IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7049 of 2016 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Jha S/o Sri Vishwanath Jha resident of Village Tirbitiua, P.S.- Tilath, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar, Bihar. 2. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani. 3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Madhubani. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Phulparas, District- Madhubani. 5. The Circle Officer, Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. 6. The Circle Inspector, Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. null null 7. Tha Halka Karamchari Rajeshwa Karamchari Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. 8. The Anchal Amin, Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. 9. Ram Ratan Mukhia, Son of late Punidhar Mukhia, Resident of Village- Enerwa , Police Station- Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kameshwar Prasad Gupta For the State : Mr.Archana Meenakshee, GP-06 Mr.Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP-06 Mr.Harish Kumar, AC to GP-06 Mr.Rohit Singh, AC to GP-6 Mr.Rana Veer Prawar, AC to GP-06 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 8 16-01-2025 Heard the parties. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was the settlee of the part land of the pond in question for the year 2014-15. The petitioner claims that the pond, which was settled to him in the year 2014-15, comprises some part of his raiyati land. Vide impugned order dated 08.03.2016 through memo no. 1891, the District Fisheries Officer has mentioned that any portion of raiyati land of the petitioner was not comprising in the pond in question. After finding him encroacher, an inquiry was directed to be conducted by four persons including the D.C.L.R. Patna High Court CWJC No.7049 of 2016(8) dt.16-01-2025 2/2 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that vide order passed in LPA No. 808 of 2008, the Collector was directed to take the decision but instead of Collector, District Fisheries Officer has passed the order. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the inquiry, in accordance with the order dated 19.08.2009 passed in LPA No. 808 of 2008, was conducted. On the basis of inquiry conducted by the Circle Officer, the D.C.L.R. and the S.D.O., a report was submitted to the Collector. On the basis of that report, the District Fisheries Officer has passed the impugned order. 5. During argument, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that after dispossessing the petitioner, the pond in question has been settled to the newly elected society. 6. It is an admitted fact that the pond in question has already been settled to the newly elected society, as such, this matter has become infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may raise his grievances before the appropriate authority. kundan/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U