IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6306 of 2009 1. Dandkhora Prakhand Matasyajivi Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited through its Chief Executive Officer, namely, Hare Krishna kewat, Yogia Tola, PO Raholi, PS Dandkhora, Dist. Katihar. 2. Hare Krishna Kewat, Chief Executive Officer of aforesaid Samiti – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Fisheries, Saharsa. 4. The Deputy Director, Fisheries, Saharsa. 5. The Dist. Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Katihar. 6. Manti, Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti, Dandkhora, Katihar. 7. Chairman, Dandkhora Prakhand Matasyajivi Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Dandkhora, Katihar – respondents. ******** For the petitioners :- Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Advocate For the S t a t e :- Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC V For respondent no. 6:- Ms. M. Chatterjee, Advocate ********* 7 14.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mrs. M. Chatterjee for respondent no.6. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter no.126, dated 24.2.2009 passed by the District Fisheries Officer, Katihar by which the Ghasia Talab jalkars has been settled with the two societies according to their share in the Talab. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that he was earlier given settlement of the Talabs with respect to 6.20 acres for the year 2007-08 and, therefore, he is aggrieved by the fact that the District Fisheries Officer has now settled the Talab which measures about 30.70 acres to both the societies jointly as per their share in accordance with section 7 of the Bihar Fish Jalkars Management Act, 2006. 2 This settlement has been made with the consent of the parties which is evident from the proceedings drawn on 10.2.2009 wherein it has specifically been mentioned by the District Fisheries Officer that it is impossible to divide the jalkars by means of a `Bandh’ or in any other way and, therefore, the parties agreed in the said proceeding that they would share the usufruct of the jalkars in proportion to their share. It has also been stated that both the societies i.e. the petitioner-society and respondent no.6 society would invest money in the jalkars in the ration of 1:3 as per their share. This court finds that since the settlement has been made with the consent of the parties as required under section 7 of the aforesaid Act, the petitioner cannot come to this court now and challenge the settlement on the ground that he would be put to loss or because of the fact that earlier a settlement was made in his favour. This court also finds that since the petitioner was settled with 6.20 acres of the Talab for the year 2007-08, it would be presumed that he must have taken advantage of utilizing the entire Talab and, therefore, he seems to be aggrieved even by an order which was passed with the consent of the petitioners and the respondent society. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)