LexTHE STATE OF ASSAM versus KESHAB PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·-
8.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
v.
KESHAB PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER.
GAMIRI KHARI CHAIDUAR FISHERMEN
SOCIETY LTD.
v.
KESHAB PRASAD SINGH.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, VrvrAN BosE and
JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.]
865
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (I of 1886), s. 16,
Rules 190, 190A, 191-Settlement of fisheries---Direct settleme11t un-
der r. 190A ofter a1wtion by Deputy Commissioner and on his re-
commendation--Whether settlement of Deputy Commissioner under
Rules, or execntive act of State-Appeal to Hic1h Court-Maintain-
a.bility.
The Government of Assam, desiring to settle a fishery direct
under'" 190-A of the rules framed under the Assam Land and
Revenue Regulation (I of 1886), directed the Deputy Commis-
sioner concerned to put the fishery to auction and submit the bid
list to Government with his recommendation for direct settle~
ment.
The Deputy Commissioner accordingly auctioned the
fishery and submitted the bid list with a recommendation in the
first respondent's favour.
Government sanctioned the settlement
of the fishery wi_th the first respondent and the latter was inform-
ed of the acceptance of the bid and directed to make the deposits.
Government received two more petitions on the same day for
re~consideration of the orders passed and three weeks later
Government reviewed its order and settled the fishery with
another person.
The first respondent preferred an appeal to the
High Court under r. 190 which provided that all orders of a
Deputy Commissioner passed under these rules were appealable
to tee High Court :
Held, the words " except with the previous sanction of the
Provincial Government" in r. 190-A do not permit the Provincial
Government when it so wishes to lift the sa)es completely out of
the statutory protection afforded by the Regulation and proceed
to dispose of them by executive action.
Such a construction
would maker. 190-A run counter to s. 16 of the Regulation which
requires these sales to be made under and in accordance \Vith the
Rules.
The departure contemplated by r. 190-A was a departure
within the Rules.
As the Deputy Commissioner was the only
JJ2
•
19.)3
April 1-1.
•
1963
'1
1he State of
A_Hsr1111
v.
Keshab P'/'nsad
S{ngh and
866
Sl'PREiVIE COUI-tT REPORTS
[1953]
authority competent to settle these fisheries, subject to sanction,
the act of cancellation and the act of
resettlem~nt were his a.cts,
however inucb he ma.y Jiaye actetl nuder the direction and orders
of the Government, and the High Court ha<l jurisdiction to enter-
tain the appeal under '" 190.
,Judgment of the High Court of Assam affirmed.
Anothe,..
CTVrL
APPELLA'r~1 .TmUSDICTI0"1:
Civil
Appeals
Nos. 176 and 176-A of 1952.
Appeals by Special Leave granted by the Supreme
Court on the 20th February, 1952, and 23rd May, 1952,
respectively, from the J udgrnent and Order dated tho
6th December, 1951, of the High Court of ,Judicature
in Assam at Gauhati in its Revenue Appellate Juris-
diction (Deka J.) in Revenue Appeal No. 65 (M) of
1951.
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Nurud-
din Ahmed, with him) for the appellant in Civil Appeal
No. 176.
B. B. Tawakley (K. 73. Asthana, with him) for the
respondent in Civil Appeal ::'{o. 176.
R. K. Ohmldhury (Jcii Gopal Ghosh and R. N. Tikku,
with him) for respondent No. 2. in Civil Appeal
No. 176 and appellant in Civil Appeal No. 176-A .
. 1953. April 14. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
BosE J.---This is a curious case in which the State
Government of Assam having granted the first res-
pondent a lease later cancelled its grant and regranted
it to another party and now contends that it i& not
bound by the Jaws and regulations which ordinarily
govern such trnnsactions.
Assam is blest with fisheries which arc under the
control of and belong to the State Government.
Periodically the fishing rights arc leased out to licen-
sees and the State derives considerable revenue from
this source.
So valuable are these rights that as long
ago as 1886 it was considered undesirable to leave
such a lucrative source of revenue to the unfettered
"
s.c.R.
8UPHEME COURT REPORT8
867
discretion and control of either the Provincial Govern-
ment or a single individual however eminent. Accord-
ingly, legislation was enacted and Regulation I of 1886
(The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886) was
passed into law.
A Register of Fisheries had to be
kept and the Deputy Commissioner was empExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.