IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9415 OF 2009 1. JHUNJHUN MUKHIYA, SON OF SHIV NATH MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARRA, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 2. KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, BARRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE JHUNJHUN MUKHIYA, SON OF SHIV NATH MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARRA, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA …………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER -CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT BOARD, DARBHANGA 3. THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, DISTRICT BOARD, DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER, DARBHANGA 5. SHIYA RAM MUKHIYA, SON OF LATE LAXMI MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIMRAHA, POST OFFICE CHIGRI, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** 2 11/08/2009 I.A. No. 5040 of 2009 has been filed for adding Shiya Ram Mukhiya as respondent no. 5. The I.A. No. 5040 is allowed and Shiya Ram Mukhiya is added as respondent no. 5 in this writ application. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary corrections in the cause title of this writ application. This writ application has been filed for quashing the letter no. 90 dated 13.06.2009 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner -cum- Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Darbhanga 2 cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society for a period of five years i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013 on the ground that the petitioner society was not given an opportunity to be heard in the matter, which is patently illegal. There are certain facts which need to be clarified by this Court. An advertisement was made vide Annexure-1 for settlement of the Jalkars for the year 2008-09. The settlement was made in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner was the only eligible society vide Annexure-2 purported to have been issued under Section 5(i) of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2006 Act”). In pursuance of the settlement, the agreement made with the petitioner society was forwarded for its execution. In the mean time, on a complaint made by one Shiya Ram Mukhiya, member of converted Kusheshwar Asthan Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Satighat, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 was issued. In the intervention petition, it is alleged that although the advertisement was made for one year, the settlement has been made for a period of five yeas in pursuance of the 2006 Act, although the 3 provisions of the 2006 Act will not apply in the settlement of the Jalkars in question as they are managed by the District Board and is not managed by the Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources Department. Learned Counsel for the intervenor submits that the settlement period has purportedly been extended from one year to five years. It has also been alleged that the revenue for the settlement of one Jalkar for the period 2007-08 was Rs. 2.70 lakhs whereas five Jalkars have been settled for only Rs. 1,23,808/- which according to the intervenor shows that the officer who has made the settlement was in connivance with the Petitioner society. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction as it could not have been passed behind the back of the petitioner without asking him for an explanation. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner society inasmuch as it is essential while passing any order by virtue of which some right accrues to a party, that the party should be given an opportunity to be heard before an order adverse to it, 4 is issued. Regarding the submissions made by the intervenor-respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the intervenor has no locus to challenge the order of settlement made in favour of the petitioner society as the intervenor society was a defaulter society and was not in any event entitled to settlement of the said Jalkars. It is further submitted that the intervenor society has wrongly pointed out that settlement of the Jalkars in question was made for a sum of Rs. 2.7 lakhs for the year 2007-08. This amount may be the reserved jama fixed for any other Jalkar but it certainly was not the reserved jama with respect to the settlement of these five Jalkars for the year 2007-08. The settlement of Jalkar or any other water body depends upon the productivity and water area of such Jalkar or a water body and as such the submissions made on behalf of the intervenor society are incorrect. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure 8 and 12 are quashed as they violates the principles of natural justice. The Deputy Development Commissioner -cum- Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Darbhanga would be at liberty to examine the 5 entire matter afresh after hearing the parties and pass fresh orders. However, in the mean time, the possession of the petitioner society should not be disturbed. I may also point out that there is no dispute with respect to the facts that the 2006 Act would not be applicable for the settlement of Jalkars which are not governed by the Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources Department, however, any water body which is being settled by the State Government may, for the purposes of smooth running of the settlement process, adopt the provisions of the 2006 Act. If the District Board wishes to adopt the provisions of the 2006 Act because there is no circular or instructions of the State Government governing the field, it would be at liberty to do so. This writ application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )