Lal Babu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.301 of 2015 ======================================================

1. LAL BABU CHAUDHARY son of Jangi Chaudhary resident of village - Tumkariya, P.S. Bairiya, District - West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Co - operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur

3. The District Co - Operative officer, West Champaran at Bettiah

4. The Block Co-operative Officer, Bairiya, District - West Champaran

5. CHANDI CHAUDHARY son of Late Ratan Chaudhary resident of village - Siswa Saraiya, P.S. Bairiya, District - West Champaran at Bettiah

6. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

7. The District Fisheries Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisul Haque, A.C. to G.A.9 For the Private respondent : Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 29-07-2015 Let the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division as well as the District Fisheries Officer be added as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 respectively during the course of the day.

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anisul Haque A.C. to G.A.9 for the State and the private respondent is represented by Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee. The petitioner has questioned the order of settlement of Jalkar in favour of the respondent No.5. The provisions of Section 14 of the Bihar Fisheries Jalkar Management Act, 2006 provides

Patna High Court CWJC No.301 of 2015 (5) dt.29-07-2015 2/2 for a remedy of appeal to the petitioner against an order of settlement and which in the present case would lie before the Commissioner of the Division.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy so available to him under the law.

It goes without saying that any such appeal being preferred by the petitioner alongwith the petition for condonation of delay, would be considered by the appellate forum and disposed of in accordance with law and after hearing the contesting parties bearing in mind that the matter in issue was pending consideration before this Court.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U