Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned J.C. to Government Pleader No. 15. 2. The petitioners seek a direction upon respondent no. 3, the District Fisheries Officer, Sitamarhi to issue order of settlement and Parwana up to 30.6.2011 and also to forbear from interfering in any manner with the operation of the Jalkars by the members of the Petitioner No. 1, Co-operative Society. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner no. 1, Choraut Prakhand Matsyajibi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited being a self-supporting co-operative society registered under the 1996 Act had been granted settlement of 48 Jalkars by respondent no. 3 by letter dated 19.5.2004 within the area of operation of petitioner no. 1 for a period of three years starting from 1.4.2004 and ending on 31.3.2007. The petitioners after complying with all the requirements of law were operating the said Jalkars. During the settlement period Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 was enacted and came in force from 4th May, 2006. Under the provisions of the Act, the settlement period with respect to fish Jalkars was fixed from 1st July of the year till 30th June of the next succeeding year. Provision was also made by Section 9(iv) of the Act (interestingly the said provision does not appear in the English Translation of the Act) that for a period of three months from 1st of April, 2006 to 30.06.2006, the settlement was to be extended on the basis of the old reserve deposit as per the previous settlement with respect to settlement which came to an end on 31st March, 2006. It was further provided by the said Section of the Act that settlements made earlier were not to be disturbed but the first new settlement was to be made for a period of five years and thereafter the other settlements at whatever time coming to an end were to be made to coincide with the end of the first settlement. The same was to be applied for cancellation of all settlement in which case also fresh settlement were to be made only for the remaining period of five years to the settlement with respect to the first settlement made. The same was to be applied for cancellation of all settlement in which case also fresh settlement were to be made only for the remaining period of five years to the settlement with respect to the first settlement made. It is thus evident from the scheme of the Act that the settlements were to be made block-wise with respect to all the Jalkars existing within the block and the distribution of the Jalkars was to be made in the first phase proportionate to their membership among ail the Fishermen Co-operative Societies registered under the Acts of 1935 or 1996 at the block level. Section 7(xii)(b) laid down the modality for the payment of reserve deposits: fifty per cent of the reserve deposits amount or Rs. 20,000.00, whichever is more, to be deposited within 21 days of the settlement and the second installment of the remaining amount to be deposited before 31st January of each year. It was also provided in the Act that the settlement up to annual reserve deposit of Rs. 5,000.00 was to be made by the District Fisheries Officer and above that amount up to Rs. 20,000.00 by the Deputy Director of the Range, above Rs. 20,000.00 up to Rs. 1 lac by the Director, Fisheries and above the said amount by the State Government itself. However, by the Amendment Act of 2007 the District Fisheries Officer has now been authorized to make settlement of Jalkars of annual reserve deposit up to Rs. 1 lac and similarly amounts with respect to other authorities have been enhanced. The Amendment Act had been notified on 19.4.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-2 which is the letter dated 12.8.2006 issued to the petitioners by the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Sitamarhi and Annexure-C to the counter affidavit which is another letter dated 9.10.2007 issued by the same Officer but to the Director, Fisheries, Bihar in relation to the present petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-2 which is the letter dated 12.8.2006 issued to the petitioners by the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Sitamarhi and Annexure-C to the counter affidavit which is another letter dated 9.10.2007 issued by the same Officer but to the Director, Fisheries, Bihar in relation to the present petitioners. On the basis of the said letters, it is sought to be argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that a fresh settlement has been sought to be made in the case of the petitioners by virtue of the said letters under the provisions of Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Act and thus the same ought to have been for a period of 5 years from the date of settlement, i.e., till 30.6.2011 and not till 30.6.2007 as has been sought to be done by the District Fisheries Officer. It is stated that the said letter provides for realization of the amount of reserve deposit for the quarter from first April, 2006 to 30.06.2006 and thereafter in two installments of 34,203.00 on the basis of the annual reserve deposit of Rs. 68,406.00 of the entire year. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have been directed to deposit various documents as required by the provisions of Section 10(i) and (ii)(Ka), (Kha) and (Ga) which thus shows that it was for a fresh settlement made under the Act. Similarly, various facts mentioned in Annexure-C on the same lines are sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners to show that it was not his old settlement for a period of three years till March, 2007 that was sought to be continued rather a fresh settlement has been made in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2006 for a period of 15 months commencing from 1.4.2006 till 30.6.2007. It is argued by learned counsel that since the procedure for fresh settlement is adhered to in the matter, therefore the authority making the settlement could not have curtailed the period of five years prescribed by the Act. 5. It is argued by learned counsel that since the procedure for fresh settlement is adhered to in the matter, therefore the authority making the settlement could not have curtailed the period of five years prescribed by the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the stand of learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the same Annexure-2 and Annexure-C. It is submitted by learned State counsel that the annual reserve deposit mentioned in the said letters refers to what was already settled with the petitioners during the prior settlement of three years from April 2004 to March 2007. It is submitted that the rest of the amounts are merely to ensure that the deposits are made in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the period of three months has been extended for the old settlement so that the fresh settlement can be made in terms of the provisions of the Act, from July 2007. 6. Learned counsel also refers in this regard to Annexure-8 which is a letter dated 10.4.2007 issued by the District Fisheries Officer to the petitioners in which it is clearly stated that the Parwana which had earlier been issued till 31.3.2007 for a period of three years will be extended for a period of three months till 30.6.2007. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that it is not a case of fresh settlement rather the previous settlement made with the petitioner has been honoured by the authorities and has been extended for a period of three months so that there is no gap between the previous settlement and the fresh settlement. Learned counsel in this regard also refers to Section 7(ii) of the Act to show that the District Fisheries Officer under the provisions of the Act as then existing was not even authorized to make a fresh settlement like the present one where the annual reserve deposit was of Rs. 68,406.00 and the settlement in that case at the relevant time could only have been made by the Director of Fisheries. It is thus submitted that from all points of view in this matter the District Fisheries Officer has merely extended the period of settlement and has not interfered with the same and has certainly not made a fresh settlement which he was not even authorized by the Act to do at the relevant time. 7. It is thus submitted that from all points of view in this matter the District Fisheries Officer has merely extended the period of settlement and has not interfered with the same and has certainly not made a fresh settlement which he was not even authorized by the Act to do at the relevant time. 7. It is lastly argued by learned counsel for the State that the petitioners themselves were fully aware of the said legal and factual position as is evident from the letter dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure-F) written by petitioner no. 2, the Chief Executive Officer of petitioner no. 1-Society to the District Fisheries Officer by which he had sought time of 15 days for postponing the settlement process in order to enable him to participate in the same since he was suffering from Typhoid and Malaria. It is submitted that only after the fresh settlement was made in terms of the provisions of the Act and out of total 51 Jalkars as many as 26 were settled with the petitioners-society and 25 with the other society operating in the block that the petitioners have taken the stand in order to corner the settlement for the entire Jalkars within the block. 8. On a consideration of the rival submissions by learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the State, all the correspondences on the record clearly go to show that the actions were taken to realize the amount due under the old settlement at the annual reserve deposit fixed under the old settlement for the period from 2004-07 from the petitioners and it is the Parwana issued for the said period that was extended by merely three months. The mere reference to the various provisions of the Act for the purpose of fixing the time within which the payments are to be made cannot make it a fresh settlement under the provisions of the Act. The mere reference to the various provisions of the Act for the purpose of fixing the time within which the payments are to be made cannot make it a fresh settlement under the provisions of the Act. Moreover, as rightly pointed out the District Fisheries Officer was not empowered to make settlement at the relevant time and even if he had made the settlement that would be illegal, void and non est in the eye of law since he was not statutorily empowered to make settlement of Jalkars where the annual reserve was to the extent of Rs. 68,406.00 and which at the relevant time even the Deputy Director of the Range could not have settled and only the Director had power to make such settlement at the relevant time. 9. Thus, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the present writ application and it is accordingly dismissed.