Authority must consider settlement amount re-fixation and revenue remission for delayed possession and natural calamities.

The petitioner was the successful bidder for the settlement of Samaguri Beel fishery for a seven-year term (2022-2029) at a total amount of Rs. 2,18,27,862.30

Although a settlement proposal was issued on 10.10.2022, possession was handed over only on 05.11.2022

The petitioner alleged that the delayed handover caused a revenue loss for 216 days.

Furthermore, subsequent to taking possession, the petitioner discovered significant ecological degradation (water hyacinth and siltation) and encroachments that reduced the effective fishing area

Reports from the Circle Officer and District Fishery Development Officer confirmed substantial flood-induced damage and area reduction

Despite multiple representations seeking waiver of revenue and re-assessment of settlement amounts, the respondent authorities remained inactive

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to consider the petitioner's request for waiver/remission of revenue due to the delayed handing over of possession

2. Whether the reduction in fishing area due to natural calamities and encroachments warrants a re-assessment of the settlement amount under the existing contract

The court's reasoning was guided by the principles of administrative law regarding the exercise of discretionary power and the principle of fairness in contractual settlements under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It emphasized the authority's jurisdiction to grant waiver or remission by accounting for "supervening circumstances" such as natural calamities and breach of delivery timelines

The court also highlighted the relevance of official enquiry reports from revenue and fishery officers as evidentiary basis for administrative re-evaluation

The court noted that if the settlement amount was offered for a full financial year but possession was delayed for reasons beyond the lessee's control, the authority is duty-bound to consider a proportionate re-fixation of the amount

While the Standing Counsel for AFDC argued that the terms of the Tender Notice might preclude such benefits, the court observed that since representations were pending and supported by adverse field reports from the Circle Officer and District Fishery Development Officer, a "fair consideration" was required.

The court did not decide on the merits of the waiver but established that the respondent no. 2, as the settlement authority, has the domain expertise and legal mandate to dispose of such grievances through a reasoned order after considering verifiable records

The Court held that the authority must pass a "speaking order" within six weeks, specifically considering the re-fixation of the settlement amount due to the delayed handover and the ecological reports

The court further directed that the petitioner be afforded a personal hearing if requested in writing

No costs were awarded