Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 580
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
Sudhindra Das - Appellant
Versus
Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Chachal, Vip Road, Guwahati, Kamrup(m) District, Assam - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2943 of 2020
Decided On : 05-08-2020
D. Das, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for a merit-based consideration of lease extension requests and held that relevant materials and provisions must be duly considered by the authority.
Headnote:
Extension of Lease - Fishery Settlement - Clause 36(kha) - Judgment dated 09.06.2020
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an extension of the lease for a fishery settlement due to unworkability caused by siltation and other factors. The Managing Director of AFDC issued an order for the petitioner to continue possessing the fishery and pay necessary revenue until a fresh consideration is given.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Managing Director's order did not consider relevant materials and provisions for extension beyond Clause 36(kha) of the agreement, and thus interfered with the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's request for lease extension, the unworkability of the fishery, and the Managing Director's failure to consider relevant materials and provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Managing Director's reliance on Clause 36(kha) as the sole basis to reject the extension request was impermissible, as the court had directed a merit-based consideration of the extension. The Managing Director's failure to consider relevant materials warranted interference and a remand for fresh consideration.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Managing Director for a fresh consideration within 14 days, with the interim arrangements provided in the judgment dated 09.06.2020 to continue until then.
JUDGMENT
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent AFDC.
2. The petitioner was settled with the Sonduba Pavakati Beel of Morigaon District. As per the order of the Managing Director of AFDC dated 22.08.2013, the settlement was for a period of 7(seven) years for a total revenue of rs.1,57,60,885/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven Lakh Sixt Thousand and Eight Hundred Eighty Five) and was to have its effect up-to 31.03.2020. Before the expiry of the term of the settlement, the petitioner made an application before the Managing Director of AFDC, seeking extension on the ground that the operation of the Fishery became unworkable because of siltation and other factors.
3. In this respect, reports were called for and the report of the Project Manager dated 28.03.2019 provides as under:
wxyz
"It is true at present about more than 120 bigha from the western part of Chanduba beel under Bhuragaon Revenue Circle has become shallow as the said portion has been filed with sand coming with the flood water of the river bramhaputra. During inspection I have come to learn from the local people that the aforesaid portion that has been filed up by sand there used to be huge production of fish in the past but recently the lessee has been deprived of the production and revenue from the said portion of the beel. Thus, request is being made to grant remission of revenue in respect of the said part of the fishery. The Chanduba Meen Mahal falls under Revenue Circle of Bhuragaon and Lahorighat. Since there was no demarcation of the boundary of the fishery during flood season the local people used to carry on illegal fishing causing loss of revenue of the fishery. Thus, request is being made to fix the boundary of the fishery with the help of the aforesaid Revenue Circles."
zyxw
4. Further, the report of the Circle Officer dated 30.01.2020, amongst others, also contains the following:
wxyz
"It is to be mentioned here that the above cited sand filling has been done by the flood water of river Brahmaputra in the year 2017. In this regard the trace maps of the above mentioned 9 (Nine) villages are enclosed herewith."
zyxw
5. As the respondents in the AFC had not done the needful, the petitioner approached the Court by way of WP(C) No. 2175/2020 and a final consideration was given by the judgment dated 09.06.2020.
6. The operative portion of the judgment dated 09.06.2020 is as under:
wxyz
"22. From the records it is seen that the lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondent AFDCL pertaining to the said Beel contains relevant provisions for extension of period of its lease and also for increase of revenue for the said Beel due to such extension payable to the respondent AFDCL. It is already noted above that the petitioner is in possession of the said Beel and is also fishing on it. The petitioner shall continue to possess the said Sonduba Pavakati beel of Morigaon District of AFDCl till disposal of his said representations by the respondents in the AFDCL. But the petitioner shall pay the necessary revenue etc. to the respondent AFDCL for being in possession of the said Beel and for fishing on the same for the period from 01.04.2020 till his authorized possession of the said Beel. The rate of revenue for the said period, the mode of payment and the time period for payment, payable by the petitioner shall be determined and prescribed by the respondent AFDCL, in accordance with law, intimating him in advance."
zyxw
7. The requirement of the judgment dated 09.06.2020 is apparently that the lease agreement between the petitioner and the AFDC contains relevant provisions for extension of the period of lease and also for increase of revenue for the fishery due to such extension. Further, the petitioner would continue to remain in possession of the fishery in question till disposal of his representation and for the purpose, the petitioner shall pay the
