Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010124822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3250/2025 M/S GERAMARI GAON PANCHAYAT MEEN SAMABAY SAMITY LTD GERAMARI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI ANIL CH. BARMAN, SON OF LATE MUKUNDA BARMAN, R/O- VILL.- ASHARIKANDI, P.O. ASHARIKANDI, P.S. GAURIPUR, PIN- 783331, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER ATHANI REVENUE CIRCLE DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783349. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/5 SOUTH SALMARA REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783127. 6:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER ATHANI REVENUE CIRCLE DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783349. 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SOUTH SALMARA P.O. HATSINGIMARI DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 8:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE FAKIRGANJ POLICE STATION P.O. FAKIRGANJ DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 9:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BANDIHANA POLICE OUTPOST OF FAKIRGANJ POLICE STATION P.O. FAKIRGANJ DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS. J DEKA,MS. A TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FISHERY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 13.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Page No.# 3/5 Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 9. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was settled with Gr. No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part & Satakuri Nadi Fishery, vide order dated 15.11.2022 and possession of the said fishery was handed over, vide letter dated 22.11.2022. The settlement period was for a period of 7 years. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that Gr. No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part & Satakuri Nadi Fishery are between the fisheries of (i) Gr. No.1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fishery at Jhapur Char (Chalbandha) near Jaleswar and (ii) Gr. No. 2/88 Dharnad Brahmaputra Pt-II & III and other fishery and Birshing Char/Fakirganj. The petitioner’s counsel submits that there has been some difficulty in ascertaining the boundary of the petitioner’s fisheries, as some miscreants have been illegally fishing in the area next to the petitioner fisheries. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had requested the authorities to identify the exact area/boundary of the fisheries that had been settled with the petitioner and despite officials having visited the petitioner’s fisheries, no official report with regard to the grievance of the petitioner has been issued by the respondent authorities till date. The petitioner’s counsel submits that various representations have been submitted to the various authorities in the office of the District Commissioner, Dhubri, one of them being the representation dated 09.01.2025 addressed to the Additional District Commissioner, Fishery (Revenue) Branch, Dhubri. However, no decision has Page No.# 4/5 been taken on the petitioner’s representation dated 09.01.2025. She submits that the writ petition can be disposed of, if a direction is issued to the Additional District Commissioner, Fishery (Revenue) Branch, Dhubri to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation. 5. Mr. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Fishery Department submits that he has got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel. However, he apprehends that the writ petition has been filed only to enable the petitioner to make a claim for remission in the future. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 9 submits that she has got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. On hearing the counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that as the issue only pertains to identifying the area of the petitioner’s fishery as per the settlement order, the Additional District Commissioner, Fishery (Revenue) Branch, Dhubri should take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 09.01.2025 and communicate his decision to the petitioner thereafter. The same should be done within the period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not made any observation or finding with regard to whether the averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are correct or not. It is needless to add that the petitioner will have to pay the entire kist money in the meantime. Page No.# 5/5 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant