Patna HC orders district-wide inquiry after fishing society allegedly continued operations despite ₹67.6 lakh dues and officials took no action

The petitioner, Secretary of Sahpur Block Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., challenged notices dated 2 March 2024 and 15 April 2024 issued by the District Fishery Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bhojpur, demanding ₹17,12,038 as the second instalment for settlement of 31 Jalkars, including “Suhiya Bhagar”.

The petitioner contended that the relevant Jalkar settlement was for the period 2023–2024 to 2026–2027, but that no Parwana had been issued for the subsequent period and therefore no fishing activity could lawfully be undertaken.

During the proceedings, the respondents asserted that the petitioner had failed to pay further instalments despite repeated demands and was continuously fishing in the settled Jalkars.

The Collector consequently demanded payment of total outstanding dues of approximately ₹67,62,981 within seven days.

The petitioner later stated that ₹16,22,750 had been deposited on 29 September 2025.

However, the allegations in the respondents’ counter-affidavit that the petitioner was continuing fishing activities without clearing the dues were not rebutted, although the counter-affidavit had been served on her counsel.

Whether the demand notices dated 2 March 2024 and 15 April 2024 for payment of the outstanding settlement amount were liable to be quashed on the ground that no Parwana had been issued for the subsequent period?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to avoid payment of the settled revenue by asserting that fishing activities had not been undertaken, when the respondents’ contrary allegation of continuous fishing remained unrebutted?

Whether the conduct of the district authorities in permitting continued fishing despite non-payment warranted an administrative enquiry and remedial action?

The Court applied the binding nature of the terms of a Jalkar settlement, under which the settled revenue becomes payable for the settlement period notwithstanding subsequent default by the settlement-holder.

The Court relied on the principle that a party cannot retain the benefit of a settlement and continue exploiting the Jalkars while refusing to pay the corresponding government revenue.

The Court considered State of Bihar v. Jhanjharpur Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., 2016 (4) PLJR 553, where proportionate refund was directed because administrative delay had left only 49 days of the settlement period for exploitation of the Jalkar.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that facts pleaded in a counter-affidavit and not specifically controverted may be treated as unrebutted.

The Court found that the settlement covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2027 and that the petitioner had not disputed this fact by replying to the departmental notices or filing an effective response to the counter-affidavit.

The petitioner’s technical objection regarding absence of Parwana was rejected because the respondents’ allegation that the society was continuously fishing in all the settled Jalkars remained unrebutted.

The Court also viewed the petitioner’s later deposit of ₹16,22,750 as inconsistent with the assertion that no fishing had taken place for want of Parwana.

Unlike the facts in Jhanjharpur, this was not a case where administrative delay substantially deprived the settlement-holder of the settlement period; rather, the petitioner allegedly continued to enjoy the settlement while withholding the government revenue.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner could not invoke the precedent to avoid payment.

At the same time, it criticised the authorities for failing to cancel the settlement or initiate appropriate recovery proceedings despite prolonged non-payment and continued fishing.

The Court declined to quash the demand notices and held that the petitioner could not avoid payment of the settled revenue on the ground that no Parwana had been issued, particularly when continuous fishing activity was alleged and remained unrebutted.

The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹5,000 as costs with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within one month, failing which the amount could be realised in accordance with law.

The Collector, Bhojpur, was directed to conduct an enquiry into similar Jalkar settlements involving non-payment, continued fishing, absence of any court stay, and failure by Fishery Officers to cancel the settlements, and to complete the process within three months and take remedial measures.