HAREZ ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the controversy arising from divergent views expressed by this High Court on construction and interpretation of sub-section (6) of Section 109 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Though the controversy falls within a very narrow compass of interpretation of expression 'yearly sale value', in the Act, nonetheless, it entails a question of public importance in view of the confusion produced by conflicting observations of different Benches of this High Court. The expression, 'yearly sale value' is not defined expression in the Act, however, sub-section (6) of Section 109 of the Act provides that if the 'yearly sale value' of the Hats, Ferries and Fisheries, falling under any Anchalik Panchayat, within the jurisdiction of Zilla Parishad exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, it shall be settled by the Zilla Parishad. The Moot questions which arise for consideration of this Court in this reference are as follows

(2.) WHILE hearing WA No. 314 of 2008 Harej Ali and Anr. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. , a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Chief Justice, being confronted with conflicting views of a Division Bench of this Court in Nagaon Zilla Parishad Vs. Rezia Begum and Ors. : 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 585, disagreed with the views on the construction of Section 109 of the 'act', so expressed by the Division Bench and therefore, with utmost respect to the members of the Division Bench, decided to refer the matter to a Bench of appropriate strength in order to resolve the controversy in question once for all. The order of the Division Bench referring the matter to a larger Bench of appropriate strength, reads as follows :-

(3.) WE have heard, Mr. A. M. Mazumder, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate and also Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate and Mr. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council.