AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal in a case where he had called in question fishing lease of the pond admeasuring 8.640 hectares which was resolved to be alloted to respondent No.5 Mahila Machhuwara Swa - Sahayata Samuh.
The argument mainly revolves around clause 3.2 of the policy filed as Annexure P3 in the writ petition. It is the stand of the appellant that under the said clause a pond/tank having area more than one hectare cannot be alloted to a Machhuwara Samuh, as the same can be alloted only to Machhua Cooperative Society.
Clause 3.2 of the policy prescribes that in case of Machhua Coporative Society, Machhuwara Samuh or Machhua person, lease can be alloted in the ration of 0.50 hectare per person in cases of pond and 4.0 hectare per person in the case of irrigation tank. Likewise, tank having area upto one hectare will be alloted to Machhua person and those having area of more than one hectare will be alloted to Machua Cooperative Society. Reading this provision, it is argued that there is no place for Machhuwara Samuh for acquiring lease of tank having area more than one hectare.
Learned Single Judge has refused to read clause 3.2 in isolation and has considered the same along with clause 3.1 of the policy.
On conjoint reading of these two clauses, it is opined by learned Single Judge that the order of preference is to Co-operative society, Machhuwara Samuh and Machhua person, in that order, therefore, the tank which can be alloted only to Machhua person shall remain with the person but those tank which are having an area of more than one hectare can be alloted to Machhuwara Samuh or Co-operative society by maintaining the preference.
It is also observed by learned Single Judge that the appellant is having lease of another tank admeasuring 12.01 hectares, therefore, if the lease of the subject tank is alloted to respondent No.5, no illegality can be found.
Having seen the documents attached to the writ petition, we are of the view that the finding recorded by learned Single Judge is emerging from the facts available in record and clause 3.2 of the policy is correctly read by learned Single Judge. The same is just and proper and does not suffer from perversity.
Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.