GANGA RAM DAS versus TEZPUR KAIBART CO-OPERATIVE FISHERY SOCIETY LTD.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 29-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
GANGA RAM DAS 
v. 
TEZPUR KAIBART A CO-OPERATIVE 
FISHERY SOCIETY LTD. 
479 
[S. R. DAS c. J., 
BHAGWATJ, VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P .. SINHA and S. K. DAs J J.] 
Rule 12, Assam 
Fishery 
Rules-Whether ultra 
vires and 
repugnant to s. 16 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1 of 
1886. 
Section 16 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 
1 of 1886 
.defines "right of fishery" and s. 155(f) empowers the Provincial 
Government to make rules for "the granting of licences, or the 
farming of the right ........ to fish in the fisheries". The State 
Government accordingly framed 
the 
Fishery 
Rules 
and r. 12 
thereof provides that no fishery shall be settled 
otherwise 
than 
by sale except hy the State Government. It was contended that 
r. 12 was ultra vi1·es the Provincial Government and was repugnant 
to s. 16 of the Regulation. 
Held, that. r. 12 is not ultra vires and is not repugnant to s. 
16 of the Regulation. 
There is nothing in s. 16 which indicates 
the principles or the policy on which the rules for the acquisition 
of fishery rights are to be framed. 
The whole thing is left to the 
discretion of the State Government. 
Held further, 
that 
r. 12 
specifically 
empowers 
the 
State 
Government to settle 
the fishery rights otherwise than by sale, 
e.g., by individual ~ettlements. 
Nuruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, A. I. R. 1956 Assam 48 
overruled. 
State of Assam v. Keshab Prasad Singh, (1953) S. C. R. 865 
not applicable. 
,CIVIL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
374 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated December 19, 1955, of the Assam High 
Court in Revenue Appeal No. 33(M) of 1955. Civil 
Rule No. 76 of 1955. 
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and K. R. Chaudhry, for the 
.appellant. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent No. 1. 
S. M. Lahiri, Advocate-General of Assam, and Naunit 
Lal, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 
62 
1957 
Ganga Ram Das 
v. 
T. K. Co~op. Fishtr.J 
Society Ltd. 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1957) 
1957. January 29. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BHAGWATI J.-This appeal with special leave arises 
out of a judgment of the Assam High Court in Revenue 
Appeal No. 33 (M) of 1955 and Civil Rule No. 76 
of 1955. 
The State of Assam, respondent .No. 3, had settled 
the Charduar Brahmaputra Fishery with the respond-
ent No. 1 for a period of three years, viz., from April l, 
1954, to March 31, 1957, at an annual zama of 
Rs. 19,600 under r. 12 of the Fishery Rules. The 
Deputy Commissioner of Darrang, respondent No. 2, 
received some reports against the respondent No. 
l 
alleging violation of cl. VI of the Fishery lease and 
also 
of 
certain 
other conditions 
of 
the lease. 
He 
obtained reports from the Sub-Deputy Collector and the 
Extra Assistant Commissioner in regard to these alle-
gations and came to the conclusion 
that respondent 
No. 1 had created under-lease in favour 
of certain 
persons and cancelled the settlement of the fishery. It 
appears that after such cancellation, respondent No. 3, 
purporting to act again under r. 12, settled the said 
fishery with the appellant with effect from May 4, 
1955, and respondent No. 1 was directed to give up 
possession thereof with effect from that date. Respond-
ent No. 1 thereupon obtained a Rule from the Assam 
High Court alleging that the 
said 
settlement was 
absolutely illegal anti the fishery had to be settled pro-
perly according to the rules under which these settle-
ments are usually m~de. A Revenue Appeal was also 
filed against the order of respondent No. 2 under rule 
11 of section 1 of the Fishery Rules and both the Rule 
and the Revenue Appeal were heard together by the 
Assam High Court. 
The High Court had already on August 31, 1955, 
delivered a judgment in Civil Rule No. 56 of 1955, 
Naruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam( ), declaring r. 12 
of the Fishery Rules "ultra uirt:s the State Govern-
ment" 
au<l 
therefore invalid and unenforceable. 
It 
followed that judgment and held that the respondent 
No. 3 had no jurisdiction to make a settlement under 
{r) A.l.R. 1956 Auam 48. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
481 
r. 12 of the Fishery Rules with the respondent No. 1 
and the order of cancellation should be upheld on that 
ground alone. The appeal of respondent No. 1 was 
accordingly dismissed. 
In regard to the appellant also 
the High Court came to the same conclusion and held 
that the settlement made by respondent No. 3 in his 
favour 
was entirely without 
j
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.