Allowed

Dehing Satra , Dehing Than Gaon Dibrugarh v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Nov 2018WP(C)/4418/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order prohibiting the petitioner's attorney from collecting revenue for fishing activities on Satra land. The High Court quashed the restriction, holding that revenue generation from Satra land should not be obstructed by a nearby fishery lessee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.05.2013 prohibiting formation of challans for catching fish on Satra land set aside and quashed.

Dehing Satra , Dehing Than Gaon Dibrugarh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010009362013

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4418/2013

¶5

1:DEHING SATRA , DEHING THAN GAON DIBRUGARH

¶6

REP. BY - SRI DHARMAKANTA BHUYAN CONSTITUTED ATTORNERY OF SRI MADHAB CHANDRA GOSWAMI, SATRADHIKAR OF DEHING SATRA, S/O LT. TULSIRAM BHUYAN R/O DEHINGTHAN GAON, P P.O. ITAKHULI P.S. BARBARUAH DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP.B Y THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH DISTRICT DIBRUGARH.

¶11

3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE DIBRUGARH.

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIBRUGARH.

¶13

5:M/S DEHING PART-I FISHERY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. REP. BY THIER SECRETARY SHRI BIPIN HAZARIK

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.C SARMA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.D K DAS

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 09-11-2018

¶20

Heard Ms M Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P S Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, appearing for respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr A Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶21

None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5 though served. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 5 has also not filed any affidavit.

¶22

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 13.05.2013, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dibrugarh, prohibiting Sri Dharmakanta Bhuyan, constituted attorney of the Satradhikar of Dihing Satra, Dibrugarh from issuing any challan for catching fish though there was no prohibition from collecting rent from the rayots in terms of rayoti khatian as authorized by the Satradhikar.

¶23

It appears that the aforesaid order was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dibrugarh on a complaint lodged by respondent No. 5 alleging illegal fishing and collection of revenue by representatives of the constituted attorney of the Satradhikar within the area of operation of Dihing Part-I Fishery in the district of Dibrugarh.

¶24

Contention of the petitioner is that the water bodies in question are all situated on land belonging to the Dihing Satra of which the present Satradhikar is Sri Madhab Chandra Goswami, who has authorized Sri Dharmakanta Bhuyan as his constituted attorney to collect revenue from within the area comprising the Satra’s land. Accordingly, constituted attorney through his representatives have been collecting revenue to the extent of 10% of the sale proceeds of fish extracted from the water bodies within the Satra land augmenting the revenue of the Satra. It is asserted that such water bodies are not part of Dihing Part-I Fishery of which respondent No. 5 was the lessee at the relevant point of time. Therefore, respondent No. 5 cannot have any objection to the legitimate realization of revenue by the petitioner from commercial activities carried out in such Satra land. This aspect of the matter was completely overlooked by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dibrugarh while issuing the impugned order.

¶25

This Court by order dated 07.08.2013 had issued notice and directed maintenance of status quo as on that date.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dibrugarh has filed affidavit justifying the impugned order dated 13.05.2013. It is stated that possession of Dihing Part-I Fishery was handed over to the lessee on 07.11.2012 with the boundary demarcated as under:-

¶28

North : E & D Dyke South : E & D Dyke East : Joon Gaon West : Brahmaputra River.

¶29

7.1. It is stated that the dispute between the lessee and the constituted attorney of the Satradhikar is regarding collection of share of revenue from the fish caught in the low lying areas between the old and new dykes.

¶30

Though this case is pending since 07.08.2013 for more than 5 years, respondent No. 5 has not deemed it appropriate to file affidavit. Therefore, averments made in the writ petition vis-à-vis respondent No. 5 have remained uncontroverted and accordingly treated as admitted.

¶31

It is in the public domain that valuable land belonging to the Satras are facing encroachment throughout the State. Satra land is valuable property having significant relevance and importance in the socio-cultural and religious history of the State. That apart, many of the Satras are facing acute financial hardship because of lack of government funds. In such circumstances, the Satras have to take steps and devise strategy for generating their own revenue at least for day-to-day survival. Therefore, if some revenue is sought to be generated from collection of fish from water bodies which are situated within the Satra land, the same should not be obstructed, that too, at the mere objection of a commercial lessee of a nearby fishery.

¶32

Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, Court is of the view that impugned order dated 13.05.2013 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and quashed.

¶33

Writ petition is allowed, but without any order as to cost(s).

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Dehing Satra , Dehing Than Gaon Dibrugarh v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dehing Satra , Dehing Than Gaon Dibrugarh v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhiraj Sankar Sarmah Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Abdul Kalam Laskar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdus Sattar Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

M/S. Sehee Donyi Enterprise Vs Food Corporation of India Fci and 4 Ors.

M/S Raitani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Smti. Shanti Bhuyan Barman Vs the Chairman Assam Board of Revenue and Ors.