6 that vide Government Resolution dated 3.7.2019, it is clear that if there is a registered society over the lake then no new society would be granted registration. Furthermore, as also can be seen from the Government Resolution dated 6.4.2000 that for better administration of the lakes of the Irrigation Department the said lakes have been handed over to the Fisheries Department. It is thus clear that the findings recorded by both the Authorities are recorded on the basis of material on record and no perversity can be found in the said findings.

As there is no merit in the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.