IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5719 of 2009 Md. Zubair Ahmad, son of Mr. Abdulgani, village Madanpur, PS Mohanpur, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Dist. Saharsa – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Saharsa 3. The Additional Deputy Collector, Saharsa 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa 5. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Saharsa 6. Anchaladhikari, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa 7. Simri Bakhtiyarpur Prakhand Matsyajibi Swablambi Samiti, Paharpur, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa through its Secretary Rajendra Sahni 8. Secretary, Sri Rajendra Sahni, Secretary, Simri Bakhtiyarpur Prakhand Matsyajibi Swablambi Samiti, Paharpur, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa. 4 23.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The dispute in this case has arisen due to the fact that petitioner claims to hold title and possession of land of Mauza Madanpur, Tauzi No. 538, Khata No. 95, Khesra Nos. 403, 485, 486 and 487 measuring 3 Bigha and 3 Katha which would appear from annexure-1 which is Jamabandi Case No. 2 of 82-83/49 of 84. Out of this land Plot Nos. 403, 485 and 487 are water body (tank). The petitioner’s case is that the said land was settled in the year 1931 by the ex-landlord in favour of the petitioner. The ex- landlord filed return in favour of the petitioner. After the vesting of the Zamindari, the petitioner’s name was entered into Register II and he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The plots aforesaid have also been recorded in the revisional survey in the name of the petitioner. In the year 1985 there was a dispute with respect to correction of the Jamabandi which was decided in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently it appears that the plots in question were entered into ‘Sairat Panji’ of the State of Bihar on the basis of which 2 the District Fisheries Officer has been attempting to settle the land by auction which has led to several disputes including the present one. On protest filed on behalf of the petitioner there was apparently an enquiry by the District Fisheries Officer. Ultimately the matter was referred to the Collector in the year, 1999. This court while hearing this case on earlier occasions asked the State counsel to find out whether any proceeding has been started under section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act concerning the lands in question. On the hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that section 4H proceeding cannot be initiated at this stage as the settlement was prior to the cut of date as provided under the Act. During the interim period i.e. between 1994 and right up to now the petitioner has been exerting his rights viz-a-viz the Fisheries Department as well as the settlees. The District Fisheries Officer recently had even directed that the petitioner should vacate the tank in question which was purportedly settled to respondents 7 and 8. Respondents 7 and 8 are the settlees for the years 2007-10 and 2011. Due to the objections raised by the petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 have suffered and have not been able to exercise whatever right they may have in lieu of the settlement made by the District Fisheries Officer in their favour. As far as respondents 7 and 8 are concerned, this court has full sympathy for them as it is not their fault that settlement have been made in their favour of the tanks which are not free from encumbrance. 3 The problem, therefore, has to be resolved which can only be done by the Collector of the district by calling for the revenue records, hearing the petitioner and the District Fisheries Officer with regard to the manner in which the tanks were entered in the Sairat panji despite the fact that the petitioner’s name purportedly finds place in the revenue records. It is expected that the Collector will call for the original records before passing any order. In the mean time the District Fisheries Officer is restrained from making any settlement to any party which in fact creates a problem not only for the settlee, the petitioner but also for the administrative authorities as there is likelihood of breach of peace due to such settlement order. The Collector will pass an order in this regard within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order after noticing the aforesaid parties. The District Fisheries Officer may also hear respondents 7 and 8 with respect to compensation which they may be entitled to as a result of investments made by them between the interim period till the time the dispute was raised. It is expected that the petitioner would also cooperate in the matter. Considering that there was an order of status quo in this case and respondents 7 and 8 could not enjoy the fruits of the settlement, the District Fisheries Officer is directed to return the settlement amount with respect to the tank in question . This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)