Remanded

Babulal Biswas v. the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2019WP(C)/798/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a fishery lessee alleging encroachment and illegal occupation, sought a writ for proportionate remission of fishery revenue. The Court dismissed the petition by remanding it to the Managing Director of the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation to reconsider the grievance and decide on revenue reduction within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition remanded to the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation, to consider the grievance and pass an order on proportionate reduction of fishery revenue within 30 days.

Babulal Biswas Vs the Assam Fisheries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010022322018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 798/2018

¶5

1:BABULAL BISWAS S/O SRI ADINATH BISWAS

¶6

R/O VILL- MALPUTA, P.O. MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON,ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT VIP ROAD,

¶9

CHACHAL, GUWAHATI -36.

¶10

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36.

¶11

3:THE BEEL INCHARGE

¶12

THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. NO. 147 MAANIPUR FISHERY MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM

¶13

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P N GOSWAMI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 07-06-2019

¶20

Heard Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd (AFDC) for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶21

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider grant of proportionate remission of fishery revenue in respect of No.147 Maanipur Fishery (Fishery) in the district of Morigaon.

¶22

Case of the petitioner is that following a tender process, petitioner was settled with the Fishery which is under the management of AFDC. In this connection, letter dated 21.11.2015 was issued by Managing Director, AFDC to the petitioner informing that his tender for settlement of the Fishery for the period from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021 at the yearly revenue of Rs.5,91,300.00 totaling Rs.41,37,300.00 was accepted by AFDC.

¶23

It is stated that after execution of agreement and payment of necessary deposits, possession of the Fishery was handed over to the petitioner.

¶24

Petitioner has alleged that certain portion of the Fishery is under illegal occupation of unauthorized occupants. Thus, there is encroachment hampering fishing rights of the petitioner. Petitioner wrote to the Managing Director of AFDC on 21.12.2015. Managing Director requested Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 25.01.2016 to conduct an enquiry.

¶25

Circle Officer, Morigaon Revenue Circle in his report dated 12.04.2016 has stated that an area of about 1 bigha of land of one Tukura Bordoloi and some land of Rabiram Pator and two others were included in the Fishery thereby creating an anomalous situation.

¶26

Managing Director, AFDC passed an order on 22.04.2016 proportionately reducing fishery revenue of that year. Instead of Rs.5,91,000.00, it was made Rs. 2,13,148.00. However, it was clarified that for the remaining 6 years, annual revenue would continue to be Rs.5,91,300.00.

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

Petitioner submitted representation dated 08.03.2017 before the Managing Director complaining illegal fishing by certain persons and also encroachment into the Fishery. Managing Director wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 19.12.2017 stating that some unscrupulous fishermen were indulging in illegal fishing in the Fishery. Besides, certain people living in the vicinity of the said Fishery had obstructed fishing by the lessee. Stating that even if the Fishery has intruded into patta land of anybody, such pattadars cannot obstruct fishing in the Fishery, Managing Director requested Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter and ensure that there is no illegal fishing or obstruction to legitimate fishing by the lessee from any quarter.

¶29

Since nothing has been done, present writ petition came to be filed.

¶30

This Court by order dated 16.02.2018 had issued notice with the observation that pendency of the writ petition would not be a bar for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶31

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, Court is of the view that matter may be remanded back to the authority of the Managing Director, AFDC who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding proportionate reduction in the fishery revenue of the Fishery and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Let such decision be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Babulal Biswas v. the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal Biswas v. the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 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

Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs Md. Kasim and 66 Ors.

Hemanta Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dimbeswar Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gulgulia Trade Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bani Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S. Parbati Enterprises Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.