IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11674 of 2009 1. RAM SANEHI MUKHIYA S/O BECHAN MUKHIYA 2. RAM BRIKSH MUKHIYA S/O LATE MUNI MUKHIYA BOTH R/O OF VILL-GANJ RAGHAULI, P.O. MADHOPATTI, P.S. KAMTAUL, DIST. DARBHANGA ---- PETITIONERS. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIAHR 2. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERY, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERY OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KEWATI RANWAY VIKASH, PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWAWLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. CHAK BHAWANI, DARBHANGA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SHATRUDHAN SAHNI 6. SHATRUDHAN SAHNI, S/O RAM SWAROOP SAHNI, R/O VILL-CHAK BHAWANI, P.O. KEWATI, P.S. KEWATI, DIST. DARBHANGA. 7. SOGARATH MUKHIYA S/O YOGENDRA MUKHIYA, R/O VILL-GANJ RAGHAULI, P.O. MADHOPATTI, P.S. KAMTAUL, DIST. DARBHANGA. --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Umesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. M. Chatterjee, Advocate. For respondent No.7 : Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, A.C.To AAG-III ----------- 05 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.5 the then Chief Executive, Kewati Ranway Vikash, Prakhand Matsyajivi Swawlambi Sahkari Samit Ltd ( for short Sahkari Samit) and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.7 as also the State. Petitioners are members of the Cooperative Society. They were settled fishery and Makhana Jalkar located on khata no. 3413 measuring an area of 1.49 decimals. This settlement was made by a deed /‘Patta’ executed by the petitioners and respondent 2 no.5. The period of settlement was from 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2011. The aforesaid deed of settlement is Annexure-3. Petitioners are now aggrieved by order dated 30.09.2008 (Annexure-7) whereby aforesaid Jalkar has been re-settled by respondent Chief Executive Officer of the Sahkari Samit with respondent no.7 for a period 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2011, in terms of the provision contained in the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act 2006 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioners were found eligible and accordingly Jalkar in question was settled with them by executing Patta (Annexure-3) for the period 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2011. One of the conditions of the settlement was that the petitioners will deposit in instalment the reserve Jama every year failing which the deed/settlement made in their favour would stand cancelled automatically. The deed was subsequently cancelled by Annexure- C series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, and settled with respondent no.7 by a Patta executed on 30.09.2008, for the period from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2011, which has been impugned in the application. I have heard the parties. Respondent nos. 5 and 6, have filed a counter affidavit in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reserve Jama year wise were deposited by the respondent no.5 under a Katcha receipt but no receipt was granted to him leading to the impugned order. He relies on averments made in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6, on the 3 other hand, relying on averments made in counter affidavit submits that the petitioners defaulted in making payment of reserve Jama for the subsequent year, as a result whereof, they became defaulter whereafter they were put on notice but no reply/show cause was submitted. Petitioners thus continued to be defaulter in spite of notice. The matter was, therefore, placed before and considered by the Managing Committee of the Sahkari Samiti whereafter it was resolved that the Patta issued in favour of the petitioners be cancelled, and Jalkar be settled for a period of 03 years with respondent no.7. The resolution/decision of the Sahkari Samiti was duly communicated to the writ petitioners through a letter dated 24.04.2008 (Annexure-C/5) to the counter affidavit. This is what the respondents have averred in paragraph nos.7, 9, 10 and 11. 7. That the petitioners have deposited only Rs. 1150/- as the revenue for the year 2006-07 instead of total Rs. 2228/- and for the year 2007-08 the annual revenue enhanced by 2% meaning there by the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 2272/- for the year 2007-08 in two installment instead petitioners have deposited only Rs. 1228/- thus became defaulter, did not clear 2nd installment for the year 2006-07 as well as the for 2007-08. 9. That it is relevant to mention here that from Annexure-3 it becomes clear that the accepted condition is to pay the revenue each year in time failing which the patta already issued would be automatically cancelled without any information to the particular settlee. In the instant case the respondent no.6 has issued three notices just considering the interest of the petitioners. In this connection it is relevant to mention here that on 12.06.07 the petitioners without producing the receipt requested the chief executive to accept the Ist installment of 2007-08 and the receipt was issued for the year 2007-08 without going through the total 4 record thereafter when the respondent no.6 the chief executive perused the record and detected that the petitioners have not deposited the 2nd installment for the year 2006-07 rather he has deposited 1st installment for the year 2007-08 suppressing the fact therefore after detecting the actual position for respondent no.6 issued three notices as contained in Annexure-B series making it clear about the dues of the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 which was not replied by the petitioners. 10. That it is stated that when the petitioners neither deposited the amount nor filed any reply to three notices, the respondent no.6, the chief Executive brought the matter in to the notice of the managing committee and in a meeting dated 24.4.08 considering that the matter quite serious and to save the revenue of the society decided to cancel the settlement made in favour of the two petitioners and directed the chief executive to communicate the decision of cancellation to the petitioners and in this meeting it was also decided to settle the jalkars afresh with the other members who earlier expressed willingness to take settlement of the jalkars in question. 11. That it is stated that as per the decision taken by the managing committee the respondent no.6 the chief executive on the same date i.e. on 24.04.08 has communicate the decision of cancellation of settlement of the managing committee to the petitioners along with the copy of the resolution of the meeting dated 24.04.08.” Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, however, submits that considering the facts appearing from the records the petitioners have absolutely no case in view of the conditions of Patta (settlement) as they were defaulters. It is next submitted that considering the equity also, this Court should desist from interfering with the impugned action of the respondents as the major part of the period of settlement have already lapsed. Learned counsel further highlighted that the communication regarding 5 cancellation of Patta was made to the petitioners way back on 24.04.08, whereafter they maintained a silence and after a lapse of over a year the present writ proceeding has been filed questioning the actions taken by the respondents. Rights of the petitioners spring up from an agreement signed by and between the parties which is in the shape of ‘Patta’. Conditions incorporated therein shall therefore govern their rights and liabilities. Going by the conditions incorporated in condition no. ‘Jha’, it would appear that if the settlee defaults in making regular payment of reserve Jama, the same shall be treated as breach of the condition(s) entailing automatic cancellation of the settlement. The respondents have put them on notice, as would appear from Annexure B/5 series to the counter affidavit, which failed to yield any response and the petitioners continued to be defaulter. Left with this situation, the Managing Committee has taken a decision which cannot be said to be contrary to law or unjust. It is further seen that the settlement made with respondent no.7 has already covered major portion of the period of settlement. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not satisfied that a case for issuance of prerogative writ has been made out by the petitioner. In the result, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)