B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is the Annexure-K order dated 14.12.2009, by which the fishery namely Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal was settled with the Respondent No. 6 pursuant to the Annexure-J Re-sale notice dated 14.7.2009. The Re-sale notice and the settlement order both had been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji Division, Dhemaji.

2. The Petitioner is the settlement holder of No. 7 Bhati Subansiri Meen Mahal Fishery under North Lakhimpur Sub-division, which was settled with him by Annexure-B order dated 2.2.2009. Such settlement is for a period of 7 years with effect from the date of delivery of possession of the fishery. The settlement was made in favour of the Petitioner pursuant to the sale notice dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure-A) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur. According to the Petitioner after handing over of the fishery to him, he made Annexure-H representation dated 10.8.2009 to the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary, Fishery Department for demarcation of the boundary of the fishery. According to him, although he was settled with the fishery covering 75 KM, but in fact he got possession of 13.5 KM only.

3. It has been stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner had occasion to lodge Annexure-I series complaints when the Petitioner found some unknown person led by the Respondent No. 6 caused interference in operating the fishery by the Petitioner by threatening its members. When an enquiry was made, it was found that the Respondent No. 6 was settled with the Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal by the aforesaid impugned Annexure-K order of settlement dated 14.12.2009, which was preceded by Annexure-J Re-sale notice dated 14.7.2009. Both issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji Division, Dhemaji.

4. Referring to the provisions of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 and Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahal Rules, 1977 in reference to the provisions of Assam Land Revenue Regulations 1886, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the particular fishery could not have been settled with the Respondent No. 6 and that such settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 6 by the Forest Department has led to violation of the provisions of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 and that such settlement has intruded upon the right of the Petitioner to operate the fishery settled with him in full.

5. The writ petition was entertained by order dated 2.6.2010 and an interim order was passed suspending the impugned order of settlement dated 14.12.2009 made in favour of the Respondent No. 6. This interim order was passed after nearly 6 months of the impugned order of settlement, seeking vacation of which the Respondent No. 6 has filed Misc. Case No. 2023/2010.

6. In the said application for vacating stay, the Respondent No. 6 has stated about the settlement made in his favour. According to him, the Forest Department having settled the fishery in his favour as per the provisions of Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 and the fishery being distinct and different from the one settled with the Petitioner, the Petitioner cannot take the plea that by virtue of settlement of the fishery to him by the Fishery Department, he is entitled to intrude upon the fishery settled with the Respondent No. 6.

7. When the Misc. Case No. 2023/2010 was taken up for hearing, it was agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter requires final disposal and accordingly the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. Noticing the conflict between the two Departments of the Government of Assam, a direction was issued to clarify their respective position and accordingly by order dated 5.5.2011 both the departments i.e. Fishery and Forest were directed to file individual affidavit clarifying their stand.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, both the departments have filed their affidavit. In the affidavit filed by the Fishery Department, it has bee