Disposed

M/S. Saikhowa Sadiya Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Sept 2019WP(C)/6448/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner claimed encroachment on their fishery lease by an Anchalik Panchayat's notice inviting bids. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to examine the possession and protect the petitioner's interest if encroachment is found.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to examine the matter and protect petitioner's possession if encroachment is found.

M/S. Saikhowa Sadiya Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010205372019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6448/2019

¶5

1:M/S. SAIKHOWA SADIYA MIN SAMABAI SAMITI LTD.

¶6

A REGD FISHERY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT HATIGHULI, DHOLA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI MAINA BISWAS, S/O- LATA MALADHAR BISWAS, R/O- VILLHATIGHULI, P.O- SAIKHOWAGHAT, P.S- DHOLLA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT DISPUR

¶12

GUWAHATI- 781006

¶13

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶14

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶15

5:THE MURKONGCHELEK ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUKONGCHELEK ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT JONAI

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶18

6:PRESIDENT MURKONGCHELEK ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT JONAI DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶19

7:BIJAY NARAH S/O- SRI JATIN NARAH MOUZA- JONAI VILL- LAKHAJAN P.O- CHAMKANG DIST- DHEMAJI ASSA

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K R CHOUDHURY

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶23

ORDER

¶24

06.09.2019

¶25

Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 6.

¶26

The writ petitioner herein claims to be the sitting lessee in respect of Brahmaputra Part-III, IV and V Fishery, which were settled with the petitioner by the order dated 24.02.2017, for a period of seven years with effect from 22.11.2013. The order of settlement lays down the boundary of the fishery and

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

according to the petitioner it is operating the lease within the said boundary. The grievance expressed in this writ petition relates to the NIT issued by the Executive Officer of the Murkongchelek Anchalik Panchayat, Jonai on 16.07.2019 inviting bids for settling the Lali Nadi Fishery of Chamkang Gaon Panchayat under Murkongchelek Anchalik Panchayat, for the period from 17.07.2019 to 30.06.2020.

¶29

By referring to the aforesaid NIT, Mr. Roychoudhury submits that the Anchalik Panchayat does not have any authority to settle a 60% fisher under the law. However, the basic grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that in the garb of aforesaid NIT, the Anchalik Panchayat is seeking to settle a part of the fishery under the possession of the petitioner by taking advantage of the overlapping boundaries between the two fisheries. On such ground a prayer has been made to protect the interest of the petitioner in the matter.

¶30

Mr. Nath, learned departmental counsel, submits that a dispute regarding boundary of the adjacent fisheries cannot be settled in a writ petition and therefore, the district administration be directed to look into the matter. The said submission of the learned departmental counsel is supported by the learned Government Advocate, Assam.

¶31

In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.3 to examine the matter and if it is found that any portion of the fishery under the occupation of the petitioner based on the Possession Certificate dated 17.01.2017 is sought to be encroached upon, then in that event, necessary steps for protecting the possession of the writ petition be

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

initiated. In doing so, the respondent No.4 may extend necessary cooperation.

¶34

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Saikhowa Sadiya Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Saikhowa Sadiya Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achyut Krishna Das and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 12 Ors.

Sakuntala Kalita Vs the United Bank of India

Kukil Das Vs the State of Assam and 17 Ors.

Sukleswar Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dibrugarh Fishery Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sanjib Kr. Ray Vs the State of Assam