Disposed

Sukumar Sarkar v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Feb 2024WP(C)/7347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court discharged its jurisdiction to direct the District Commissioner and Circle Officer to demarcate the Garalu Meen Mahal within two months and handle encroachment issues, based on the petitioner's claim of settlement there.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Commissioner and Circle Officer to demarcate Garalu Meen Mahal within 2 months and look into encroachment issues thereafter.

Sukumar Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010286032023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7347/2023

¶5

SUKUMAR SARKAR S/O KANDHULAL SARKAR VILL- NO. 1 BORPATHAR P.O. TAPTOLA P.S. BHURAGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN-782121

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶8

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶9

ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. CHACHAL VIP ROAD

¶10

GUWAHATI PIN-781036

¶11

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

¶12

MORIGAON P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105

¶13

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

¶14

BHURAGAON REVENUE CIRCLE

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

P.O. AND P.S. BHURAGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78212

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

07.02.2024

¶22

Heard Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4.

¶23

The petitioner’s case is that he was settled with the Garalu Meen Mahal under Morigaon District for 7 years w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2029, pursuant to NIT dated 03.06.2022. The petitioner made various representations to the authorities claiming that there were encroachments in the said Meen Mahal, for which he was not able to operate the fishery properly. Further, the respondents were requested to demarcate the Garalu Meen Mahal which has not been done till date. He accordingly prays for a direction to be issued to the respondent nos.3 & 4 to demarcate the Garalu Meen Mahal and evict any encroachers residing within the said area.

¶24

The learned counsels for the respondents submit that they do not have

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

any objection with regard to demarcation of the Garalu Meen Mahal. However, the question of encroachment will have to be examined and a decision taken separately by the authority concerned.

¶27

On considering the prayer made by the petitioner and keeping in view the submission made by the counsels for the respondents, the respondent nos.3 & 4 are directed to demarcate Garalu Meen Mahal under Morigaon District within a period of 2 (two) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent nos.3 & 4 shall also look into the issue of encroachment in the demarcated Garalu Meen Mahal and take appropriate decisions thereafter.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Sukumar Sarkar v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar Sarkar v. the State of Assam 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

Smt. Billo Bezgiri Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Naveen Oil Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Musharaf Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Navneet Sharma Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gopi Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Biren Chandra Baishya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.