RAMPATI GOALA Vs. ASWINI DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts (SIC) Rule No. 31 are that the (SIC) lessee of No. 35 Eleng Dhupna Beel Fishery in the District of Cachar for the years 1961 -64. This settlement was made with him after his tender was accepted. He is alleged to have made certain default in the payment of the arrears of the instalment and the fishery was ordered to be resold on the 20th December 1962. The fishery was resold to Respondent No. 1 for the unexpired period. Against this order the Petitioner went up in appeal to the Assam Board of Revenue challenging the correctness of the order of resale. It appears that in the meantime the Government in exercise of its power under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rides made direct settlement with the Respondent.

(2.) THE Petitioner challenges the validity of the order and his contention is that the Assam Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal and it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. It is contended that a writ of certiorari would be issued quashing the order of the Board of Revenue and further the Board of Revenue be directed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

(3.) MR . Islam, however, who appears for die Petitioner has made two -fold arguments. His first contention is that the appeal was filed under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and not under Rule 11 of the Fishery Rules. By the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1962 - - Assam Act XXII of 1962 - - the powers which were exercised by the Revenue Tribunal and thereafter by the High Court have been vested in the Assam Board of Revenue by amending Section 147. That being so, the Assam Board of Revenue had power to hear an appeal under the Regulation and not under Rule 11 of the Fishery Rules inasmuch as the order relates to the settlement of the fishery.