IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9093 of 2008 1. MOTIPUR PRAKHAND PRATHAMIK MATSYAJIVI SAHYOG SAMITI LTD. HARAUNA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SANT Pd. SAHNI S/O LATE RAM NAUMI SAHNI. 2. SANT Pd. SAHNI S/O LATE RAM NAUMI SAHNI. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILL- HARAUNA, P.S. MOTIPUR, DIST- MUZAFFARPUR. -----------------PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR FISHERIES BIHAR, PATHA. 3. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. --------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 3.11.2010 This writ application has been filed for refund of the settlement amount of the year 2006- 2008 with respect to Jalkar Bajitpur Mun Sah Kamalgatta. The case of the petitioners is that they had surrendered the Jalkar by filing a written application to the District Fisheries, Officer dated 27.8.2005. Subsequent to the order of the Director, petitioners deposited the third installments in 2005- 2006 and also the installments for the year 2006- 2007. The petitioners’ settlements were cancelled by the District Fisheries Officer on 1.7.2007 acting on the letter of the petitioner on 27.8.2005. The letter of the petitioner is dated 27.8.2005 by which he has offered to surrender the Jalkar in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners 2 submits that the District Fisheries Officer has to be blamed for the delay in passing the order of cancellation. He ought to have cancelled the settlement immediately, rather than after the delay of two years. It is submitted that the petitioners were forced to deposit the settlement amount for the year 2006-2007. The order impugned indicates that the Director has found that the petitioner was in possession for the year 2006-2007. The order seems to be based on the reasoning that unless there is order of cancellation of the settlement, it would be presumed that the Society is in possession of the Jalkar in question. I find that the reasoning of the Director is reasonable, it must be presumed that unless specifically barred by any order of the State restraining the society from enjoying the usufructs of the settlement or as in this case cancelling the settlement it has to be held that the society was in possession of the Jalkar in question. There is no illegality in the order of the Director. This writ application is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)