IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.4743 OF 2009 1. DANDKHORA PRAKHAND MATASYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI, YOGIA TOLA, DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAMELY, HARE KRISHNA KEWAT 2. HARE KRISHNA KEWAT, SON OF KASHI LAL KEWAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE YOGIA TOLA, POLICE STATION DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR. PRESENTLY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DANDKHORA PRAKHAND MATASYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI, DISTRICT KATIHAR ……………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR FISHERIES, SAHARSA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FISHERIES, SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER -CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT KATIHAR 6. GHANSHYAM MANDAL, MANTRI MATASYAJIVI SAHYOG SAMITI, DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR 7. BECHAN KUMAR SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, DANDKHORA PRAKHAND MATASYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR …………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** 5 30/06/2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the District Fisheries Officer -cum- Chief Executive Officer, Katihar (respondent no. 5 in this case). The case of the petitioner is that he was given settlement of jalkars known as Badri Kamal jalkars and Maniyan Parsa Jalkars for the years 2006- 07 to 2010-11 (Annexure-2). The petitioner having certain doubts regarding the area, khata no. and 2 khesra nos. of the jalkars allotted in his favour filed an application for clarification of the same. A report was sent by the Circle Officer, Dandkhora which is purportedly Annexure 5 to this application wherein a description of the plot nos. which are the part of the jalkars has been sent to the District Fisheries Officer. According to Annexure-5, the land has been described as Gair Mazrua Sarkar situated in Sheikhpura in thana no. 61 khata no. 90 containing khesra nos. 209 measuring area 5.45 decimals, 241 measuring area 1.80 decimals, 255 measuring area 2.40 decimals, 258 measuring area 2.12 decimals which have been described as NADI whereas khesra nos. 100 measuring area 2.40 decimals and 101 measuring area 1.65 decimals have been defined as KAMLA NADI. Similarly, jalkars situated in mouza Dandkhora appertaining to thana no. 152 khata no. 328, khesra nos. 101 and 121 measuring 8.75 and 8.12 decimals have been defined as NADI MANAGAN. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the District Fisheries Officer contrary to the report of the Circle Officer has held that the jalkars which were earlier included in BADRI KAMAL will now be treated as part of MARAKAUL jalkar whereas plots which were included in mouza Dandkhora would now be treated to be 3 within the MANIYAN KUND. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the private respondents submit that there is a statutory provision of appeal against the order of the District Fisheries Officer and the petitioner ought not have come directly to this Court. The petitioner’s apprehension naturally is that having changed the area of operation by including them in different mouzas, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss as he has already established and spent a lot of money by investing in the jalkars which were settled in his favour on 13.09.2007 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. However, on perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that the District Fisheries Officer has no intention to disturb the possession or settlement of the jalkars in favour of the petitioner. It has specifically been stated in paragraph no. 19 of the counter affidavit while replying the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ application, wherein the petitioner has made a statement that the District Magistrate, Katihar and the District Circle Officer-operative Officer, Katihar had made the settlement of the jalkars in favour of a third party without any show cause notice 4 or without canceling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. I think it would be necessary to quote the statement made at paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit. “19. That with respect to statement made in para-8 and 9 of the writ application, it is submitted and stated that the Jalkars settled with the petitioners’ society has not been cancelled, rather only Plot Nos. have been corrected and Jalkars settled with the petitioners vide letter no. 1052 dated 13.09.2007 have not been disturbed, hence no separate show cause was required as the petitioners’ society was already aware about the controversy with a respect to the Plot No. and Khata No. of the respective jalkars.” It would appear that no steps have been taken to cancel the settlement made in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 13.09.2007 and infact that is the correct attitude of the State even if there is a mistake in the inclusion of the jalkars in a particular area whereas having settled the jalkars it would not be proper at this stage after a lapse of two years to disturb the settlement made. This finding does not mean that the State/respondents would not be entitled to make the 5 future settlement in view of the report of the Circle Officer with respect to the area of operation of the jalkars. The petitioner also has a right to challenge the order of inclusion of the jalkars in a different area before an appropriate authority if he so desires. However, in view of the facts aforesaid, I do not think there is any occasion for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the District Fisheries Officer for which there is already a remedy available to the petitioner. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )