Chattisgarh High Court
Adarsh Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti … vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:17666
NAFR
SHYNA
AJAY HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.05.08
13:51:59 +0530 WPC No. 89 of 2021
Adarsh Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Village Ratanpur Through
Its President Sonuram Dhiwar S/o Shri Santram Dhiwar , Aged About 48
Years, R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur , Civil And
Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture And Fisheries
Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Director, Fisheries Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate ,
Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ratanpur , District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent/ : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG
State
For Respondent Mr. RS Patel, Advocate
No.4
2
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
17/04/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders/notices
dated 19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by
respondent No.4-Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council,
Ratanpur, whereby, the Petitioner-Samiti has been directed to
deposit the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th installments of lease rent
concerning the ponds i.e. Ratneshwar pond, Rani Dulari pond
and Panchdewari pond, which were allotted to them for fish
farming by a lease agreement dated 22.6.2016 for a ten-year term
w.e.f. 15.6.2016 to 14.6.2026.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the present
petition :
10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the
entire records of the petitioner’s case.
10.2 That the Hon’ble court be further pleased to
quash the impugned order/notice dated 19.11.2020
and 26.11.2020(Annexure-P/1) issued by the
Respondent No.4 as it is illegal and against the order
passed by this Hon’ble Court.
10.3 That the Hon’ble court be further pleased to
direct the Respondent authority not to recover the
installments as the petitioner is not sowing the fresh
fish seeds in the subject ponds as per direction
3
issued by this Hon’ble court. Or if the petitioner willdeposit the installments as directed, he may be allow
to put fresh fish seeds in the subject ponds for fresh
fish farming.
10.4 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit
and necessary in the circumstances of the case be
also passed.
10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to
the petitioner.
3. The relevant facts, briefly narrated, are that the Petitioner is a
Samiti, duly registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative
Societies Act. The Petitioner is the oldest Machhuwa Samiti in the
region registered on 10.10.1963. Its members are traditional fish
farmers living below the poverty line. The petitioner had earlier
filed WPC No.141/2016 before this Court challenging the order
dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur
Division, Bilaspur, whereby, the Additional Commissioner
declined to interfere with the Collector’s order, which resulted in
setting aside of the allotment and the subsequent three-year lease
execution. In the aforementioned Writ Petition, this Court directed
vide order dated 21.6.2016 that if the petitioner is unsuccessful in
freshly drawn proceedings, the deposited amount of Rs.3,29,202/-
shall be refunded. Conversely, if successful, the petitioner may
apply before the Municipal Council to have the aforesaid amount
adjusted against the fresh allotment. Pursuant to a general notice
4
dated 9.6.2015, the petitioner participated in fresh allotment
proceedings for a 10-year lease. After due verification, the
petitioner was ranked at Sl. No.1. As per the State Government
Circular of 2013, priority in pond allotment must be accorded to
the oldest registered Samiti. Consequently, the subject ponds
were allotted to the petitioner. On 15.6.2016, Respondent No.4
issued the allotment order. The Petitioner deposited the requisite
amounts on 17.6.2016 and a formal Lease Agreement was
executed on 22.6.2016, for a ten year term. After the execution,
respondent No.4 handed over possession of the tanks (Talab) and
the petitioner commenced fish farming. Further, the petitioner also
paid the first installment of the lease agreement to respondent
No.4. Subsequently, the Municipal Council Ratanpur passed a
proposal dated 8.2.2016 pursuant to the advertisement dated
9.6.2015, for the allotments of ponds for fish farming. In that
proposal, Mahamaya Machhuwa Sahkari Samiti Ratanpur was
shown as the oldest Society registered on 1.2.1990. As the
petitioner-Society was, in fact, the oldest (registered on
10.10.1963), it lodged a complaint. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional
Officer (SDO), Kota, conducted an enquiry and found that said
proposal was not in accordance with the Government Circular(s).
Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, set-aside the
proposal dated 8.2.2016 vide order dated 16.5.2016, a decision
later upheld by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated
2.7.2016. A direction was issued to Respondent No.4 to make
fresh allotment of lease of ponds as per the subject circulars of
5
the Government. Against the said order dated 2.7.2016, a revision
was preferred by Bhoramdeo Machua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit
(the unsuccessful Samiti), which was also dismissed. Thereafter,
Bhoramdeo Machhuwa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit initiated further
litigation before this Court vide WPC Nos.2817/2016, challenging
the allotment made by respondent No.4 and the order dated
16.5.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur. In
the aforementioned writ petition, an interim order dated
16.11.2016 was passed staying the effect and operation of the
order impugned therein with a direction that none of the parties
would sow the fish seeds on the subject pond till the next date of
hearing. However, subsequently, this Court, taking into
consideration that if the ponds are not allowed to be used for
rearing fishes and the season goes, nobody’s purpose would be
served, vide order dated 11.5.2017, vacated the interim order
dated 16.11.2016 with the condition that the concerned
respondents may rear fish and they shall submit monthly account
before the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council giving
the complete details of the quantity. Despite these restrictions,
which effectively prevents the petitioner from conducting full-scale
farming operations, respondent No.4 passed impugned
orders/notices demanding 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th installments, totaling
Rs.10,59,960/-. The demand of these installments is illegal. It is
contended that since the petitioner has been legally barred from
sowing fresh seeds and utilizing the ponds for fishing operations
and are not rearing fresh fish by virtue of the interim order(s)
6
passed by this Court, respondent No.4 cannot demand full lease
payments. Hence, this Petition.
4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that while the Petitioner holds the possession of the
ponds, they have been unable to conduct fish farming due to the
interim order(s) passed by this Court. He submits that the
petitioner had deposited the initial installment and other required
amounts at the time of execution, however, the interim stay has
prevented any income generation. He submits that the Petitioner-
Society is financially incapable of depositing further installments
as directed by respondent No.4 vide impugned orders/notices
dated 19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020 respectively. He submits that if
the Petitioner is permitted to resume fishing operations and seed
the ponds, they undertake to pay the outstanding installments
from the resulting revenue.
5. Per contra, Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, learned counsel for the Sate
submits that the entire administrative exercise was conducted by
respondent No.4–the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council,
Ratanpur, who possess the authority to pass the impugned
orders. He lastly submits that the impugned orders are in
accordance with law and is fully justified, as the petitioner has
exercised fishing rights and derived profit therefrom.
6. Mr RS Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that
the impugned orders have been passed in compliance of the
earlier order dated 21.6.2016 passed in WPC No.141/2016 and
the common order dated 11.5.2017 passed in WPC No.2817/2016
7
and another connected petition i.e. WPC No.2833/2016 filed by a
different Society i.e. Jai Maa Shakti Machua Sahakari Samiti
Maryadit. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 21.6.2016
by this Court, the petitioner was allotted a 10-year lease for the
subject ponds. The Petitioner has since occupied the ponds and
has been rearing fish therein. Thereafter, notice dated 19.11.2020
was issued for the recovery of lease rent after adjustment of the
amount mentioned in the order dated 21.6.2016 (Rs. 3,29,202/-).
He submits that since the Petitioner was allotted the lease and
has been in possession since 2016, the concerned Respondent
has issued demand notices for payment of lease rent. These
include Rs.2,40,900/- for the second year, Rs.2,64,990/- for the
third year, Rs.2,64,990/- for the fourth year and Rs.2,89,080/- for
the fifth year, amounting to an aggregate sum of Rs.10,59,960/-.
After deduction of Rs.3,29,202/-, the total outstanding amount
comes to Rs.7,30,758/-. He further submits that the petitioner by
taking shield of the order dated 21.6.2016, is attempting to evade
its liability to pay the lease rent. Furthermore, the petitioner has
taken undue advantage of the order dated 11.5.2017 passed in
WPC No.2817/2016 filed by Bhoramdeo Machua Sahkari Samiti
Maryadit, to continue fish rearing operations, whereas, the said
order was intended strictly as a one-time arrangement on
account of specific circumstances of that case. He further submits
that on a complaint being received against the petitioner, an
enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner has
been continuously rearing fish in the subject ponds, which is not
8
possible without sowing fresh seeds. A Panchnama has also been
prepared to record the fact that the petitioner is still rearing fishes
from the pond. Therefore, to ensure compliance of the earlier
orders passed by this Court, the impugned orders dated
19.11.2020 and 26.11.2020 respectively have been passed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the record with utmost circumspection.
8. Evidently, the petitioner has obtained a lease for fishing
operations on 22.6.2016. In pursuance of the said lease
agreement, the petitioner began sowing fish seeds in three ponds
namely Ratneshwar Talab, Rani Dulhari Talab and Panchdewari
Talab on the basis of a lease agreement for a ten-year period
w.e.f. 15.6.2016 to 14.6.2026. The lease agreement stipulates the
conditions for the lease rent, including the schedule and mode of
payment. The parties further agreed upon a graduated rent scale
for the ten-year duration. The lease agreement was executed
subject to certain terms and conditions that both parties agreed to
uphold.
9. A further perusal of the record shows that the petitioner herein had
previously approached this Court in WPC No.141/2016 to
challenge the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Bilaspur, whereby the Additional Commissioner
has refused to interfere with the Collector’s order, which had set-
aside the three-year allotment and lease. In the above Writ
Petition, this Court directed vide order dated 21.6.2016 that in the
event if the petitioner is unsuccessful in freshly drawn
9
proceedings, the deposited amount of Rs.3,29,202/-
(Rs.2,25,000/- {installment amount} + Rs.50,000/- {security
deposit} + Rs.54,202/- {e-stamping certificate}) be returned and in
the event, the petitioner is successful, the petitioner may apply
before the Municipal Council for adjustment of the aforesaid
amount in the fresh allotment proceedings. Subsequently,
another Society i.e. Bhoramdeo Machua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit
lodged several complaints regarding the grant of lease. When
these administrative complaints were not addressed, the said
Society filed WPC No.2817/2016 challenging the validity of the
lease granted in favour of the petitioner. In those proceedings,
this Court initially passed an interim order 16.11.2016, however
the same was vacated vide order dated 11.5.2017. The said order
permitted the concerned respondents to rear fish subject to
submitting monthly accounts to the concerned Chief Municipal
Officer. However, the parties were restricted from sowing fresh
seeds, limiting them strictly to rearing of fish already present in the
ponds. Consequently, the fishing activities granted under the
lease were stalled and no fishing operations were carried out.
Despite the period of inactivity caused by the stay, the Municipal
Council, Ratanpur issued the impugned recovery notices to the
petitioner-Society, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,30,758/-.
The amount was calculated after adjusting the sum(s) already
deposited by the petitioner. Aggrieved by these notices, the
petitioner has filed the present petition contending, inter alia, that
as the Petitioner-Society was prohibited from conducting fishing
10
operations, it is not liable for the recovery amount demanded
under lease agreement. The petitioner asserts that fishing and
rearing operations were impossible due to the litigation initiated by
Bhoramdev Machua Sahakari Samiti Maryadit (WPC
Nos.2817/2016) and the subsequent orders passed by this Court.
As such, the petitioner-Society was unable to utilize the ponds, as
intended, and therefore, was not liable for the amounts claimed by
the Municipal Council.
10. According to the Municipal Council, Ratanpur, the petitioner took
advantage of the order dated 11.5.2017 and continued to regularly
rear fish from the subject ponds. The Council contended that the
Petitioner-Society was restrained from fishing operations for only
a limited duration after which it remained in continuous
possession and actively reared fish by virtue of the lease
agreement. Consequently, the petitioner-Society has been in
uninterrupted possession of the ponds and has derived the full
benefits of the agreement after the clarification provided by the
orders passed by this Court. Furthermore, according to the
respondent authorities, a Panchnama dated 10.10.2020 was
prepared after the complaints lodged by another Society. This
document confirms that the petitioner-Society was regularly
conducting fishing operations. Based on these findings, it is clear
that the petitioner is willfully evading the lease rent by falsely
claiming an inability to conduct fish farming. The contention of the
petitioner that no fish seeds were sown due to the interim order
passed by this Court, appears to be a pretext to avoid liability for
11
the amount demanded in the recovery notices.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that subsequently, WPC
No.2817/2016 (Bhoramdeo Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and others) was disposed of vide order
dated 29.11.2024 with a direction to the concerned Municipal
Council to take a fresh decision regarding allotment of ponds to
the petitioner therein in accordance with the Chhattigarh Sashan
Matsya Palan Niti, 2013. Furthermore, the connected petition
i.e. WPC No.2833/2016 (Jai Maa Shakti Machua Sahakari Samiti
Maryadit Vs. State of Chhattisgh and others) was also dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 17.1.2023.
12. Admittedly, this Petition was filed way back on 2.1.2021. By the
interim order dated 16.11.2016 passed in WPC No.2817/2016 and
another connected petition, the petitioner was prohibited from
sowing fresh seeds. However, while vacating the stay order dated
16.11.2016, this Court permitted rearing operations vide order
dated 11.5.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner-Society regularly
conducted fishing operations, as reflected in the Panchanama and
reports submitted by the respondent authorities. Considering the
matter in its entirety, it appears that only for a specific duration,
the petitioner was prohibited from both rearing and sowing, and
for that particular period, the petitioner likely conducted no fishing
operations.
13. For the foregoing reasons, in order to balance the equities
between the parties, the impugned notices (Annexure P/1) are
hereby set-aside. The respondent- Chief Municipal Officer,
12
Municipal Council, Ratanpur, is directed to recalculate the lease
rent. This recalculation shall take into account that, for a specific
and limited duration, the petitioner was precluded from fishing
operations and had neither sowed fish seeds nor reared fish in
the subject ponds on account of the stay order(s) passed by this
Court.
14. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider
the recovery amount sought from the petitioner and to pass an
appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. This direction is issued in view of the lease
agreement, which shows that the lease term is set to expire on
14.6.2026.
15. Furthermore, among the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, Relief
10.3 seeks a direction to the respondents to refrain from
recovering lease rent installments on the ground that the petitioner
was prevented from sowing fresh seeds in the ponds. Since these
claims involve disputed questions of fact, they cannot be
adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.
16. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay
