Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued for settlement of public Jalkars absent an enforceable statutory right.

The petitioner, representing a society of 15 refugee fisherman families (Lal Saraiya Fishermen Refugees Co-operative Society) settled from East Pakistan in 1956, sought preferential settlement of the "Karmawa Man Jalkar".

While the families historically held the Jalkar without rent, the State later imposed a "reserved jama" (rent) from 1985 onwards.

In 2010, following the amendment of Section 11-B of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1933, the State mandated that all block-level fisheries societies merge into a single entity.

The Department subsequently began settling the Jalkar with the "Majhaulia Prakhand Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd." (Respondent Nos. 8 9) under the Bihar Fish Jalkar Water Management Act, 2006.

The petitioner challenged this, claiming a legitimate expectation based on their status as refugees and their 50-year history of fishing the Jalkar.

1. Whether the petitioner possesses an enforceable legal right to demand the settlement of the Jalkar in their favor based on historic refugee status and past executive communications.

2. Whether an expired contractual settlement creates a vested right for renewal or fresh settlement.

3. Whether the State’s decision to settle the Jalkar with a block-level cooperative society instead of the refugee society was arbitrary or contrary to law.

A writ of mandamus requires a subsisting legal right and a corresponding statutory duty, as established in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra.

Lease renewal is a fresh grant and not a vested right unless provided by statute, as held in State of U.P. v. Lalji Tandon.

The distribution of State property (largesse) must be fair, equitable, and governed by transparent policies under Article 14, as emphasized in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules or create enforceable rights, as established in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim rested solely on executive communications from 1995 and 2001 and a 1956 settlement, none of which create a perpetual or statutory right to the Jalkar.

The court noted that any settlement granted in 2008 had expired by "efflux of time," meaning the petitioner had no legal basis to demand a renewal.

The court observed that statutory changes in 2010 (Section 11-B of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act) reorganized societies into single block-level entities, effectively making the petitioner's specific refugee society ineligible for exclusive settlement over the block-level society.

Since the Jalkar is government property, its settlement must strictly follow the Bihar Fish Jalkar Water Management Act and Article 14; the court cannot direct allotment to a specific group based on historical preference when it contradicts current statutory frameworks.

The court dismissed the writ application, affirming that the Department’s actions in settling the Jalkar with the block-level society (Respondent No. 8) were in accordance with the law.