Judgment 1. CWJC No. 11696 of 2002 is filed by four petitioners. They are all Fishermens Cooperative Societies operating in different parts of the district of Darbhanga. CWJC No. 415 of 2003 is on behalf of a single petitioner which too is a Cooperative Society in the district of Darbhanga. The petitioners have taken a number of Jalkars in settlement and they are aggrieved by the amounts of the reserve jama fixed for the respective jalkars settled in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is the same and arises in similar facts and circumstances. These two cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, counsel for the petitioners in these two cases and Addl. A.G.I representing the State in both the cases. 3. The petitioners in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002 assail the re-determination of reserve jamas of 334 jalkars in Darbhanga made by the District Reserve Jama Committee in its meeting held on 12.9.2002. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is at Annexure 1 to the writ petition and at Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The minutes also enclose the statement showing the revised reserve jamas of the 334 jalkars. 4. In CWJC No. 415 of 2003 the single petitioner assails the reserve jamas fixed for 9 alkars at the district level and 11. jalkars at the Commissioners level. The reserve jamas of these 20 jalkars was revised in the meeting of the District Reserve Jama Committee held on 18.12.2001. A copy of the minutes of the meeting, along with the statement showing the revised reserve jamas for the jalkars in question, is at Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioners in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002 submitted that the revision of reserve jamas of the 334 jalkars has been made in the most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. It is pointed out that the upward revision of reserve jama in some cases is as high as 1500% (for jalkar at serial no. 81 in the statement, 798% for jalkar at serial no. 83, 638% for jalkar at serial no. 94, 442% for jalkar at serial no. 108, 552% for jalkar at serial no. 122, 500% for jalkar at serial no. 144, and 443% tor jalkar at serial no. 81 in the statement, 798% for jalkar at serial no. 83, 638% for jalkar at serial no. 94, 442% for jalkar at serial no. 108, 552% for jalkar at serial no. 122, 500% for jalkar at serial no. 144, and 443% tor jalkar at serial no. 147 of the statement: These are only some of the illustrative cases). In a large majority of cases the revision is more than 50% but in a few cases the revision is as low as by 18% or even 3%. 6. A similar grievance is made by the petitioner in the other case with regard to revision of reserve jamas in respect of the jalkars forming the subject matter of that writ petition. 7. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that at intervals of three years, once the previous settlement of a jalkar is over and the jalkar is free for fresh settlement, its reserve jama is required to be redetermined in the light of the relevant circulars issued by the Government. In the case of the twenty jalkars, being the subject matter of CWJC No. 415 of 2003 the reserve jama was re-determined by the District Reserve Jama Committee in its meeting held on 18.12.2001 and in the case of the 334 jalkars, forming the subject matter of CWJC No. 11696 of 2002 the reserve jama was revised by the District Level Reserve Jama Committee in its meeting held on 12.9.2002. 8. It is the case of the petitioners in both the cases that the upward revision of reserve jama of a jalkar cannot be more than 15%. In support of this submission reliance is placed on certain circulars issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the Government. The circulars on which the petitioners place reliance are (i) circular no. 195, dated 14.2.1983 (Annexure 2), no. 612, dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure 3) and no. 668 (9), dated 1.8.2000 (Annexure 4). According to the petitioners, these circulars make it plain and clear that the upward revision of reserve jama can be no more than 15%. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is pointed out that the basic circular on the subject was circular no. 2, dated 8.1.1982 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit). According to the petitioners, these circulars make it plain and clear that the upward revision of reserve jama can be no more than 15%. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is pointed out that the basic circular on the subject was circular no. 2, dated 8.1.1982 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit). This circular reads as follows: "Surachchit Jama Ka Nirdharan karne main Jalkaro Ke Vikas Ewam Machli Ki Barhti Hooi Keemat Ko Maddenazar Rakhte Hooe Surachchit Jama Teen Warsh Yaa Nirdharit Ki Jai Gi. Parantu Yeh Surachchit Jama Ki Rashi Kisi Bhi Halat Main Vegat Varsh Ki Surachchit Rashi Wa Bandobasti Ki Surachchit Rashi. Jo Bhi Adhik Ho. Se 15 (Pandrah) Partishat Adhik Ke Kam Nahin Ho Gi." (emphasis added) 10. On the basis of this circular, it is contended in the counter affidavit "that considering the hike in price of the fish the minimum enhancement of reserve jama will be atleast 15%. It is minimum and lowest limit fixed which will be raised during revision of reserve jama. No upper limit ceiling has been fixed for revision in reserve lama. (emphasis added) 11. If examined in isolation, it may be possible to read the circular, dated 8.1.1982 to mean that the upward revision of reserve jama must be atleast 15% of the reserve jamalsettlement amount for the previous years. But from the later circulars, the intention of the Government appears to be otherwise. In the circular, dated 18.9.1997 though there is a reference to the earlier circular of 8.1.1982, it is stated as follows: "Rajaswa Vibhagiya Paripatra Sankhya 2, Ra. Dated 8.1.82 Main Sarkar Ka Aspast Nidesh Hai Ki Surachchit Jama Teen Warshon Par Nirdharit Ki Jai Gi Jis Main Vigat Varsh Ki Surachchit Jama Rashi/Bandobasti Rashi Jo Bhe Adhik Go Oom Main 15% Partishat Ki Vridhi Ki Jai Gi." Again in the circular, dated 1.8.2002, it is stated as follows: "Surachchit Jama Rashi kaa Nirdharan Vibhagiye Paripatra Sankhya 612/Ra. Dated 18.9.97 ke Anusar Partyek Teen Varsh Par Kiya Jaan Hai Jis Main Vigat Varsh Ki Bandobasti Rashi/Surachchit Jama Jo Bhee Adhik Ho, Main 15 Partishat Ki Vridhi Kar Kul Rashi Ko Surachchit Jama Ke Roop Main Nirdharit Kiya Jaana Hai." 12. Thus, it appears that the intent of the Government is to standardise the revision by 15% of the previous reserve jamal settlement amount, whichever being higher. 13. Thus, it appears that the intent of the Government is to standardise the revision by 15% of the previous reserve jamal settlement amount, whichever being higher. 13. For the sake of argument, even if the contention of the respondent authorities is accepted that the circulars do not lay down any upper ceiling for revision of reserve jama, yet any revision must be on a reasonable and tangible basis. Simply because no upper limit is fixed in the Government circulars, would not give licence to the respondent authorities to make revision of reserve jamas of jalkars without any reasonable foundation and in an arbitrary manner. 14. The basis on which the revision of reserve jama was made in the case of the 2003 and 334 in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002) is stated in the respective counter affidavits filed in the two cases on behalf of the respondent authorities. 15. From the statements made in the counter affidavits, it appears that for fixing reserve jama the yield of fish per acre was taken as the basis. The yield per acre was then multiplied by Rs.30/per kg as the price of fish and the amount thus arrived at formed the basis for fixing the reserve jamas of the jalkars depending upon their respective acreage, it is, however, surprising to note that in the meeting held on 18.12.2001 for revising the reserve jamas of 20 jalkars, the yield of fish per acre of a jalkar was taken as 600 kgs. but, in the meeting held barely nine months later on 12.9.2002 for revising the reserve jama of 334 jalkars, the yield of fish per acre of a jalkar was taken to be just the double as 1200 kgs. 16. In para 14 of the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 415 of 2003, it is stated with regard to meeting held on 18.12.2001 as follows: "It is further submitted that the committee has calculated the reserve jama on the basis of the production of fishes at the rate of 600 K.G. per acre as adopted by the Fisheries Department." 17. On the other hand, in para 13 of the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002, it was stated with regard to the meeting, dated 12.9.2002 as follows: "13. On the other hand, in para 13 of the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002, it was stated with regard to the meeting, dated 12.9.2002 as follows: "13. That taking into consideration all the facts the committee made a full length discussion over the issue and came to conclusion that as the average production of fish is 1200 kg. per Acre and if the minimum cost of fish is assessed @ Rs. 30/-per kg. the yield of per Acre jalkar comes to 1200 x 30=36,000/- taking into consideration all the facts the committee decided to fix minimum reserve lama of ialkars @ Rs. 2000 per acre and accordingly fixed some principle unanimously in which it was resolved that reserve jama of jalkars having 0.50 Acres will be fixed @ Rs. 1500/-, 0.60 - 1.00 Acre will be Rs. 2000-2200 per upto 5.00 Acre @ 2000 per Acre more than 5.00 Acre @ 1500/- but minimum Rs. 10,000/- and so on as per Annexure-1 of the petition." The court finds it difficult to accept that within the short span of time of nine months, the yield of fish per acre would simply double without any development programme, etc. and the court is, therefore, constrained to interfere in this matter and to set aside the revised reserve jamas fixed for the jalkars in question (334 in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002 and 20 in CWJC No. 415 of 2003). 18 The matter is remitted to the District Reserve Jama Committee for re-fixation of the jalkars on the basis of the circulars and in the light of this order. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter, the petitioners are directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, along with a copy of this order within one month from today. The Dist. Magistrate shall convene a meeting of the District Level Reserve Jama Committee so as to re-determine the reserve jamas of the jalkars in question within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioners. Before finalising the reserve jamas the Dist. Reserve Jama Committee will also afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the revision of reserve jamas by the Dist. Before finalising the reserve jamas the Dist. Reserve Jama Committee will also afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the revision of reserve jamas by the Dist. Reserve Jama Committee, it will be open to them to prefer an appeal either before the Commissioner or before the Government depending upon the size of the jalkars. It is made clear that this order shall not in any way affect the settlement of the jalkars in question and the liability of the petitioners to make payment to the authorities shall abide by the reserve jamas of the jalkars in question as may be freshly determined as directed by this order. 19. With regard to the 11 jalkars, the Commissioner will similarly convene a meeting at the Commissioners Level Reserve Jama Committee so as to finally determine the reserve jamas within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 20. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed but with no order as to costs. 21. As requested by A.A.G.I. let a copy of this order be handed over to him.