High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3472/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
Decision
The petitioner who has been settled with 43/44 No. Shunduba Pabakati Fis hery under Morigaon District vide Annexure-C order dated 20.07.2011 for the peri od from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 at yearly revenue of Rs. 19,33,501/- in total Rs. 1,35,34,507/- has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure-H order dated 1 5.05.2012 by which his prayer for remission of revenue for the year 2011-2012 ha s been rejected. Another prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents for making necessary arrangement for remission of revenue in r espect of 496 bighas out 1145 bighas of land over which the fishery is situated. According to the petitioner, 496 bighas of land have already merged with the ri ver Brahamaputra. Thus the area of operation is also considerably reduced. In th is connection, the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-G certificate date d 07.01.2012 issued by the Circle Officer, Bhuragaon Revenue Circle. I have heard Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well a s Mr. H.K. Mahanta and Mr. S.R. Rajbongshi, learned counsel for the Fishery Deve lopment Department. I have also heard Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel. The petitioner was settled with the fishery pursuant to the tender proce ss that was initiated vide Annexure-A NIT dated 07.05.2011. Accepting the tender submitted by the petitioner, he was settled with the fishery by Annexure-C lett er dated 20.07.2011 at yearly revenue of Rs. 19,33,501/- totalling to Rs. 1,35,3 4,507.00. He was directed to pay the kist money within seven days amounting to R s. 19,33,501/-. When there was default on the part of the petitioner to pay the same, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation issued Annexure- D/1 l etter dated 09.12.2011 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within sev en days. On the date of issuance of the letter the amount stood at Rs. 9,73,083/ -. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6455/2011 challenging the said notice. The writ petition was disposed of with the following direction. (cid:28)On consideration of the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Corpora tion to make adjustment of the revenue of that 112 days spanning from 01.04.2011 to 20.07.2011 in the first instalment by way of giving pro rata deduction from the settled revenue for the current financial year i.e. 2011-12. The respondent-Corporation is, therefore, directed that after deducting the same amount, they shall raise a demand to the petitioner, in their earliest convenie nce, by providing at least one month’s time, for making the payment. The petitio ner shall be bound by that order, otherwise, the respondent-Corporation will be at liberty to take necessary action, as might be taken as per relevant clause of the Agreement dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost. (cid:29) By the aforesaid order, it was made clear that the petitioner shall be bound by the order to be passed by the respondent Corporation. It was also provided that in case of failure on the part of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation wou ld be at liberty to take necessary action as per the relevant clause of the agre ement dated 01.08.2011. Pursuant to the said order, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed the impugned order dated 15.06.2012 about which mention has been made above. Before the said order was passed, the petitioner made the repre sentation dated 09.05.2012 to the respondent Corporation praying for remission i n respect of the land allegedly got merged with the river Brahmaputra reducing t he area of operation of the fishery. Referring to the said representation, it is now the stand of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the annual kist mo ney and for that matter the total revenue for the settlement made in his favour and the respondent Corporation is bound to reduce the settlement dues appropriat ely. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel representing the Corporation submits that the petit ioner having entered into the contract/agreement to run the fishery that was set tled to him, cannot now resile back from the said position so as to claim reduct ion in revenue. Referring to the NIT and the conditions thereof, Mr. Mahanta sub mits that the prayer of the petiotner is not at all tenable and his ploy is to f rustrate his own failure to pay the revenue to the respondent Corporation. He al so submits that if the prayer made by the petitioner is acceded, the other tende rers will also be given opportunity, which will require issuance of fresh tender . I have considered the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire materials on record. The petitioner having been settled with the fishery with the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement and in acceptance of t he bid value, he is not entitled to make a demand for lowering the revenue on th e ground of purported erosion. No such plea was taken by the petitioner at the t ime of taking possession of the fishery. The certificate dated 07.01.2012 to whi ch the petitioner has referred to also does not indicate that the purported eros ion took place after the fishery was settled with the petitioner. When the peti tioner had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition, being W. P.(C) No. 6455/2011, no such plea was taken as will be evident from the order da ted 21.12.2011 by which the writ petition was disposed of. He having failed on t hat count, now has again filed the instant writ petition claiming remission on t he ground of purported erosion diminishing the area of operation of the fishery. The fact that there was default on the part of the petitioner to pay the kist m oney as was agreed upon by him when the fishery was settled to him pursuant to t ender process. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit th e kist money, the respondent Corporation will be at liberty to realise the same and/or proceed with the matter in accordance with law.