IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.10207 OF 2008 1. CHANDESHWAR RAI, SON OF LATE SITARAM RAI 2. PRABODH RAI, SON OF LATE SITARAM RAI 3. DEV SHANKAR RAI, SON OF LATE SITARAM RAI 4. BINOD RAI, SON OF LATE SITARAM RAI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANGULI, POLICE STATION BENIPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER, MADHUBANI 5. THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 6. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 7. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BENIPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** 3 24/11/2010 This writ application has been filed for quashing the notice dated 03.04.2008 issued by the respondent no. 4-the District Fisheries Officer, Madhubani, with respect to C.S. Plot no. 2330, out of which R.S. Plot No. 4373 has been carved out. The lands of Plot No. 2330 of mouza Ganguli, measuring 2.66 decimals were recorded in the cadastral survey as GAIR MAZARUA MALIK (Annexure-1). During the revisional survey, the entry was changed to ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR. The petitioners challenged the entry in the revisional survey by filing a suit under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. By the order dated 28.09.2004, the entry in the name of the BIHAR SARKAR was set aside. 2 The case made out before the authority concerned and in this Court, is that the petitioners were settled these lands by the ex-landlord. The ex-landlord filed returns in their names and thereafter jamabandi no. 38 was running in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners have been paying rent to the State of Bihar since 1977-78. After the revisional survey, the lands were transferred to the District Fisheries Officer. The order contained in Annexure-4 indicates that on spot verification and enquiry, it was found that the petitioners were in possession over R.S. Plot No. 4373. A finding has already been recorded that the lands in question were in fact not entered in the Sairat Register till 24.04.1983, thereby indicating, that they were entered in the Sairat Register after the revisional survey, when the lands were recorded in the name of the State of Bihar. The petitioners, therefore, have an order in his favour setting aside the entry in the name of the State of Bihar. In such circumstances, it is submitted that when the lands in question were never recorded in the name of the State of Bihar at no point of time before the revisional survey, it would naturally mean that the State of Bihar only after the revisional survey has staked a claim over the lands of the petitioners and entered it in the Sairat Register. The impugned notice contained in Annexure-5 3 has been passed on the assumptions that the plot of land has rightly been entered by the State of Bihar in the Sairat Register. An obvious fall out of the order dated 28.09.2004 passed in Case No. 903 of 1989 would be that the lands in question no longer stands in the name of the State of Bihar. Therefore, the notice for making settlement vide Annexure-5 cannot be sustained by this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 District Fisheries Officer in which it has been stated that settlement has been made in view of the fact that the lands in question is recorded in the Sairat Register and belong to the Fisheries Department. There is no affidavit on behalf of the Circle Officer or the Collector of the District. In the result, I quash the action of the District Fisheries Officer in making settlement of the lands in question by issuing Annexure-5. This writ application is thus allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )