Skip to content


Kera Kaibarta Vs. Chandra Kanta Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Civil
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRevenue Revn. No. 99 (R) of 1950
Judge
ActsAssam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Sections 151
AppellantKera Kaibarta
RespondentChandra Kanta Das and ors.
Appellant AdvocateA.P. Goswami, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ.C. Medhi, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....class of the locality? subsequently, kera kaibarta and others made a representation to the deputy commissioner of nowgong to the effect that o. p. 1-5 were not managing or running the fisheries in the interest of the raij but used them as personal concerns. the deputy commissioner on this representation made a recommendation to the government for the substitution of the name of the petitioner kera kaibarta in place of chandra kanta and others as lessee with respect to these fisheries. the development commissioner heard this matter in the presence of both parties and by his order dated 25-8-1950 set aside the recommendation of the deputy commissioner as illegal and he affirmed the sale that had already been confirmed in favour of o. p. no. 1-5. the petitioner has come up to this.....
Judgment:

Deka, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of one Kera Kaibarta purporting to be one under Section 151, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.

2. The relevant facts are that one Chandra Kanta Das, Opposite Party 1, got a settlement of fisheries Nos. 9, 61, 66 and 81 of Nowgong for a period of three years on 2-2-50 and subsequently four other persons who figure as Opposite Party 2-5 were added as lessees together with Chandra Kanta, Opposite Party 1. These four persons purport to represent the Raij who consisted of the fishermen class of the locality? Subsequently, Kera Kaibarta and others made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong to the effect that O. P. 1-5 were not managing or running the fisheries in the interest of the Raij but used them as personal concerns.

The Deputy Commissioner on this representation made a recommendation to the Government for the substitution of the name of the petitioner Kera Kaibarta in place of Chandra Kanta and others as lessee with respect to these fisheries. The Development Commissioner heard this matter in the presence of both parties and by his order dated 25-8-1950 set aside the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner as illegal and he affirmed the sale that had already been confirmed in favour of O. P. No. 1-5. The petitioner has come up to this Court against this order of the Development Commissioner.

3. It is outside the jurisdiction of this Court either to enquire or to ascertain whether a particular lessee with respect to a fishery was working in his own interest or in the interest of any other party so long as there was no violation of any of the terms of the lease under which he held the fishery. There is no such allegation against him. The Development Commissioner has held that there is no allegation against O. P. 1-5 of violation of any of the terms of the lease or of any of the rules framed by the Government under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation for management of the fisheries.

4. This application manifestly does not come within the scope of Section 151, Assam Land & Revenue Regulation. The application is, therefore, dismissed and the stay order vacated. The Rule is discharged.

Thadani, C.J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //