HAREN HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two writ petitions are filed by Haren Hazarika. The questions he raised in the two petitions relate to the settlement of a fishery called and known as No. 29, Doria Dubi Fishery, Majuli (No. 29 Fishery.) A Co -operative Society by the title Pokajora Min Silpa Samabay Samiti Ltd. incorporated under Act 1 of 1950, claims fishery rights in No. 29 fishery for the period April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1991. Haren Hazarika the Petitioner also claims No. 29 Fishery as to have been settled in his favour for the same period.

(2.) BEFORE that issue is determined an incidental issue loomed large at the debate. The incidental issue related to the fact whether No. 29 Fishery was a reserved fishery under Rule 13 of the Assam Fishery Rules. These rules were promulgated under Sections 155 and 156 of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations, 1886 read with Indian Fisheries Act, 1897. In the case of a reserved fishery no person in a district other than an incorporated society can obtain settlement. In the balance of 40% fisheries individuals other than Societies can seek settlements. In the sweep of non -reserved fisheries an incorporated society also can seek settlement. The incidental issue is whether la the calendar year 1989 Fishery No. 29 was categorised as 60% reserved fishery. Haren Hazarika disputes the factum of reservation. In any event he asserts that On September 30, 1989 when the settlement was made in his favour Fishery No. 29 was not a reserved fishery. The society asserts on September 1, 1989 Fishery No. 29 was settled in its favour and the fishery in question was in the category of reserved fishery.

(3.) THE word review in administrative law denotes orders passed in varying circumstances. Review is used when an ex -parte order is set aside. Such an order is at times called review order. When a notice is not properly served and the resultant order is corrected later the corrected order is referred as "order in review" In proceedings governed by the code of Civil Procedure review is understood as in Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure In United Kingdom an order and passed without proper notice is referred as an passed on merits are called regular orders. The words regular and irregular trigger off different connotations in India due to the provisions in the code of Civil Procedure. (See Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure). In Issacs v. Robertson, (1984) All ER 140, the features of regular and irregular orders in United Kingdom was explained: " The contrasting legal concepts of voidness and voidability form part of the English law of contract. They are inapplicable to orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation such an order is either irregular or regular. If it is irregular it can be set aside by the court that made it on application to that court; if it is regular it can only be set aside by an appellate court on appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies."