Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010230612018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7403/2018 MALEGARH ANCHALIK UNNAYAN COMMITTEE AND ANR. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILL MELEGARH, PO MALEGARH, PS JOGIGHOPA, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783382 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2: SRI BULBUL HUSSAIN S/O LATE SATTAR ALI SORDAR SECRETARY OF THE MALEGARH ANCHALIK UNNAYAN COMMITTEE VILL TINKONIA PT.-II PO MALEGARH DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 78338 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM , REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON 3:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER(C) NORTH SALMARA. ABBHAYAPURI BONGAIGAON 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SRIJANGRAM REVENUE CIRCLE ABHAYAPURI BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/9 5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL FISHERY AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NORTH SALMARA ABHAYAPURI BONGAIGAO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. J PATOWARY,MR. M MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,MR. S AHMED,MR S ISLAM,MR A HAQUE,FOR CAVEATOR WP(C)/6547/2017 ROUMARI GO-CHARANIA PATHAR COMMITTEE and 2 ORS. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY VILL- MALEGARH PT-II P.O- MALEGARH DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 2: GURU RAM DAS S/O- RAMESH CH. DAS PRESIDENT OF ROUMARI GO- CHARANIA PATHAR COMMITTEE VILL- TINKONIA PT-I P.O- MALEGARH P.S- JOGIGHOPA DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 3: ROFIKUL ISLAM S/O- KHAIRUDDIN AHMED SECRETARY OF ROUMARI GO-CHARANIA PATHAR COMMITTEE VILL- TINKONIA PT-I P.O- MALEGARH P.S- JOGIGHOPA DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 Page No.# 3/9 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICERC NORTH SALMARA ABHAYAPURI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SRIJANGRAM REVENUE CIRCLE ABHAYAPURI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NORTH SALMARA ABHAYAPURI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 6:MALRGARH ANCHALIK UNNAYAN COMMITTEE REP. BY THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY VILL- MALEGARH P.O- MALEGARH DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 7:SHIV CHARAN DAS S/O- LATE SARBESWAR DAS PRESIDENT OF THE MALEGARH ANCHALIK UNNAYAN COMMITTEE VILL- MALEGARH PT-IV P.O- MALEGARH DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM- 783382 8:BULBUL HUSSAIN S/O- LATE SATTAR ALI SORDAR SECRETARY OF THE ANCHALIK UNNAYAN COMMITTEE VILL- TINKONIA PT-II P.O- MALEGARH DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM- 783382 ------------ Advocate for : MR.P RAHMAN Page No.# 4/9 Advocate for : MR.B J MUKHERJEE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.06.2026 Both these connected writ petitions which are pending for more than seven years, are taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. The first writ petition, being WP(C)/6547/2017 has been filed challenging an order dated 12.10.2017 whereby one party who is the petitioner in other case was given settlement of the Malegarh Grazing gound for fishing activities in question for a period of 7 years. The second writ petition, being WP(C)/7403/2018 has been instituted challenging an order dated 27.09.2018 whereby the settlement was cancelled. 3. I have heard Shri S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/6547/2017 as well as Shri T. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/7403/2018. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel, Assam and Shri Satyajit Dutta, learned Standing, Revenue Department, Assam. 4. From the materials on records, it transpires that pursuant to certain orders, on 12.10.2017, settlement of the Fishery in question was granted to the petitioner of WP(C)/7403/2018. The said order of settlement is the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/6547/2017 as indicated above. During the pendency of the said case, the impugned order dated 27.09.2018 has been passed whereby the settlement order dated 12.10.2017 has been cancelled. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the first WP(C)/6547/2017 has become infructuous. Page No.# 5/9 5. Shri Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/7403/2018, who is also a respondent in the earlier writ petition i.e. WP(C)/6547/2017, has submitted that the impugned order dated 27.09.2018 is ex facie illegal as the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that a right had accrued to the petitioner vide earlier order dated 12.10.2017 and the said right has been sought to be taken away without giving any opportunity of hearing. He has submitted that under such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He has drawn the attention of this Court to certain communications whereby the land in question was directed to be utilized for community purposes. In this regard, he has referred to the communication dated 20.05.1995 issued by the Revenue Department. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. He has also informed that an interim order was passed which is continuing. 6. Ms. Das, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the impugned order would clearly show that the area in question is VGR land. She has also submitted that the same was passed by the SDO (Civil) who did not have the authority to grant such settlement. 7. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue has endorsed the submissions of the learned State Counsel and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. At the outset, this Court has noticed that the period of settlement was for 7 years and the said period has already expired. Therefore, the adjudication of the present matter has become mere academic. 9. Be that as it may, since an issue has been raised, the same is required to be answered. Page No.# 6/9 10. The settlement order dated 12.10.2017 would show that the same was done by the SDO (Civil). The impugned order reflects that the area in question is a VGR land. The law on the aspect of VGR land is very clear which is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein the following observations have been made: “23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” 11. A reading of the aforesaid observations would show that not only certain principles were laid down, those were also directed to be communicated to each States for its effective implementation. It is imperative that all VGR lands are to be kept free and utilized only for community purposes. 12. The primary ground of challenge is on the aspect of violation of the principles of Page No.# 7/9 natural justice. While natural justice is an intricate part of dispensation of justice, it cannot be in a strait jacket. Everything would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. Asha Devi Gupta, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 492 had elaborately explained the facet of principles of natural justice by discussing all the previous case laws holding the field. The relevant observations are as follows: “25. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby. In The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another v. Ramiee [(1977) 2 SCC 256], this Court held : ‘...Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure- all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt - that is the conscience of the matter.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case had also referred to the treatise on Administrative Law by Wade wherein the following observations have been quoted with approval: Page No.# 8/9 “32. In `Administrative Law', 8th Edn., by William Wade and Christopher Forsyth at page 491, it has been stated : ‘....At the other end of the spectrum of power, public authorities themselves are now given the benefit of natural justice, as illustrated at the end of this section. Basically the principle is confined by no frontiers. On the other hand it must be a flexible principle. The judges, anxious as always to preserve some freedom of manoeuvre, emphasise that `it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply; nor as to their scope and extent. Everything depends on the subject- matter'. Their application, resting as it does upon statutory implication, must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act, and with the subject- matter of the case. `In the application of the concept of fair play there must be real flexibility'. There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice." 15. In the instant case, the SDO (Civil) would not have the jurisdiction to pass an order of settlement as the area is not recognized as a fishery under the Fishery Rules. Accordingly, the initial order dated 12.10.2017 would be non est in law and therefore, no right whatsoever could have accrued upon the petitioner. Accordingly, there would have no application of principles of natural justice. In any case, as noted above, the period of settlement is already over. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case on merits has been able to be made out by the petitioner. Consequently, the WP(C)/7403/2018 is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Page No.# 9/9 17. As noted above, WP(C)/6547/2017 also stands dismissed as infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant