MANJU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules, 1916 assailing the judgment dated 29.01.2019, passed in C.W.J.C. No.11497 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application of the appellant.

(2.) Case of the appellant Manju Singh in succinct is that Pokhar, bearing C.S. Plot No.3392, admeasuring 7 acres 5 decimals, situated in Mauza Katiya of Basopatti Anchal, District Madhubani, was recorded as Gair Majarua Khas land in the name of father-in-law of the appellant, namely, Babu Awadh Bihari Narayan Singh as landlord. At the time of vesting Zamindari, the said landlord filed return of the land in the name of the family. During the revisional survey old C.S. Plot No.3392 was recorded as R.S. Khata No.192, R.S. Plot No.5680, admeasuring 7 acres 5 decimals, with the nature of the land as Pokhar in the name of husband of the appellant, namely, Chandra Mauleshwar Prasad Narayan Singh @ Mohan Singh. Appellant is in possession of the said Pokhar making payment of the Malguzari against Malguzari receipt. She looks after the aforesaid Pokhar and rears fishes through her agent without any interference and hindrance. Recently, some members of the Basopatti Matasya Jivi Sahayog Samiti started hatching conspiracy to forcibly grab the said Pokhar and threatening the appellant and her agent, whereupon the appellant filed an application before the local police and Circle Officer, Basopatti to protect her Pokhar and to take action against respondent no.8 (Basopatti Matasya Jivi Sahayog Samiti). She sent the copy of the representation to the District Magistrate, Madhubani, Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, S.H.O., Basopatti P.S. and the District Fisheries Officer, Madhubani.

(3.) After appearing before the Circle Officer, the appellant made request to make enquiry as to how settlement has been made in favour of respondent no.8 and requested to cancel the aforesaid settlement and to restrain respondent no.8 from going over the aforesaid Pokhar. She also requested the Circle Officer, Basopatti to provide her list of Sarkari Sairad/Jalkar and private Jalkar situated in Basopatti Anchal and documents regarding the settlement, if any, made in favour of respondent no.8, but no such document was accorded to her despite repeated requests. She also contacted the office of District Fishery Officer, Madhubani (respondent no.5) and requested to provide her the aforesaid document but in vain. On approaching the Basopatti police, following the forcible grabbing of the Pokhar by respondent no.8, she learnt that the District Fishery Officer had sent a letter to the S.D.O., Jai Nagar with a copy to the S.H.O. and Circle Officer, Basopatti intimating that the Pokhar has been settled in favour of respondent no.8 and as such it may be provided protection over the Jalkar. Somehow the appellant got a copy of Memo No.324 dated 24.06.2016, issued by the District Fishery Officer, Madhubani, by which respondent no.8 was directed to deposit the reserved amount for the different Jalkars settled with them including the Pokhar of the appellant, figured at serial no.32 of the list, indicating that respondent no.6 has illegally settled the private Jalkar of the appellant in favour of respondent no.8. Further case of the appellant is that Partition Suit No.135 of 1976 is pending between different coparceners of the appellant regarding the Pokhar in question and the learned Sub Jude-XI, Patna vide judgment and preliminary decree dated 30.03.2017 has ordered to partition the aforesaid plot amongst the parties. Against the aforesaid judgment and preliminary decree, the appellant has preferred F.A. No.72 of 2017 in this Court, which is pending disposal. Thus, it is evident that the Pokhar in dispute is the private property of the appellant and the respondent State has got no right to settle the said Pokhar in favour of respondent no.8. No information of the aforesaid settlement was ever sent to the appellant and the said Pokhar has been wrongly, fraudulently and arbitrarily settled in favour of respondent no.8 without any information and knowledge to the appellant. As per rule only the government Pokhar/sairat can be settled with the Fisherman Co-operative Society but as the Pokhar in dispute is the private property of the appellant, it cannot be settled in favour of respondent no.8 by the State Government. Hence, the aforesaid settlement made in favour of respondent no.8 is liable to be cancelled. Further case of the appellant is that by virtue of the aforesaid illegal and wrongful settlement made in favour of respondent no.8, respondent no.8 is hatching conspiracy to forcibly fish out the fishes reared by the appellant.