ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State including private respondents no.4 and 5. By order, dated 5.7.95 while issuing notice to respondent nos. 2 to 5 the operation of the order, dated 24.5.94 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition, was stayed. By the said order, the Jalkar in question, was settled in favour of the private respondent nos. 4 and 5, which relates to plot nos. 471 and 617 situate in village Rajapur, P.S. Maheshpur, district Pakur. This settlement, as it appears from the impugned order has been made on a long term basis for ten years. Despite several opportunities given to the state-authorities, the records of the case has not been produced before this Court. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of on the basis of the materials available on the record. From the order, dated 4.9.95, it appears that a statement has been made by the State counsel to the effect that a letter was issued to the Anchal Adhikari to issue general notice for the purpose of settlement of the tanks. However, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the direction, no notice whatsoever was issued and subsequently, the tank, in question, was settled in favour of the private respondents no.4 arid 5. In absence of the records, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to state as to whether instruction was followed by the respondent-Anchal Adhikari or not. In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Fish Farmers Development Agency, Sahibganj, through its President-cum-Deputy Commissioner, respondent no.2, by which settlement of plot nos. 471 and 617 was made with the private respondents no.4 and 5. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners, Maheshpur Matasya Jiwi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. through its Secretary, Chhotelal Soren, The grievance of the petitioners, in this writ application is that the Jalkar, in question, was settled with the respondents no.4 and 5, without following the prescribed procedure and the notification issued by the State Government from time to time. According to the learned counsel, in the matter of settlement of the Jalkars, the Society must be given preference in terms of the various circulares issued from time to time, by the State of Bihar. According to the learned counsel, in the matter of settlement of the Jalkars, the Society must be given preference in terms of the various circulares issued from time to time, by the State of Bihar. It is submitted that in this case, the settlement has been made with the private respondents and that, too, without issuing general notice. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents as well as the private respondents stating therein that the registered deed of lease has already been executed in favour of the private respondents no.4 and 5 with respect to the settlement of the tank, in question, and, as such, the settlement cannot be interfered with by this Court. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Instructions as well as the statutory provisions have been violated by the respondent-authorities in making settlement of the tank, in question, while making settlement with the private respondent nos. 4 and 5, ignoring the bona fide and rightful claim of the petitioners, which is a Matasya Jiwi Sahyog Samiti. In support of his stand, he has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Satrudhan Sahni and others v. The State of Bihar and others (AIR 1992 Patna 25) The submission of Mr. Sharma is well founded. It is admitted position that the Statutory provisions as well as the Executive Instructions issued by the Government of Bihar in this respect from time to time have not been followed by the respondent-authorities in this case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the settlement of the Jalkar, in question, has been made in favour of the private respondents on long term basis for ten years and as such, the petitioners society has no claim for the same. This submission of the State counsel is equally misconceived. It is well established principle of law by now that the society must be given preference in such matters, if the society, intends to taken settlement of the Jalkar, if it is not a defaulter and/or is otherwise not competent to take the settlement of the Jalkar. In that view of the matter, the order, dated 24.5.94, as contained in Annexure-1, by which the Jalkar standing on plot nos. In that view of the matter, the order, dated 24.5.94, as contained in Annexure-1, by which the Jalkar standing on plot nos. 471 and 617 settled by the respondent authorities in favour of the private respondents no.4 and 5 is hereby quashed and I direct the respondent authority, namely, the respondent no.2, to make settlement of the tank, in question, even on long term basis giving preference to the petitioners society, following the Statutory provisions as well as the Executive Instructions issued by the State of Bihar in this respect from time to time provided the petitioner is not otherwise incompetent to take the settlement of the Jalkar, in question. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.