Dilip Hazarika vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010011392025

2026:GAU-AS:16396
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/449/2025
DILIP HAZARIKA
SON OF LATE JHURAM HAZARIKA, SECRETARY OF TRIMURTI
ANUSUSHITA JATI SIKHITA NIBONUWA SELF HELP GROUP, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGAE TELIADUNGA PUKURIPAR, P.O.- BHARLUA TINALI, P.S.-
GAURISAGAR, DIST- SIVASAGAR (ASSAM) PIN- 785664.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
SIVASAGAR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SIVASAGAR TOWN
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM.
4:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
(A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036

Page No.# 2/10
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
(A GOVT
OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate

Advocate for the respondent (s): Mr. P. Sarmah, SC, AFDC

Mr. G. Bokalial,
Govt. Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.11.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : Yes

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : No.


JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)


Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. G.

Page No.# 3/10
Bokalial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of
Respondent No.3.
2. The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioner assailing
the order dated 25.11.2024 whereby the settlement so granted
to the Petitioner of Teliadunga Krishnakur Beel vide the order of
settlement dated 27.07.2021 was cancelled and the Petitioner
was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.36,52,954/-
immediately, failing which the same shall be recovered by
registering a Bakijai case against the Petitioner to recover the
same as outstanding revenue.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is relevant to take note of
that on 27.07.2021, the Managing Director of the Assam
Fisheries Development Corporation Limited (for short, ‘AFDC’)
settled the fishery, namely Teliadunga Krishnakur Beel, (for short,
‘the fishery’) for a period of 7 years at a total value of
Rs.73,92,007/-. The Petitioner's annual payment for the
settlement was Rs.10,56,001/-. On 06.12.2021, the Petitioner
was directed to contact the AFDC for executing agreement and
other relevant formalities as per the procedure.
4. It is of relevance at this stage to observe that prior to the
passing of the order dated 06.12.2021, one Sri Sanjeeb Das was
settled with the same fishery on 02.11.2021 in spite of the

Page No.# 4/10
existence of the order of settlement dated 27.07.2021. However,
subsequent thereto, the said order dated 02.11.2021 by which
settlement was granted in favour of the said Sri Sanjeeb Das was
withdrawn by the Respondent AFDC vide another order dated
06.12.2021. It is of importance to take note of that the said Sri
Sanjeeb Das had assailed the order dated 06.12.2021 by which
the settlement made in his favour dated 02.11.2021 was
withdrawn, by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.7221/2021.
In the said proceedings, the Petitioner was arrayed as the
Respondent No.5. The said writ petition being WP(C)
No.7221/2021 was listed before the learned Coordinate Bench of
this Court on 22.12.2021. On the said date, the Petitioner herein
appeared through his counsel and duly submitted before the
Court that he was handed over the possession of the fishery as
would be apparent from the order dated 22.12.2021.
5. The records further reveal that on 06.12.2021, the Petitioner
was handed over the possession of the fishery as would be
apparent from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Subsequent
thereto, a certificate of possession of land/fishery/made over to
the party whom it was allotted was issued on 11.01.2022. The
records reveal that the Petitioner continued to enjoy the
settlement. There is a grievance of the Petitioner that some
portion of the fishery, admeasuring 10 bighas each were taken

Page No.# 5/10
over by the Government of Assam under the Amrit Sarovar
Scheme from January, 2024 and thereby the area of the fishery
was drastically reduced.
6. It is an admitted fact that though the Petitioner was
required to pay annually an amount of Rs.10,56,001/-, the
Petitioner till the date of passing of the impugned order had only
paid an amount of Rs.6,86,300/-. It is of further relevance that
these payments were made immediately upon the order of
settlement was issued, i.e. on 21.09.2021, 10.12.2021,
13.12.2021 and further another amount at the time when the
tender was submitted. In other words, after the certificate issued
for handing over of the possession on 11.01.2022 till the date of
passing of the impugned order, the Petitioner did not make any
payment.
7. It is also the case of the Petitioner that during the period
when the Petitioner was in occupation of the fishery, a portion of
the fishery was settled by the Mising Autonomous Council on
25.06.2024. Be that as it may, upon a writ petition being filed by
the Petitioner being WP(C) No.3560/2024, this Court vide an
order dated 17.07.2024 had stayed the settlement order made by
the Mising Autonomous Council. In other words, at best the
Petitioner can claim certain benefit for a period of 22 days and
nothing more. This observation however has to be tested with

Page No.# 6/10
actual proof being shown by the Petitioner that his settlement
was effected during this 22 days.
8. The Petitioner had submitted various representations and it
is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner's representations
were not considered in the right earnest.
9. This Court had also perused the records so produced by Mr.
P. Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel of the AFDC. A perusal
of the records would show that the Petitioner was asked time
and again to deposit the kist money and on each and every
occasion, the Petitioner submitted application(s) that he would
be depositing the kist money, but no kist money was deposited.
It is under such circumstances, the impugned order was passed
on 25.11.2024 whereby it was held that the Petitioner was liable
to pay an amount of Rs.36,52,954/-. Out of the said amount of
Rs.36,52,954/-, Rs.33,83,538/- was the revenue to be paid for
the financial year 2023-24. For the financial year 2024-25 up to
15.06.2024, i.e. prior to even the Mising Autonomous Council
granting a settlement, an amount of Rs.2,69,426/- was directed
to be paid. In other words, the impugned order had no relevance
to the settlement granted by the Mising Autonomous Council.
10. It is also relevant to observe that after cancellation of the
settlement vide the impugned order, the fishery in question had

Page No.# 7/10
already been settled with some other person and there is no
challenge to the said settlement. Therefore, the challenge to the
impugned order now can only to be restricted to the question as
to whether the imposition of the amount of Rs.36,52,954/- is in
consonance with the order of settlement as well as the terms
and conditions of the contract agreement entered into by and
between the Petitioner and the AFDC.
11. This Court had heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record.
Nothing could be placed before this Court by the Petitioner as to
what was the extent area of the fishery in question which was
settled. Nothing also could be placed as to how much the
settlement of the fishery was affected on account of the Amrit
Sarovar Scheme being initiated by the State Government.
Question arises as to whether the Amrit Sarovar Scheme
initiated by the Government of Assam in actuality affected the
settlement made in favour of the Petitioner.
12. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the Petitioner
having been granted the settlement was obligated in terms with
the order of settlement as well as the agreement to make
payment of the revenue. As already observed herein above, the
Petitioner had only paid an amount of Rs.6,86,300/-, that too
even prior to the certificate of possession dated 11.01.2022. In

Page No.# 8/10
other words, till the passing of the impugned order, the Petitioner
did not pay any further amount other than the amount of
Rs.6,86,300/-.
13. In the backdrop of the above facts, for a writ Court to
exercise jurisdiction as to whether the Petitioner was affected by
the Amrit Sarovar Scheme initiated by the State of Assam and to
what extent it had been affected are questions of facts which can
be looked into by the Managing Director of the AFDC, if a
representation is submitted by the Petitioner. This Court
therefore is not inclined to interfere with the termination order as
well as the imposition of the amount of Rs.36,52,954/-.
14. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the doctrine of
fairness, this Court observes that if the Petitioner is permitted to
submit a representation placing the necessary facts and figures
and directions issued to the Managing Director of the AFDC to
consider as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled to any
relaxation to the dues, it is the opinion of this Court that the
same would meet the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands
disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
(i) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of
cancellation of the settlement dated 25.11.2024.

Page No.# 9/10
(ii) An opportunity is granted to the Petitioner to submit a
representation within a period of 30 days from the date of
the present judgment to the Managing Director of the AFDC
placing the necessary facts and figures by which the
Petitioner was affected resulting in not able to discharge his
obligation of payment of revenue. The Managing Director,
AFDC shall on such representation being submitted duly
consider the same on the basis of the extant facts and pass
a speaking order within a period of two months from the
day of submission of the representation.
(iii) It is further observed that prior to passing of the
speaking order, the Managing Director of the AFDC shall
provide a personal hearing to the Petitioner so that
necessary facts and figures can be explained.
(iv) This Court further observes that the Managing Director,
AFDC while considering the representation shall consider
the same in accordance with the extent law as well as the
terms and conditions of the settlement order.
(v) This Court further directs that as an opportunity for
submitting a representation had been granted to the
Petitioner, any Bakijai proceedings initiated against the
Petitioner shall remain suspended for a period of one

Page No.# 10/10
month, if the Petitioner submits a representation within the
period of one month from today.
(vi) It is further observed that in the circumstance, the
Petitioner submits a representation in terms with liberty
granted herein above within a period of one month from
today, the Bakijai proceedings shall remain stayed till the
disposal of the representation by the Managing Director of
the AFDC.
(vii) The records so produced are returned to Mr. P. Sarmah,
the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
AFDC.
(viii) The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.


JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita
Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.11.11 15:08:52 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant