ORDER Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 5.5.2011 passed by respondent no.2, i.e., the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Darbhanga, which has been communicated vide Memo No.78 dated 12.5.2011, as contained in Annexure-16, whereby settlement of five jalkars, which stand described in Memo No. 326 dated 28.9.2008 as contained in Annexure-2, in favour of the petitioners’ society has been cancelled and the direction has been given for fresh settlement of the concerned jalkars. 2. Shorn of details, facts of this case that would be necessary for consideration of this writ application are noted as under. The office of the District Engineer of Zila Parishad had published a notice as contained in Annexure-1 for settlement of shairats of the Zila Parishad, Darbhanga for the year 2008-09 on the terms and conditions described therein. Petitioners claim that since society of respondent no.5 was declared defaulter, the respondent no.5 could not have participated in the process of settlement. Five jalkars were settled vide Annexure-2 in favour of the petitioners’ society initially for the year 2008-09 but subsequently it was extended for five years, i.e., from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2013. In view of the aforesaid decision for settlement of five jalkars, an agreement was also executed by the petitioners as well as the concerned District Engineer who have put their signatures and the same was sent to the District Registration Officer on the same date for registration vide Annexure-6 and Annexure-7. However, it appears that some dispute arose with regard to the issue of reserve jama as the jalkar was settled on the basis of reserve jama of Rs.1,23,808/- per annum. On 13.06.2009, the respondent no.2, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Darbhanga wrote a letter dated 13.06.2009 to the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Darbhanga to cancel the settlement made in favour of the petitioners and take step for fresh settlement of the concerned jalkars (Annexure-8) as the dispute had arisen in view of the fact that the reserve jama for the year 2007-08 for the concerned settlement of the jalkars was Rs.2,70,000/- but, subsequently, for the purpose of settlement for the year 2008-09 of five jalkars the amount of reserve jama had been reduced to Rs.1,23.808/- only. Such issue has been raised by respondent no.2 on earlier occasion by writing letter dated 30.04.2009 as contained in Annexure-9. Such issue has been raised by respondent no.2 on earlier occasion by writing letter dated 30.04.2009 as contained in Annexure-9. Thereafter, the order dated 13.06.2009 as contained in Annexure-8 was passed by respondent no.2, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Darbhanga. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9415 of 2009 and in that writ application the respondent no.5, Shiya Ram Mukhiya had filed I.A. No.5040 of 2009 for his impleadment as a party-respondent which was allowed. However, taking in view the fact that the principle of natural justice had been violated while passing the impugned order dated 13.06.2009 (Annexure-8) as the same was passed without issuing any notice or granting opportunity to show cause to the settlee, the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Darbhanga with a direction to examine the entire matter afresh after hearing the parties and pass fresh orders. However, a direction was given that, in the meantime, the possession of the petitioners’ society should not be disturbed. The learned Single Judge has also observed that it is not in dispute that the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 would not be applicable for the settlement of jalkars which are not governed by the Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources Department which is the case of the petitioners as the same is being done by the concerned Zila Parished in the present case. However, it was observed that if the Board wishes to adopt the provisions of Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 for the purpose of smooth running of settlement process, it would be at liberty to do so. The relevant passage from the aforesaid decision dated 11.08.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9415 of 2009 are reproduced as under:– “x x x x x In view of the discussions made above, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure 8 and 12 are quashed as they violates the principles of natural justice. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Darbhanga would be at liberty to examine the entire matter afresh after hearing the parties and pass fresh orders. However, in the mean time, the possession of the petitioner society should not be disturbed. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Darbhanga would be at liberty to examine the entire matter afresh after hearing the parties and pass fresh orders. However, in the mean time, the possession of the petitioner society should not be disturbed. I may also point out that there is no dispute with respect to the facts that the 2006 Act would not be applicable for the settlement of jalkars which are not governed by the Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources Department, however, any water body which is being settled by the State Government may, for the purposes of smooth running of the settlement process, adopt the provisions of the 2006 Act. If the District Board wishes to adopt the provisions of the 2006 Act because there is no circular or instructions of the State Government governing the field, it would be at liberty to do so. This writ application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.” 3. Thereafter, the matter was again heard by respondent no.2 and after consideration of the issues raised by the parties the impugned order dated 5.5.2011 as contained in Annexure-16 has been passed. 4. I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it would be clear from the letter of respondent no.2 that the dispute was only with respect to revenue as the reserve jama for the settlement of the concerned period has been fixed as Rs.1,23,808, whereas for the previous year the same was Rs.2,70,000-00/-. Thus, it was not open for respondent no.2 to consider issues other than the issue of revenue . As such, it is contended that the order is bad as the other issues, for example, issues regarding application of Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 and of extension of the settlement period as well as other questions have been considered while passing the impugned order. learned counsel further submitted that initially the period of settlement was only for one year, i.e., from 2008-09 but the same was later on extended for five years and there was nothing wrong in it as reserve jama for the entire period has been deposited and other conditions have also been fulfilled by the petitioners. learned counsel further submitted that initially the period of settlement was only for one year, i.e., from 2008-09 but the same was later on extended for five years and there was nothing wrong in it as reserve jama for the entire period has been deposited and other conditions have also been fulfilled by the petitioners. So far the applicability of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 is concerned, it has been submitted that the same would be applicable in case of the Zila Parishad also in view of the latter no.2788 dated 28.04.1982 of the Government written by the Director, Panchayati Raj-cum-Additional Secretary in favour of all the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer that the Government has decided that, for the purpose of Ghats and other shairats, the Zila Parishad would follow the policy of the Revenue Department and, thus, it is submitted that the Zila Parishad following the aforesaid issue and direction has adopted the procedure as laid down under Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006. So far issue of reserve jama is concerned, it is submitted that there has been enormous increase in the amount of reserve jama which has been declared for the year 2007-08. There was a sudden jump from the previous year which would be clear from the letter dated 05.05.2009 of District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Darbhanga that reserve jama as declared for the year 2006-07 was only Rs.9,425/- and for the year 2007-08 the same was enhanced to Rs.2,70,000/-. However, since the amount was quite at the higher side, the revenue could not be realized and the concerned Society has become a defaulter. A proceeding in accordance with law has already been initiated for realization of revenue. Thus, in view of the fact that such fixation of reserve jama was not viable, that was reduced to Rs.1,23,808/-. Learned counsel has submitted that as per Annexures- 19, 20 and 21, there cannot be enhancement of reserve jama more than 15%. However, for the year 2007-08, it was arbitrarily enhanced but the same could not be realized, thus it was lowered down to Rs. 1,23,808/-. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Bakerganj Machhua Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. However, for the year 2007-08, it was arbitrarily enhanced but the same could not be realized, thus it was lowered down to Rs. 1,23,808/-. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Bakerganj Machhua Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. { 2003(3) PLJR 440 }, wherein it has been held by a Single Bench of this Court that the huge upward revision of reserve jama would be arbitrary and the enhancement should be to standardized by allowing maximum increase of 15% of the previous reserve jama/settlement amount. It has been held that even if 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. Learned counsel has also pointed out that since admittedly respondent no.5 was defaulter at the time of settlement, if he has subsequently attained eligibility, that cannot be a ground for cancellation of settlement as he could not have participated in the settlement process. Thus, he can not have any locus to raise such issue before the concerned authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Katra Anchal Matsyajivi Swablambi Samiti Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar and others {2004(2) BLJ 65} as well as Bihia Shahpur Thana Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. { 2001(4) PLJR 21 }. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon a decision of this court in Dukhan Sahni Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. {2009(4)PLJR 342} to impress upon this Court that once settled, the settlement cannot be cancelled unless there is violation of the terms and conditions of the contract. Lastly, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Rishikesh Kashyap & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. { 2005(2) PLJR 438 } rendered by a Single Bench holding that, even if the settlement is found to be illegal or irregular, equity demands that the petitioners be allowed to continue till the end of settlement period. 5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. { 2005(2) PLJR 438 } rendered by a Single Bench holding that, even if the settlement is found to be illegal or irregular, equity demands that the petitioners be allowed to continue till the end of settlement period. 5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that it has already been held by this Court while passing the order dated 11.08.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9415 of 2009 that the provision of Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 undisputedly would not be applicable in the case of settlement made by the District Board. However, if the District Board wishes to adopt the provisions it would be at liberty to do so. It has been submitted that there has not been any decision either by Panchayti Raj Department or by the Board for adopting such procedures laid down in the aforesaid Act and liberty granted by the learned Single Judge regarding adoption of the procedures laid under the aforesaid Act was for doing so in future. So far the present settlement is concerned, there has been no adoption of such procedure. Therefore, the settlement in terms of the aforesaid Act was patently illegal. Another issue has been raised by learned counsel that once there was notice for settlement for the period 2008-09 only, there was no occasion for enhancing the period for five years as the authorities were not entitled to do so contrary to the notice published for such purpose as contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Lochan Jha, Vs. State of Bihar and others {A.I.R. 1982 Patna 119}. It has been contended the Division Bench has held that the State Government had no power to order settlement for three years, where initially the advertisement was for settlement for only one year. 6. On consideration of rival submission, in the opinion of this Court, the following issues emerge out for determination:– (i) Whether the settlement in terms of the provisions as contained in Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 was valid? (ii) Whether the settlement made in favour of the petitioners for the period of five years which is admittedly contrary to the period announced in the notice of settlement as contained in Anenxure-1 is justifiable? (ii) Whether the settlement made in favour of the petitioners for the period of five years which is admittedly contrary to the period announced in the notice of settlement as contained in Anenxure-1 is justifiable? (iii) Whether it was open for respondent no.2 to examine other issues regarding the settlement other than the issue of revenue, i.e., reduction of reserve jama amount? 7. (i) So far this issue is concerned in the earlier proceeding in C.W. J.C. No.9415 of 2009, the learned Single Judge has already made observation that it is not in dispute that provision of the aforesaid Act would not be applicable for the purpose of settlement of the jalkars in issue by the Board. Even if it is assumed that respondent no.2 should have adopted the procedures laid down by the Department of Revenue in view of Annexures- 19 and 20 even then, in the opinion of this Court, the provisions as contained in Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 would not be applicable in case of such jalkars also that are being settled by the revenue authorities inasmuch as it has been clearly stated in the statute itself that the same has been provided only for settlement of jalkars relating to the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. Thus, the same cannot be held to be applicable in the case of the settlement of the shairat by the Revenue Authorities. So far observation of learned Single Judge, that even the Zila Parishad would be at liberty to adopt the provision laid down in Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006, is concerned, definitely liberty for such consideration for future settlement has been given. That apart, no such decision having been taken either by Panchayti Raj Directorate or the Zila Parishad could be shown by the petitioners that was prevalent at the time of settlement. In above view of the matter, it is held that the settlement concerned could not have been made under the provisions of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006. 8. (ii) So far this issue is concerned, from the notice of settlement as contained in Annexure-1 it is apparent that the proposed settlement was only for the year 2008-09. In above view of the matter, it is held that the settlement concerned could not have been made under the provisions of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006. 8. (ii) So far this issue is concerned, from the notice of settlement as contained in Annexure-1 it is apparent that the proposed settlement was only for the year 2008-09. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from any document or even any decision of the authority which has been made known to everybody that the period of settlement has been enhanced for the period of five years. A Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Lochan (supra) has clearly laid down that once the settlement has been advertised for one year, the State authorities were not empowered to enhance that period as the authorities are bound by their own Circular or instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any such decisions or circular or instruction empowering the Zila Parishad to enhance the period of settlement from that which has been described in the notice advertising settlement. In the above view of the matter and the facts and the circumstances of this case, there would be no difficulty for this Court to follow the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Shiv Lochan (supra). Accordingly, it is held that enhancement of period of settlement by Annexure-2 and communication of such agreement as contained in Annexure-6 cannot be held to be legal and valid. 9. (iii) So far as the third issue is concerned, I do no find any force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no.2 should have confined itself only to the issue of revenue or reserve jama as it is clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.9415 of 2009 that the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Darbhanga, to examine the entire matter afresh. That was open remand. Thus, it is held that no illegality has been committed by the Respondent no.2 in examining other issues than the issue of reserve jama while passing the impugned order. 10. That was open remand. Thus, it is held that no illegality has been committed by the Respondent no.2 in examining other issues than the issue of reserve jama while passing the impugned order. 10. So far ancillary issue raised by the petitioners, for example, sudden and arbitrarily enhancement of reserve jama by the authorities for the previous year, i.e., 2007-08, is concerned, that would not be of much relevance for the present as for the reasons as stated above this writ petition fails. However, the enhancement of reserve jama of Rs.2,70,000/- was for the period 2007-08 and that had not been challenged by anybody and the settlement had already made. I have been informed by the parties that legal proceedings have already been initiated for realization of revenue from the defaulter party. Petitioners’ contention that the settlement made can only be cancelled for violation of terms and conditions of the agreement and not on other grounds, would also not be tenable in view of the facts and circumstances of this case as the matter was remanded in the earlier proceeding for fresh consideration of entire issues involved and I have already held that the settlement itself was invalid for two reasons:– (i) For having been made under the provision of Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 which was not applicable in the case of settlement by the Zila Parishad (ii) and since there has been settlement of five years contrary to the period specified in the notice/advertisement which admittedly was only for one year. The aforesaid lacunae have struck right at the root of the settlement. 11. By way of last effort, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised issue of locus of respondent no.5 for challenging the settlement of the petitioners. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Katra Anchal (supra) and has urged that in view of the admitted fact that at the time of proceeding of settlement respondent no.5 was a defaulter and, thus he could not have got the settlement. In above view of the matter he was not eligible to challenge the settlement as no settlement could have been made in his favour. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in Bihia Shahpur (supra) holding that the disqualified person cannot challenge the settlement in favour of any person by filing a writ application. In above view of the matter he was not eligible to challenge the settlement as no settlement could have been made in his favour. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in Bihia Shahpur (supra) holding that the disqualified person cannot challenge the settlement in favour of any person by filing a writ application. However, the aforesaid submission is also noted only to be rejected inasmuch as in view of the fact that the issue of illegality of settlement has been raised by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad himself vide letter dated 30.04.2009 as contained in Annexure-9 and after cancellation of the settlement communicated vide letter dated 13.06.2009, as contained in Annexure-8, it was the petitioners who had challenged the order of cancellation by approaching this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9415 of 2009. In the aforesaid case, the respondent no.5 had filed I.A. No. I.A. No.5040 of 2009 for his impleadment as respondent which was allowed by this Court and he was added as respondent no.5 which would be apparent from the order dated 11.08.2009. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded after setting aside the order as contained in Annexure-8. Learned Single Judge had directed respondent no.2 to enquire the matter afresh and after hearing the parties pass fresh orders. In my opinion no error has been committed by respondent no.2 in hearing him also as this Court has already allowed him to be added as a party to the lis. That apart, the aforesaid decisions rendered in Katra Anchal (supra) and Bihia Shahpur (supra) would not be applicable in this case as respondent no.5 has not approached this Court for cancellation of settlement of the jalkars which was done in favour of the petitioners rather the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order of cancellation. 12. The petitioners even cannot take shelter under the decision in Rishikesh Kashyap (supra) raising the issue of equity, as after remand, his settlement has already been cancelled by the concerned authority and this Court has not found any error in the impugned order. 12. The petitioners even cannot take shelter under the decision in Rishikesh Kashyap (supra) raising the issue of equity, as after remand, his settlement has already been cancelled by the concerned authority and this Court has not found any error in the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings I do not deem it proper to allow the petitioners to continue further as the settlee when the settlement itself has found to be illegal and had already been set aside and direction has been given by respondent no.2 for taking steps for fresh settlement. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.