IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2084 of 2009 CHANDRIKA SAHANI SONOF LATE ISHWARI SAHANI, RESIDENTOF VILLAGE-NAUTAN RAHIMPUR TOLE MATHIA, P.O. NAUTAN VIA AMNOUR, P.S. MARHAWRRAH, DISTRICT SARAN …..PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SARAN AT CHAPRA 3.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERY OFFICER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. HARI SHANKAR MANJHI, CHAIRMAN, DHENUKI FISHERMAN SELF SUPPORTING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., MARHAWRRAH, P.O. KARNPURA, P.S. MARHAWRRAH, DISTRICT SARAN 6. SONELAL MAHTO SON OF NATHUNI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RUP RAHIMPUR, P.S. MARHAWRRAH, DISTRICT SARAN …..RESPONDENTS ----------- 6 1.9.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order of settlement of tank issued by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent no.6 covered under plot nos.1314, 1315, 1324 and 1326 of Khata no.35 measuring an area of 2.35 acres of village Rup Rahimpur for a period of three years i.e. 2.7.2008 to 30.6.2011. He further prays to hold the settlement made in his favour for the period from 5.6.2008 to 5.6.2012 as valid. It appears that the aforesaid sairat situated in village Rup Rahimpur is being settled since long in favour of Fisherman Cooperative Societies who in turn used to settle it to its members. Accordingly the aforesaid sairat was settled in favour of Dhenuki Fisherman Self Supporting Cooperative Society Ltd., 2 Marhawrrah(hereinafter referred to as ‘Fisherman Soceity’) for the period 2006-2011. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Fisherman Society. The petitioner states that the Fisherman Society settled the aforesaid tank with him for the period 5.6.2008 to 5.6.2012 and granted due receipt in token of payment, a copy of money receipts are annexed as Annexures 1 and 2. The petitioner states that the aforesaid pond has subsequently been settled in favour of respondent no.6 by respondent no.5 which is illegal and cannot be done without giving opportunity of hearing to him. As respondent no.6 was bent upon taking forceful possession of the aforesaid pond, the petitioner filed a report with the local police station on 9.11.2008. However, the petitioner in order to resolve the dispute had filed Title Suit No.73 of 2008 in which he had also filed injunction petition. Respondent no.6 appeared and filed Interlocutory Application seeking direction to the respondents to allow him to cultivate the sairat as the same has been settled in his favour for a period of three years from 2.7.2008 to 30.6.2011. He submits that he is also a member of the aforesaid Fisherman Society. He further submits that the Civil Court did not grant injunction and the suit is still pending. In support of his contention, he has filed a copy of the order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the Munsif III, Chapra rejecting the injunction petition. The settlement of pond claimed by the petitioner is forged one and even the money 3 receipts are forged and fabricated. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 wherein in paragraph 4 it is stated that the aforesaid pond situated in village Rup Rahimpur was settled with in favour of Fisherman Society for a period of five years from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2011 and the society in turn settled the same with respondent no.6 in the year 2006 and with the petitioner and respondent no.6 in the year 2007. But in the year 2008 the Society expelled the petitioner from the Society and settled the aforesaid pond with respondent no.6. Further in paragraph 7, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a complaint before respondent no.4 the District Fishery Officer who in turn issued notice to the respondent no.5 the Chairman of Fisherman Society vide letter no.380 dated 23.7.2008. The respondent no.5 had filed a reply along with proceeding of Aam Sabha stating therein that the petitioner has been expelled from its membership and the pond has been settled with respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a fisherman by birth and the money receipts filed by him are genuine. It appears that respondent no.5 had filed show cause before the District Fishery Officer, respondent no.4, stating that the pond in question has been settled in favour of respondent no.6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this court 4 KHAN directs that the dispute relating to settlement should be decided by the District Fishery Officer, respondent no.4 after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties preferably within two months from today. Till the dispute is resolved by the District Fishery Officer, Saran at Chapra, the Dhenuki Fisherman Self Supporting Cooperative Society Ltd, Marhawrrah would manage the cultivation of Sairat in question. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)