Partly allowed

Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited Reprr Thr Its Mantri Jaydeo Dhibar v. the State of Jharkhand through Director Fisheries Department

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2018WPC/727/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging unilateral cancellation of a fisheries pond settlement without a show-cause notice. Court dismissed petition but directed respondent to decide factual dispute regarding fish harvesting rights after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Respondent directed to decide factual dispute regarding fish harvesting rights after hearing all parties within four weeks.

Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited Reprr Thr… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 727 of 2018

¶4

Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited represented through its Mantri, Chas, Bokaro

¶5

Yudhisthir Kaibarta

¶6

… … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand through Director, Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

¶10

District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro

¶11

Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro ... … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Fahad Allam, AC to GA-III For the Intervener : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate

¶14

-----

¶15

Order No. 07

¶16

Dated: 11.07.2018

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. 17 dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure-11 series to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 3 –District Fisheries Officercum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro, whereby the Pond No. 8 measuring 09.13 acres situated over the land of Gairabad Malik Khata bearing Khata No. 200, Khesra Nos. 2671 & 2656 at Mouza-Kura, Circle-Chas, District-Bokaro, which was settled to the fisheries society namely, Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited (the petitioner no. 1) vide order contained in letter no. 554 dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) for the year 2017-18 to 2019-20, has been unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled without issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner no. 1.

¶18

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties including the interveners.

¶19

3. It is an admitted position that the title and possession of land in question whereupon the pond is situated, has been decided in favour of Satish Chandra Mahto & Ors. (the Interveners) by the court of Sub-Judge, Dhanbad vide judgment dated 19.09.1989 passed in Title Suit No. 162 of 1987. Irrespective of the said fact, the respondent no. 3 settled the said pond in favour of the petitioner no. 1 treating the

¶20

¶21

same to be the government land. As soon as the said fact came to the notice of the respondent no. 3, the impugned letter no. 17 dated 05.01.2018 has been issued to the petitioners cancelling the settlement of the said pond in their favour.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that in pursuance of the settlement of the pond made on 27.06.2017 in favour of the petitioner no. 1, it has put fingerlings in the pond and, therefore, its harvest rights over the pond pursuant to the settlement should be protected. It is further submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner no. 1 in using the said pond for fishery purposes as the same was settled by the respondent no. 3 in its favour. 5. The learned counsel for the interveners while opposing the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the title and possession of the pond was decreed by the competent civil court in favour of the interveners, it cannot be presumed that fingerlings have been put into the pond by the petitioner no. 1.

¶23

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, so far as the prayer of the petitioners regarding fish harvesting pursuant to settlement of the pond is concerned, the same has been disputed by the interveners. Thus, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the said factual dispute after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as interveners and to take appropriate decision in this regard, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶24

I.A. No. 3976 of 2018 also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶26

Manish

Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited Reprr Thr Its Mantri Jaydeo Dhibar v. the State of Jharkhand through Director Fisheries Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited Reprr Thr Its Mantri Jaydeo Dhibar v. the State of Jharkhand through Director Fisheries Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhileshwar Singh Vs Rural Dev Dept

Syed Mohammad Qaisar Hassan And Anr. Vs Urban Development Department

Abul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Department of Health

Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Building Construction Department

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissioner And Ors.