Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The present application is directed essentially against Annexure-13 being Communication No. 76 dated 15.5.2006 by the Deputy Collector, Nalanda whereby by orders of the Collector of the district, he has directed the District Fisheries Officer, Nalanda to suspend the thirty one fisheries jalkars, the settlement whereof were made with the petitioner. This apparently was at the instance of a complaint made by private respondent No. 5 and was got enquired into at Janta Darbar by the Collector who has passed the aforesaid order. Respondent No. 5 has suo motu appeared. The State has filed a counter affidavit and a reply thereto has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The short issue in the present case is whether after coming into force of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Settlement Act, 2006, the settlements made or settlements to be made in respect of the fish jalkars are totally governed by the said Act. All provisions in relation to grant of settlement, cancellation thereof are governed by statutory provisions therein. The jalkars in question stood transferred to the Fisheries Department almost two decades back and, therefore, the Collector had no authority to interfere in the matter. Having examined the. submissions, the only ground in justification to the action taken . as per Annexure-13 is that a complaint had been made before the Collector in the Janta Darbar ostensibly at the behest of private respondent No. 5 which he got enquired into and finding that more time ought to have been given to respondent No. 5 to clear the dues and get the accounts audited. On behalf of respondent No. 5 it is not disputed that at the time when settlements were to be made, the accounts of a Society had not been audited nor had he cleared dues, as such, was a defaulter. Recommendations had also been made to that effect. Merely because soon after settlement was made, he complied with law would not entitle him to get a settlement made in favour of the petitioner stayed and/or annulled and that too invoking the self assumed jurisdiction of the Collector. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the action taken by the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction. It is beyond the Act aforesaid and no other provision of law has been pointed out to justify such an unauthorised intuition by the Collector. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the action taken by the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction. It is beyond the Act aforesaid and no other provision of law has been pointed out to justify such an unauthorised intuition by the Collector. The person, may be Collector of the district, but that does not mean that he assumes jurisdiction in all and every matter. As pointed out above, settlement to fishery jalkar is a statutory function and governed by statute where Collector is a total foreigner. He could not have entertained any complaint or got it enquired into. At best, he could have forwarded the same to the appropriate competent authority as a Post Master and nothing beyond that. It is well settled principle of law that where a person has no authority or lacks the jurisdiction neither can he arrogate to himself any jurisdiction and/or authority nor by consent of parties, such jurisdiction can be conferred on him. 5. In the result, the order of the Collector, as communicated under the impugned memo, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and is quashed accordingly. Consequently, there is no question of giving any decision with regard to the competency of the order of the Divisional Commissioner rejecting the appeal which itself becomes infructuous in view of the order passed. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.