MADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a Jalkar known as Singhia Sarokhar Jalkar in the district of Monghyr. In the year 1971-72, this Jalkar was settled with the Fisherman's Co-operative Society, Belgudar. The settlement was expiring on the 31st March, 1972. the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L. R. D. C.) communicated to the Anchal Adhikari the fact of the fixation of reserve Jama of the Jalkar at Rs. 52561- for the year 1972-73. On the 5th January, 1972, the Anchal Adhi-kari ordered issue of a general notice fixing the 25th of January, 1972, for settlement of the Jalkar by auction. It is averred in the petition that notices were issued including a notice to the Fishermen's Co-operative Society. An auction was held on the 25th January, 1972, at which the petitioner was the highest bidder. The bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner who deposited half the amount of the bid, namely, Rs. 2751/-. The Anchal Adhikari sent the record of the case to the L. R. D. C. for approval. The L. R. D. C. in his turn, after approving the bid sent the records to the Additional Collector for his approval. After the approval of the same by the Additional Collector, the matter was finally sent to the Collector for his sanction. It is not in dispute that the sanctioning authority in respect of sairat settlement exceeding Rs. 5,000/- is the Collector. The sanction of the Collector was communicated through an order dated the 11th April, 1972. Soon thereafter, that is, on the 14th April, 1972, a parwana was issued to the petitioner in which he was directed to deposit the remaining amount by the 30th April, 1972. Half the amount having already been deposited, the other half was deposited on the 25th April, 1972. The petitioner admittedly came into possession of the Jalkar and started operation in respect of the same. On the 19th June, 1972, the Anchal Adhikari intimated to the petitioner that the Additional Collector, Monghyr, by his order dated the 18th June, 1972, has cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. This is contained in an order, a copy of which is made Annexure 9 to this application. The petitioner contends that this Annexure is fit to be quashed as in the circumstances of the case the cancellation of the settlement of the Jalkar made in favour of the petitioner was arbitrary and unlawful.

(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State or other officers of the State. A counter affidavit, however, has been filed on behalf of opposite party NO. 6, Secretary, Fishermen's Co-operative Society. In this affidavit, it is claimed that the Co-operative Society was entitled to a settlement in its favour as although there were certain dues against the Society, the same had been permitted to be paid by the 31st March, 1972. It is also averred in this counter affidavit that no notice of the auction held on the 25th January, 1972 was received by the Society. It is thus said that the settlement in favour of the petitioner being illegal, the action taken for the cancellation of the same was legal and proper.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Society, apart from supporting the argument advanced on behalf of the State, contended that it had a right to the settlement of the fisheries in view of the fact that it was permitted to pay off the dues till the 31st March, 1972, and it had no notice of the purported auction. So far as the argument of notice is concerned, it has already been noticed. The mere fact that the Society was permitted to pay off its arrears till the 31st March, 1972, in order that it may be entitled to the settlement for the year 1971-72, as is clear from Annexure A filed by the Society along with the petition for vacating the stay order passed by this Court, does not clothe it with the right to have the settlement for the year 1972-73, The instructions with respect to the settlement in favour of the Co-operative Society are not mandatory and do not have any statutory force. In the circumstances of this case, when the Society had proper notice and failed to participate in the auction, it cannot be said that any of its rights have been violated.