BANDERA MURAUL NAVYATAYAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6. In this writ application a prayer has been made by the Petitioner to the following effect:

(2.) MR . Mishra has further submitted that in any view of the matter this aspect as with regard to the area of operation of bifurcated cooperative society in the matter of preferential settlement had been gone into by this Court in the case of Bhawanipur Fishermen&aposs Co -opetative Society V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 1995 1 PLJR 366, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had held that the new society operating in the restricted/reduced area of operation would alone qualify and be entitled for such settlement excluding the right of the old society which was registered for a larger area on the ground that its member no longer continue to the members of the new society.

(3.) THE Counsel for the State as also for the Respondent No. 6 have thus submitted that in this writ application this Court should not decide an academic issue as sought to be pressed by the Counsel for the Petitioner in as much as when the Counsel for the Petitioner in course of making submission had given up the two prayers, the declaration sought by it with regard to the mode, manner and terms of eligibility of settlement of ghat by holding that only the Petitioner society would be entitled for settlement of the ghats in question in future by way of excluding all the other society is wholly premature and misconceived and should be left in the hands of authorities so empowered to take such decision in terms of the Act specially when there is a finding to the effect that the Petitioner society is itself not eligible for settlement of ghats in terms of proviso to Section 9 of the Act. They had further submitted that in any view of the matter the ratio of the Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Bhawanipur supra would not apply to the facts of the present case in as much as there was nothing on record of the present case to demonstrate brought the basis and yard stick of registration of area of operation of the two competing societies i.e. the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6.