Judgment Sarwar Ali, J. 1. There is a Jalkar known as Singhia Sarokhar Jalkar in the district of Monghyr. In the year 1971-72, this Jalkar was settled with the Fishermans Co-operative Society, Belgudar. The settlement was expiring on the 31st March, 1972. the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L. R. D. C.) communicated to the Anchal Adhikari the fact of the fixation of reserve Jama of the Jalkar at Rs. 52561- for the year 1972-73. On the 5th January, 1972, the Anchal Adhi-kari ordered issue of a general notice fixing the 25th of January, 1972, for settlement of the Jalkar by auction. It is averred in the petition that notices were issued including a notice to the Fishermens Co-operative Society. An auction was held on the 25th January, 1972, at which the petitioner was the highest bidder. The bid was knocked down in favour of the petitioner who deposited half the amount of the bid, namely, Rs. 2751/-. The Anchal Adhikari sent the record of the case to the L. R. D. C. for approval. The L. R. D. C. in his turn, after approving the bid sent the records to the Additional Collector for his approval. After the approval of the same by the Additional Collector, the matter was finally sent to the Collector for his sanction. It is not in dispute that the sanctioning authority in respect of sairat settlement exceeding Rs. 5,000.00 is the Collector. The sanction of the Collector was communicated through an order dated the 11th April, 1972. Soon thereafter, that is, on the 14th April, 1972, a parwana was issued to the petitioner in which he was directed to deposit the remaining amount by the 30th April, 1972. Half the amount having already been deposited, the other half was deposited on the 25th April, 1972. The petitioner admittedly came into possession of the Jalkar and started operation in respect of the same. On the 19th June, 1972, the Anchal Adhikari intimated to the petitioner that the Additional Collector, Monghyr, by his order dated the 18th June, 1972, has cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. This is contained in an order, a copy of which is made Annexure 9 to this application. On the 19th June, 1972, the Anchal Adhikari intimated to the petitioner that the Additional Collector, Monghyr, by his order dated the 18th June, 1972, has cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. This is contained in an order, a copy of which is made Annexure 9 to this application. The petitioner contends that this Annexure is fit to be quashed as in the circumstances of the case the cancellation of the settlement of the Jalkar made in favour of the petitioner was arbitrary and unlawful. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State or other officers of the State. A counter affidavit, however, has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 6, Secretary, Fishermens Co-operative Society. In this affidavit, it is claimed that the Co-operative Society was entitled to a settlement in its favour as although there were certain dues against the Society, the same had been permitted to be paid by the 31st March, 1972. It is also averred in this counter affidavit that no notice of the auction held on the 25th January, 1972 was received by the Society. It is thus said that the settlement in favour of the petitioner being illegal, the action taken for the cancellation of the same was legal and proper. 3. Before dealing with the other arguments, it may be stated that the averment in the counter-affidavit that no notice was served on the Society cannot be accepted in view of the statement in the order-sheet of the Anchal Adhikari to the effect that notice for participation in the auction was given to the Society. The moot question, however, is whether the action of the authorities in cancelling the settlement in the circumstances of the case was arbitrary. A suggestion was made during the course of argument on behalf of the State that the right, if any, of the petitioner being contractual this Court should not interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. This argument cannot be accepted in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court including the one reported in the D. F. O., South Kheri V/s. Ram Sanehi Singh, 1971 (3) SCC 864 = ( AIR 1973 SC 205 ). This argument cannot be accepted in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court including the one reported in the D. F. O., South Kheri V/s. Ram Sanehi Singh, 1971 (3) SCC 864 = ( AIR 1973 SC 205 ). In this case, it has been held that although the source of a right of a party may initially be a contractual right, the High Court is not precluded from giving relief to an aggrieved party if the action on the part of the authorities is arbitrary and unlawful. It is, therefore, to be seen whether in the circumstances the action can be categorised as arbitrary. It is clear from what has been stated that the auction was held in this case after the fixation of a reserve Jama after due and proper notice to everyone concerned. The auction was sanctioned and approved by the Collector who is the relevant authority. In pursuance of the auction, half the amount of the bid was deposited and the other half was deposited on receipt of sanction. Thereafter, the Parwana was issued, the terms of which were complied with and the petitioner came in possession and continued in possession till the day of the cancellation of the settlement. It is clear, therefore, that there was no legal infirmity in the initial settlement, and the cancellation in the circumstances of that settlement cannot be said to be but arbitrary. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the circumstances he is entitled to relief by this Court has, therefore, to be accepted. 4. Learned Counsel for the Society, apart from supporting the argument advanced on behalf of the State, contended that it had a right to the settlement of the fisheries in view of the fact that it was permitted to pay off the dues till the 31st March, 1972, and it had no notice of the purported auction. So far as the argument of notice is concerned, it has already been noticed. So far as the argument of notice is concerned, it has already been noticed. The mere fact that the Society was permitted to pay off its arrears till the 31st March, 1972, in order that it may be entitled to the settlement for the year 1971-72, as is clear from Annexure A filed by the Society along with the petition for vacating the stay order passed by this Court, does not clothe it with the right to have the settlement for the year 1972-73, The instructions with respect to the settlement in favour of the Co-operative Society are not mandatory and do not have any statutory force. In the circumstances of this case, when the Society had proper notice and failed to participate in the auction, it cannot be said that any of its rights have been violated. 5. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this is a fit case in which the order of cancellation of the settlement should be quashed and the opposite party must be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner till the 31st March, 1973. 6. It is stated by learned Counsel for the Society that certain amounts have been paid on the basis of the cancellation for the purpose of taking settlement for the year 1972-73. If that is so, it is obvious that the Society will be entitled to refund of the said amount. 7. In the result, this application is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. K.B.N.Singh, J. 8 I agree.