IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.808 of 2008 RAJENDAR MUKHIYA son of Gunai Mukhiya village Dhebar Tole Dighiya, P.S. Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Director of Fisheries, Old Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Fisheries Officer-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani. 3. The District Collector, Madhubani. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Phulparas, District Madhubani. 5. The Circle Officer, Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. 6. The Officer Incharge, Phulparas P.S., District Madhubani. 7. Sudhir Kumar Jha son of Sri Biswanth Jha resident of village Tharbithiya, Tilathy, P.S. Phulparas, District Madhubani. ----------- For the Appellant :- M/S. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate, B. N. Tiwari, Nalin Vilochan Tiwary. For Respondent nos. 1 to 6 : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. X For Respondent No. 7 :- M/S. Rajeeva Roy & Manoj Kumar Jha -------- 7 19/08/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the order under appeal dated 28.02.2007 the writ Court has disposed of the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 7 after directing the Collector, Madhubani that “no settlement would be made without following procedure in accordance with new Sairat Settlement Act, 2006 and if petitioner is ready and willing to take the settlement at a competitive price then preference has to be given to him as undisputedly a small part of Jalkar is on his raiyati land.” There is a further direction that the private respondent to whom the Collector had intended to make settlement is not approved by the writ Court because that course was not in accordance with the Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as Sairat Settlement Act, 2006) and the same was done without disposing of objection of the writ petitioner as directed earlier by the writ Court. - 2 - The writ Court has lastly observed that in such a situation till further settlement is made, the writ petitioner shall not be disturbed. On going through the materials on record, particularly the reports of the Revenue authorities as contained in Annexures 3 & 4 to this Letters Patent Appeal as well as Annexure- 14 to the writ petition, it is found that there is conflict between the different reports. In the report contained in Annexure-14 the authority concerned has mentioned that the writ petitioner has land adjacent to the Jalkar in question and at some places the Jalkar has spread over the land of the writ petitioner also. In the other reports annexed with the appeal, it has been noted that some area of the Jalkar has been encroached by the writ petitioner and some area by the other private persons having land in the vicinity. So far as provisions for settlement of government Jalkars are concerned, the parties have fairly disclosed before us that the Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006 does not contain any provision for giving preference to a private person only on account of part of his land merging with the government Jalkar. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Collector has rightly been directed by the writ Court to dispose of the objection of the writ petitioner but we are of the further view that it cannot be conclusively said that undisputedly a small part of Jalkar is on raiyati land of the writ petitioner or that if he is ready and wiling to take settlement at a competitive price then preference has to be given to him and those observations shall be treated as - 3 - deleted. The Collector, Madhubani will examine all the relevant materials and if necessary will obtain a fresh report through reliable officials and decide the dispute on the basis of correct facts as ascertained through his machinery. He shall communicate in brief his decision in respect of the objection of the writ petitioner. It goes without saying that after taking a decision in respect of objection of the petitioner and coming to objective findings in respect of relevant facts, the Collector shall issue directions for settlement of the Jalkar in question strictly in accordance with law including the provisions of the Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006. If the Collector comes to the conclusion that demarcation will serve the purpose of settling government Jalkar in accordance with law, then he may opt for demarcation as far as possible. It is expected that such a decision and consequent action shall be taken at an early date preferably within four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. We further make it clear that as observed by the writ Court, till further settlement is made with any party in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner has been settled with the Jalkar, even on temporary basis, then his possession shall not be disturbed until the Collector decides the dispute and orders for settlement of the Jalkar in accordance with law. The present settlement, if made with the writ petitioner, shall be treated as an interim settlement till the matter is decided by the Collector. The writ petitioner on account of such interim settlement will, of course, deposit the required money in accordance with terms - 4 - of the interim settlement. The order of the writ Court shall stand modified to that extent. With the observations/directions aforesaid, this letters patent appeal is disposed of. (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) AMIN