Disposed¶29

Ram Naresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Jul 2025CWJC/19013/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari; tank/water-body settlement as Sairat for fishing; jalkar; Bettiah Raj patta dated 19.4.1933; Gairmazarua Mokirdar; mutation and rent receipt; no notice/show-cause; Circle Officer Kalyanpur; District Fishery Officer-cum-CEO East Champaran; Department of Fishery, Bihar; fundamental right of livelihood; writ petition disposed of on counsel's statement to approach appropriate authority/court; no merits adjudicated; Patna High Court; single judge (Rajiv Roy, J); decision date 01-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; the writ petition was disposed of on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that he shall approach the appropriate authority/court for redressal of his grievance. ¶29

Ram Naresh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19013 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ram Naresh Singh son of Late Daroga Singh Resident of Village - Hazipur, P.S. - Kesariya, District - East Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The Secretary to Govt. of Bihar, Department of Fishery, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

¶9

The Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶10

The District Fishery Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶11

The Circle Officer, Kalyanpur, East Champaran.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Shanker Dwivedi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha -Sc19 Mr.Birendra Singh, AC to SC-19 ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 01-07-2025

¶16

Heard the parties.

¶17

2. The present petition has been preferred for :-

¶18

“That this is an application for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the recommendation of Respondent No.5 addressed to Respondent No.4 for settlement of land and Tank situated in Mauza-Hazipur, Thana No.199 of Khata No. 136, Plot No. 1681, measuring 2 Bighas, 1 Kathas and 19 Dhurs for Fishing vide his Letter No.394 dated 24.12.2016 and also for direction to respondents to stay their hand from taking steps for settlement of the aforesaid land and tank which is under physical and cultivating possession of respondents on basis

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.19013 of 2017(2) dt.01-07-2025 2/3

¶20

of settlement by Bettiah Raj to ancestor of petitioner namely Nitu Rai, son of Late Sheodhar Rai in 1933 and State of Bihar also have acknowledge the same by mutating the same land and by granting rent receipt up to date, on amongst others the following Grounds:-

¶21

I. For that Bettiah Raj had already settled the 5 Bighas, 16 Kathas, 13 Dhurs of land on basis of Patta dated 19.4.1933 having two Plots No. 1680 and 1681 of Khata No.136 which consists of agricultural as well Tank for use of irrigation fishing and the same is recorded as "Gairmazarua Mokirdar" in possession of Tenant Nitu Rai but Respondent No.5 has illegally recommended for settlement of Tank as Sairat for fishing.

¶22

II. For that as soon as petitioner came to know about recommendation for settlement of Tank as Sairat, he filed an application to Respondent Nos.3 and 5 on 15.11.2015 and requested the authorities to stay their lands in regard to settlement of the Tank of petitioner although this president Tank has never been declared Sairat and has never been settled previously to others and list of 201 of settled Tanks, Jalkar, Sairat etc. does not contain this present Tank. III. For that from reading of impugned Letter dated 24.12.2016 it appears that

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.19013 of 2017(2) dt.01-07-2025

¶24

3/3

¶25

recommendation is made only because at present it is still Tank and although record of right speaks about name of Tenant (Mokirdar) as Nitu Rai, which is beyond jurisdiction of Respondent No.5 to settle the same to others for fishing purposes.

¶26

IV. For that no notice to the petitioner has been issued prior to 24.12.2016 and without asking to show-cause to petitioner, the Respondent No.5 is making correspondence for handing over the said Tank to fishery Department by Respondent No.4 who has got no jurisdiction to hand over any Raiyati Tank to the fishery Department vide his Letter dated 3.3.2017.

¶27

V. For that actions of the Respondents are arbitrary and without jurisdiction infringing fundamental right of livelihood of petitioner who is cultivator and lives on the usufruct of his settled land and Tank.”

¶28

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be approaching appropriate authority/court for redressal of his grievance.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶30

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶31

Saurav/- U

Ram Naresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Janam Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dhimali @ Jhimali Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjit Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.