MAHO RAM HAZARIKA Vs. A.M. DESHMUKHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question, which arises for determination in these appeals, which have been preferred under Rule 11 of the Rules for the settlement of fisheries in Assam, is about the interpretation of Rule 13 of the said Rules. The Rules in question have been framed under Section 155 and 156 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, read with Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act 1897.

(2.) ONE of these appeals was originally put up for hearing before my learned brother Mehrotra, but he referred the same for decision by a Division Bench. In his opinion, the points raised were of considerable importance and affected a large number of such cases. In his order of reference, he formulated two main questions which fell to be determined: (1) whether the words, 'formed by actual fishermen' in Rule 13 mean that the Society must exclusively consist of actual fishermen or it would be enough compliance with the law if the majority of the members are those, who carry on actual profession of fishermen; and (2) whether subsequent withdrawal from membership of those, who are not Fishermen by profession, will entitle the society to the settlement under Rule 13 or is it necessary that the society must consist exclusively of fishermen at the time when the settlement is made. The attention of my learned brother was drawn to the unreported decision of Deka, J. in Abdul Malik v. A.M. Deshmukhya, Revenue Appeal No. 30 (M) of 1958, D/ -2 -6 -1958 (Assam).

(3.) ON the next question also, we have to adopt the principle which was laid down in the above Special. Bench case in its application to the point under investigation. In other words, even assuming that at the time of the bid, the society was not adequately composed of actual fishermen of the scheduled caste by profession, if by the time that the settlement comes to be made, any irregularity on the point has been cured, and in the main it is found to be a society of actual fishermen, then the option under Rule 13 can be made available to the society, because till the approval by the Commissioner and the execution of the lease, the settlement has not been concluded, and if, the authorities find any irregularity in the society, the society can get the irregularity cured as a condition precedent to its getting the benefit of the option under Rule 13 and obtaining the settlement in its favour.