ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing ‘Parwana’ issued vide Letter no.481 dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) under the signature of the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro, whereby the Raiyati water tank of the petitioner, pertaining to Khata No. 95, Plot Nos.877 and 878, area 1.79 acres, situated at village Bansgarhi, has been settled in favour of respondent no.7-Basudeo Baski. 2. The factual background of the case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, is that earlier also the State authorities had tried to settle the said water tank of the petitioner for the purpose of fisheries which was challenged by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in a suit being Title Suit No.27/1980, however, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in the said Title Suit, an appeal being Title Appeal No.21/1990 was preferred, which was decreed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner vide judgment dated 12.02.1996 declaring the right, title and interest over the said Tank. Against the judgment passed in the said title appeal, the State authorities did not prefer any second appeal before the High Court and, thus, the same attained finality. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘Parwana’ has been issued in favour of the respondent no.7 for settlement of the said water tank for the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Against the said settlement, the petitioner made representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, however, no heed was paid. It is further submitted that on the basis of inspection report of Halka Karamchari, a report was sent by the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari on 23.02.2016 to the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Office, Chas, in which it was specifically mentioned that the rent receipt of the said water tank has been issued till the year 2002-03 in favour of petitioner. It was also reported inter alia that the learned Additional District Judge, Bokaro has passed a judgment in Title Appeal No.21 of 1990 in favour of the petitioner with respect to his raiyati right over the said water tank. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the action of the respondent authorities has put the petitioner to enormous harassment and mental agony and also huge financial loss and he has been made to suffer by not allowing him to use his water tank for irrigation purpose. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the action of the respondent authorities has put the petitioner to enormous harassment and mental agony and also huge financial loss and he has been made to suffer by not allowing him to use his water tank for irrigation purpose. It is further submitted that the respondent-State has itself accepted the petitioner’s raiyati right over the said water tank, which is evident from the report of the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari that till 2002-03 rent receipt has been issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. However, despite of the said fact, the same has been put to auction in connivance of the respondent authorities arbitrarily, defeating the raiyati right of the petitioner over the said water tank. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the said water tank is recorded in the Khatiyan as Gairabad Malik which has vested in the State after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is further submitted that the said water tank is registered in Sairat Panji and as per the Circular of the State Government, the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari (the respondent no.6) transferred the said water tank to the District Fisheries Officer, Bokaro on 22.04.1993 and the same is accordingly auctioned by the District fisheries Officer, Bokaro for rearing of fishes to different persons including the respondent no.7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not filed the copy of return to establish that ex-landlord confirmed the settlement by filing return. The said property being a water tank has vested to the State of Bihar by fiction of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said water tank is a raiyati tank of the petitioner and the right, title and interest over the said tank has been confirmed in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1990 which has attained its finality as the same has not been challenged in any higher Court. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said water tank is situated over a land recorded as Gairabad Malik. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said water tank is situated over a land recorded as Gairabad Malik. However, the respondents have not disputed the judgment dated 12.2.1996 passed in Title Appeal No.21 of 1990, confirming the raiyati right of the petitioner over the said water tank. The petitioner has brought on record a report dated 23.12.2016 submitted by the Circle Officer, Chandankiayari (respondent no.6) to the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro (respondent no.3) wherein it has been admitted that the rent receipt has been issued for the said tank in favour of Mohan Manjari Devya and Viranchi Lal Singh Deo till 2002-03. It has further been reported by the respondent no.6 that in Title Appeal No.21 of 1990, a judgment has been passed in favour of the petitioner, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bokaro rejected the claim of the State-respondent that the said water tank had vested in the State after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. It is not the case of the respondents that they had filed any appeal against the judgment dated 12.02.1996 passed in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1990. Thus, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that said judgment has attained its finality. 7. Once an order has been passed by a competent Civil Court holding the raiyati interest of the petitioner over the said land (water tank), merely due to the fact that the said tank is recorded as Gairabad Malik, does not ipso facto confers right upon the respondent to settle the same to any other person depriving the petitioner from enjoying the raiyati right. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstance of the case, the ‘Parwana’ issued vide Letter no.481 dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) under the signature of the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro is hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.