r. 12 of the Fishery Rules with the respondent No.
This relief was, however, number A. 1.
The appeal of respondent No.
1 inasmuch as it had number appealed against the judgment of the High Court.
A Revenue Appeal was also filed against the order of respondent No.
In regard to the appellant also the High Court came to the same companyclusion and held that the settlement made by respondent No.
I was accordingly dismissed.
1 was directed to give up possession thereof with effect from that date.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 19, 1955, of the Assam High Court in Revenue Appeal No.
from April 1, 1954, to March 31, 1957, at an annual zama of Rs.
It followed that judgment and held that the respondent No.
The result was that the settlements made by respondent No.
The Rule obtained by respondent No.
The State of Assam had number obtained any leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court in Nuruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam 1 , and was apparently companytent with the decision that r. 12 of the Fishery Rules was ultra vires.
Respondent No.
374 of 1956.
3, had settled the Charduar Brahmaputra Fishery with the respondent No.
I and the order of cancellation should be upheld on that ground alone.
33 M of 1955.
and respondent No.
1 had created under lease in favour of certain persons and cancelled the settlement of the fishery.
56 of 1955, Nuruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam 1 , declaring r. 12 of the Fishery Rules ultra vires the State Government and therefore invalid and unenforceable.
The appellant, however, obtained special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court which set aside the settlement of the Fishery made by respondent No.
R. 1956 Assam 48.
1 thereupon obtained a Rule from the Assam High Court alleging that the said settlement was absolutely illegal and the fishery had to be settled pro perly according to the rules under which these settlements are usually made.
2, received some reports against the respondent No.
I for a period of three years, viz.,
3 with respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
VI of the Fishery lease and also of certain other companyditions of the lease.
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and K. R. Chaudhry, for the appellant.
It appears that after such cancellation, respondent No.
76 of 1955.
1 appears to have been in a similar quandary.
2 would have been void and inoperative.
33 M of 1955 and Civil Rule No.
I would have been with jurisdiction and the cancellation by respondent No.
The Deputy Commissioner of Darrang, respondent No.
Civil Rule No.
I was as to the intra vires character of 12 of the Fishery Rules.
3 in this appeal it took up the position that r. 12 of the Fishery Rules was intra vires, a position which it had number so far chosen to sustain by appealing against the decision of the High Court in Nuruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam 1 or in the present case but which it tried to support as it were by the back door by appearing in this appeal and supporting the appellant.
3, purporting to act again under r. 12, settled the said fishery with the appellant with effect from May 4, 1955, and respondent No.
If the appellant gained his point and had it established that the rule was intra vires the settlement of the fishery by respondent No.
3 with respondent No.
The High Court had already on August 31, 1955, delivered a judgment in Civil Rule NO.
2 under rule 11 of section 1 of the Fishery Rules and both the Rule and the Revenue Appeal were heard together by the Assam High Court.
76 of 1955.
19,600 Under r. 12 of the Fishery Rules.
The State of Assam, respondent No.
3 had numberjurisdiction to make a settlement under A.I.R. 1956 Assam 48.
He obtained reports from the Sub Deputy Collector and the Extra Assistant Commissioner in regard to these allegations and came to the companyclusion that respondent No.
3 along with respondent No.
1 alleging violation of cl.
Respondent No.
I was accordingly made absolute.
3 along with him and impleaded the State of Assam as respondent No.
3 in his favour was entirely without jurisdiction.
available to respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal with special leave arises out of a judgment of the Assam High Court in Revenue Appeal No.
January 29.
2 and 3, 1957.
N. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
M. Lahiri, Advocate General of Assam, and Naunit Lal, for respondents Nos.
I and the appellant were both set aside and the authorities were directed to make a fresh settlement of the fishery in question according to the existing Fishery Rules.
