1953 (4) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cancellation of the lease granted to the first respondent.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal.
3. Compliance with statutory rules and regulations governing fisheries settlement.
4. Legality of the State Government's actions and decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cancellation of the Lease Granted to the First Respondent:
The State Government of Assam initially granted a lease to the first respondent, which was later cancelled and regranted to another party. The State Government argued that it was not bound by the laws and regulations governing such transactions. However, the court found that the Government had acted within the confines of the laws by which it is bound. The judgment stated, "the settlement was the act of the Deputy Commissioner and fell within the four corners of the rules. That vested the first respondent with a good and legal title to the lease."

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Appeal:
The first respondent filed an appeal to the High Court under rule 190 and applied for a mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court granted the prayer, acting under rule 190 as an appellate tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld this jurisdiction by stating, "As the Deputy Commissioner was the only authority competent to settle these fisheries, subject of course to sanction, we are bound to hold that the act of cancellation and the act of resettlement were his acts however much he may have acted under the direction and orders of a third party. That at once vested the High Court with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against his actions under rule 190."

3. Compliance with Statutory Rules and Regulations Governing Fisheries Settlement:
The court examined the compliance with the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and the rules framed under it. The judgment highlighted the importance of rule 190-A, which allows for a departure from the usual procedure with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government. The court stated, "We do not consider that this permits the Provincial Government when it so wishes to lift the sales completely out of the statutory protection afforded by the Regulation and proceed to dispose of them by executive action." The court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had followed the rules and that the only permissible departure was sending the auction result to the State Government instead of the Commissioner.

4. Legality of the State Government's Actions and Decisions:
The State Government's actions were scrutinized for legality. The court found that the Government had acted within the legal framework, stating, "Government said it was acting under rule 190-A. It said it had 'sanctioned' the settlement. Whose act was it sanctioning? Certainly not its own, for one cannot sanction one's own act. Sanction can only be accorded to the act of another and the only other person concerned in this matter was the Deputy Commissioner." The court emphasized that the Government's actions must be presumed to be regular unless proven otherwise, citing section 114, illustration (h) of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the validity of the lease granted to the first respondent and the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal. The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with statutory rules and regulations and found that the State Government had acted within the legal framework. The appeals were dismissed with costs payable to the first respondent.