Assam HC Leaves Fishery Cancellation And ₹36.5-Lakh Demand Intact, Lets Settlee Seek Dues Relief Over Alleged Amrit Sarovar Impact

On 27 July 2021, the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (AFDC) settled Teliadunga Krishnakur Beel with the petitioner for seven years for a total of Rs. 73,92,007, payable annually at Rs. 10,56,001.

Possession was handed over on 6 December 2021 and certified on 11 January 2022.

The petitioner had paid Rs. 6,86,300 by the time the impugned order was made and made no further payments after the possession certificate.

On 25 November 2024, AFDC cancelled the settlement and demanded Rs. 36,52,954, including amounts assessed for 2023–24 and 2024–25 up to 15 June 2024.

The petitioner claimed that the Amrit Sarovar Scheme had reduced the fishery’s area and affected his ability to pay; he also referred to a settlement by the Mising Autonomous Council, which had been stayed by the High Court.

As the fishery had since been settled with another person and that settlement was not challenged, the dispute before the Court concerned the cancellation and the amount demanded.

The judgment identifies no specific statute, contractual clause, or judicial precedent as the basis of decision.

It proceeds on the principles that a settlement holder must pay revenue in accordance with the settlement order and agreement, and that disputed factual questions about the effect of a government scheme and any resulting entitlement to relaxation are appropriately considered by the competent authority on supporting facts and figures.

The Court also invokes fairness as a basis for allowing the petitioner to make a representation and obtain a reasoned decision.

The petitioner had not paid the annual revenue due, despite repeated requests to do so, and had paid only Rs. 6,86,300, all before the possession certificate was issued.

The Court also found that the demand included sums attributable to periods before the Mising Autonomous Council’s settlement and that the petitioner had not established the extent to which the Amrit Sarovar Scheme reduced or affected the fishery.

Those factual questions could not be determined on the material before the writ Court and were better considered by AFDC.

The Court therefore declined to interfere with the cancellation or demand, while permitting the petitioner to seek consideration of any factual basis for relaxation.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a representation with supporting facts and figures within 30 days; the Managing Director, AFDC, must provide a personal hearing and issue a speaking order within two months of receiving it, in accordance with applicable law and the settlement terms.

If the petitioner submits the representation within the prescribed period, any Bakijai proceedings are to remain stayed until the representation is decided.

The earlier interim order was vacated.