HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 4183 of 2026 Naresh .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Har Bansh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Court No. - 2 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Sri Har Bansh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.12.2025, by means of which, the fisheries lease has been made in favour of the respondent no.6 by the respondent no.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at some length, restricts his prayer for a direction for permitting him to take out his fishes, whereas learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the lease has been executed on 07.03.2026 and the possession has also been handed over to the respondent No.6 on the same date, therefore, at this stage, the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the possession of the respondent no.6 and states that petitioner is in possession of the pond in question.

5. In view of above, apparently there are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WRIC No. 4183 of 2026 2 6. The petition is misconceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) June 10, 2026 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench