IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2109 of 2007 1. PIRPAINTI PRAKHAND SATARIYA MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. MALIKPUR PIRPAINTI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NARESH MAHALDAR, SON OF BHADDO MAHALDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALIKPUR, P.S. PIRPAINTI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 2. NARESH MAHALDAR, SON OF BHADDO MAHALDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALIKPUR, P.S. PIRPAINTI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 5. THE DIRECTOR FISHERIES, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHAGALPUR. ----- RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 25.8.2010 The petitioners were settled Jalkars within the Pirpainti Anchal in the District of Bhagalpur for the year 2005-08. Parwana was issued and the order of settlement was made in favour of the petitioners for which they had deposited the required amount for the year 2005-06. The case of the petitioners is that the District Fisheries Officer was not passing the order for the settlement for the year 2006-07. Ultimately, the petitioners had to approach the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur who called for a show cause from the District Fisheries Officer on 19.8.2006 vide Memo No. 233. By the aforesaid letter the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur also directed the District Fisheries Officer to pass the order relating to settlement for the year 2006-07. The petitioners were aggrieved by Annexure-2 by which he was asked to make a deposit of the entire amount for the year 2006- 07, although the settlement order was issued on 10.11.2006 after a delay of six months. The petitioners claim that the settlement amount 2 for the year 2006-07 should be to the extent and be counted from the date on which the settlement was made i.e. 10.11.2006. Counsel for the State submits that although the petitioners were granted settlement on 10.11.2006 they continued to be in possession of the Pokhars in question, as it was not their case that they were dispossessed or that fresh settlement was to be issued in the name of any third party. Therefore, counsel for the State submits that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted the benefit of proportional payment for the period of settlement. On the other hand the petitioners claim that they cannot utilize or invest in the pond until a parwana is issued in their favour. Many such cases have come to the notice of this Court, in which the Societies are taking advantage of the delay and latches of the officers and claiming the benefit of making payment from the date on which order of settlement is passed or a parwana is issued in their favour. The Director, Fisheries may take care and issue appropriate directions to the District Fisheries Officers not to delay matters in such a manner as it only causes loss to the State. Considering all the facts in this case, I direct that the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bhagalpur should make adjustment for the period of six months with respect to the settlement period of the year 2006-07. This writ application is allowed to the extent aforesaid. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)