Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010214702018 2025:GAU-AS:118 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6772/2018 M/S. SAIKHOWA SADIYA MIN SAMABAI SAMITI LTD. A REGD. FISHERY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT HATIGHULI, DHOLA, IN THE DIST OF TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS SECY., SRI MAINA BISWAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O- LT MALADHAR BISWAS, R/O- VILL HATIGHULI, P.O. SAIKHOWAGHAT, P.S. DHOLLA, DIST- TINSUKIA (ASSAM), PIN- 780125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECY. GOGAMUKH DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL GOGAMUKH DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 6:SRI BADAL PEGU S/O- LT SARAT PEGU VILL- GALIGHAT JIADHAL P.O. GALI BORBALI P.S. JONAI DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 78705 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. N G KUNDU Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, M A C,MR. S BORTHAKUR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 06.01.2025 No one appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appears for the Mising Autonomous Council while Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner is the settlement holder of Brahmaputra Part-III, IV and V Fishery in the district of Dibrugarh. The settlement was made on 22.11.2013. It was a settlement for 7 years. However, the petitioner’s settlement was interfered with by the Government, vide order dated 20.01.2017. The petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.420/2017, which was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2017. This Court held that the petitioner is a valid settlement holder and has legitimate right to fish within the notified boundary. The cancellation of settlement was illegal and accordingly set aside. 3. It is submitted that notwithstanding the same, Mising Autonomous Council has granted settlement of Munmuni Lali Meen Mahal in favour of respondent No.6, vide settlement order dated 25.06.2018. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid meen mahal i.e., fishery intrudes into the boundary of Brahmaputra Part-III, IV and V Fishery settled with the petitioner. Mising Autonomous Council, without proper demarcation of the boundary of the said meen mahal, has settled the fishery, thereby adversely affecting fishing rights of the petitioner. Besides, it is Page No.# 3/3 contended that the Mising Autonomous Council does not have jurisdiction to settle 60% category fisheries like the present one. 5. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to be issued to the Mising Autonomous Council to cancel the order dated 25.06.2018. 6. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the Mising Autonomous Council has referred to para 8 of the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, i.e., Mising Autonomous Council, which states that the Mising Autonomous Council has cancelled the settlement order dated 25.06.2018 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6, vide cancellation order dated 28.02.2019. 7. Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5 submits that the issue raised in the writ petition has been settled by this Court in WP(C) 3065/2024, vide order dated 20.08.2024, wherein it has been held that the Mising Autonomous Council do not have any power to make settlement of any fishery within the State of Assam. 8. In view of the above reasons, the impugned order dated 25.06.2018 is set aside. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant