IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11864 of 2009 Patna City Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited, having its registered office at Nishad Bhawan, Choughara Main Road, Near Patna City Post Office, Patna-800008, through its Secretary, namely, Kanchan Kumar Nishad, son of Sri Ram Das Mahto Nishad, resident of Mohalla-Ranipur, Police Station- Khajekala (Patna City) in the Town and District of Patna. . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director (Fisheries), Patna region, Patna. 4. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Patna. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 07.10.2009 Learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to file supplementary affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Jalkar was settled with the petitioner by order dated 13.12.2006 for a period up to 31.03.2011 in the mean time Ranjan Kumar Sahni and another filed writ application bearing C.W.J.C. no. 94 of 2007 challenging the settlement of Jalkar in favour of petitioner. This court vide order dated 17.01.2007 stayed the impugned order dated 09.12.2006. The aforesaid writ application was finally dismissed on 15.02.2008 with a direction that the order of settlement for the period up to 31.03.2009 in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 will however continue only upon fulfillment of original terms and conditions as imposed in the order of the Secretary of the Fishery Department dated 13.12.2006. Learned counsel submits that despite order dated 15.02.2008 of this court in his favour the Parwana and possession has not been handed over to him as yet, though more than one year and seven - 2 - months have elapsed. As the writ petition filed against grant of settlement made in favour of petitioner has been dismissed, the authorities would issue necessary Parwana etc. consequent to the earlier settlement for the remaining period. The respondents would not be liable to charge any revenue for the period. for which possession has not been given in favour of the petitioner. Thus the impugned order dated 04.08.2009 insisting upon the petitioner to deposit the revenue for a period for which no Parwana or possession was given in favour of petitioner is bad in law and as such the same is set aside. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)