IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34631 of 2009 1. Ram Sagar Mukhiya, son of Bokai Mukhiya, 2. Thakai Mukhiya, son of Jangal Mukhiya, both of village Phulparas, PS Phulparas, district Madhubani – petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Surendra Kumar Sah, son of Late Jagan Sah, village Beldari Chowk Puulparas, PS Phulparas, district Madhubani – opp. parties. 4 11.3.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 7.7.2009 passed in Cr. Revision No. 226/2009 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani by which the court below has dismissed the revision application challenging the order, dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Phulparas converting a 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding into one under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. A proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated as opposite party no.2 was aggrieved by the fact that petitioner no.1, the Secretary of Phulparas Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited, Madhubani had settled the pond to a third party Ram Roop Ram. This aspect of the matter has come in the police report. The opposite party no.2 claims that the Society through petitioner no.1 the Secretary, had taken an advance for settlement of the jalkar in question in favour of opposite party no.2 subject to the condition that he would be allotted the jalkar by the managing committee under the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006. This dispute between opposite party no.2 and Ram Roop Ram created a problem inasmuch that both were claiming that they should be given possession of the jalkar. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the question of deciding the possession does not arise in this case as Annexure I/I and 2 the police report indicate that the settlement of jalkar was made in favour of the petitioners’ society and, therefore, undoubtedly the petitioners’ society had possession of the jalkar in question. The dispute, if any, is with respect to sub-letee of the petitioners’ society. Both are claiming that they should be allowed the fishery rights over the jalkar in question. Opposite party no.2 claims that he is already in possession whereas petitioners claim that opposite party no.2 is not a fisherman and cannot be settled the jalkars in terms of section 10(2) of the 2006 Act. The question whether the settlement or advance was received by the petitioner cannot be decided by this court. Therefore, it would be proper that the parties should put forward their documents and lead evidence, if any, before the Magistrate or the Magistrate may if he thinks fit refer the case to the District Fishery Officer who would perhaps be the appropriate authority to decide this dispute. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)