JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the Annexure-K order dated 14.12.2009, by which the fishery namely Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal was settled with the Respondent No. 6 pursuant to the Annexure-J Re-sale notice dated 14.7.2009. The Re-sale notice and the settlement order both had been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji Division, Dhemaji. 2. The Petitioner is the settlement holder of No. 7 Bhati Subansiri Meen Mahal Fishery under North Lakhimpur Sub-division, which was settled with him by Annexure-B order dated 2.2.2009. Such settlement is for a period of 7 years with effect from the date of delivery of possession of the fishery. The settlement was made in favour of the Petitioner pursuant to the sale notice dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure-A) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur. According to the Petitioner after handing over of the fishery to him, he made Annexure-H representation dated 10.8.2009 to the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary, Fishery Department for demarcation of the boundary of the fishery. According to him, although he was settled with the fishery covering 75 KM, but in fact he got possession of 13.5 KM only. 3. It has been stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner had occasion to lodge Annexure-I series complaints when the Petitioner found some unknown person led by the Respondent No. 6 caused interference in operating the fishery by the Petitioner by threatening its members. When an enquiry was made, it was found that the Respondent No. 6 was settled with the Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal by the aforesaid impugned Annexure-K order of settlement dated 14.12.2009, which was preceded by Annexure-J Re-sale notice dated 14.7.2009. Both issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji Division, Dhemaji. 4. Referring to the provisions of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 and Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahal Rules, 1977 in reference to the provisions of Assam Land Revenue Regulations 1886, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the particular fishery could not have been settled with the Respondent No. 6 and that such settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 6 by the Forest Department has led to violation of the provisions of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 and that such settlement has intruded upon the right of the Petitioner to operate the fishery settled with him in full. 5. 5. The writ petition was entertained by order dated 2.6.2010 and an interim order was passed suspending the impugned order of settlement dated 14.12.2009 made in favour of the Respondent No. 6. This interim order was passed after nearly 6 months of the impugned order of settlement, seeking vacation of which the Respondent No. 6 has filed Misc. Case No. 2023/2010. 6. In the said application for vacating stay, the Respondent No. 6 has stated about the settlement made in his favour. According to him, the Forest Department having settled the fishery in his favour as per the provisions of Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 and the fishery being distinct and different from the one settled with the Petitioner, the Petitioner cannot take the plea that by virtue of settlement of the fishery to him by the Fishery Department, he is entitled to intrude upon the fishery settled with the Respondent No. 6. 7. When the Misc. Case No. 2023/2010 was taken up for hearing, it was agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter requires final disposal and accordingly the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. Noticing the conflict between the two Departments of the Government of Assam, a direction was issued to clarify their respective position and accordingly by order dated 5.5.2011 both the departments i.e. Fishery and Forest were directed to file individual affidavit clarifying their stand. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, both the departments have filed their affidavit. In the affidavit filed by the Fishery Department, it has been stated that No. 7 Bhati Subansiri Meen Mahal is under the administrative control of the Fishery Department and on the basis of the tender process, the Government in the Fishery Department had settled the fishery with the Petitioner for a period of 7 years by Annexure-B order dated 2.2.2009. According to this affidavit, the Forest Department has given the impugned settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 6 without any authority. 9. As against the aforesaid plea of the Fishery Department, the Forest Department in its affidavit filed on 13.5.2011 has stated that the fishery in question was settled with the Respondent No. 6 as per provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1977. 9. As against the aforesaid plea of the Fishery Department, the Forest Department in its affidavit filed on 13.5.2011 has stated that the fishery in question was settled with the Respondent No. 6 as per provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1977. It has also been stated that the fishery has all along been settled by the Forest Department since 1998 and the present term of the Respondent No. 6 is for the period from 2009 to 2011. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 that the settlement period would be over in December, 2011. 10. In the affidavit filed by the Forest Department, it has further referred to the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 so as to contend that the Forest Department is empowered to make settlement of the fishery within its jurisdiction, more particularly, when the Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal is located well inside the notified Subansiri Reserve Forest under the Divisional Forest Officer, Subansiri Reserve Forest in the district of Dhemaji. In this connection, the affidavit has referred to the notification issued by the Government of Assam way back in 1927 (14.12.1927). 11. I have heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as wells as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. 12. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of his argument has referred to the provisions of Section 16 and 155 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. For a ready reference, the said provisions are quoted below: 16. The Deputy Commissioner, with the previous sanction of the State Government, may be proclamation published in the prescribed manner, declare any collection of water, running or still, to be a fishery; and no right in any fishery so declared shall be dismissed to have been acquired by any person, either before or after the commencement of this Regulation, except as provided in the rules made under Section 155. Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any express grant of a eight to fish made by or on behalf of the Government or any fishery rights acquired by a proprietor before the commencement of this Regulation, or the acquisition by a proprietor of such rights in any fishery forming after the commencement of this Regulation in his estate. 155. The State Government may, in addition to the other matters for which they are empowered by the Regulation to make rules, make rules consistent with this Regulation relating to the following matters: (a) the person by whom, and the time, place, and manner at or in which, anything is to be done, for the doing of which provision is made in this Regulation or the rules made there under; (b) the mode in which notices, proclamations, summonses warrants and other processes issued under this Regulation shall be issued, published, and served and the fees to be charged for the issue, publication and service of such processes; (c) the costs of all proceedings under this Regulation; (d) the matter in which representatives shall be appointed to act in matter relative to this Regulation on behalf of any body of settlement holders or persons entitled to, or with whim it may be desirable to make, a settlement; (e) the granting of licenses to prepare or collect or the farming of the right of preparing or collecting, rubber, lac and other forest produce upon land over which no person has the rights of a proprietor, land holder, or settlement holder; (f) the granting of licenses, or the farming of the right, to work mines, stone and lime queries, salt-wells and oil-wells, to fish in fisheries proclaimed under Section 16 and to carry on gold washing operating; (g) the payments in consideration of which, and the conditions on which, such licenses or farms may be granted; and (h) generally to carry out the provisions of this Regulation. 13. Referring to the aforesaid provisions, Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Government in the Fishery Department alone is empowered to make settlements of fishery irrespective of locality of the said fishery and as to whether the said fishery is within the forest area including reserve forest. In this connection he has more particularly referred to Section155(f). 14. On the other hand, Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Government in the Fishery Department alone is empowered to make settlements of fishery irrespective of locality of the said fishery and as to whether the said fishery is within the forest area including reserve forest. In this connection he has more particularly referred to Section155(f). 14. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 by referring to the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 submitted that as per the said provision, the Forest Department is empowered to settle the fishery located within its jurisdiction. In this connection he has referred to Section 3, 9 and 25. Mr. Chakraborty by referring to definition "forest produce" under Section 3(4) submitted that such forest produce will also included fishery. In this connection he also referred to Section 3(7) defining the term "river" 15. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (1985) 1 GLR 496 (Shri Jagannath Choudhury v. State of Assam), in which, in paragraph 5 and 6, it was observed thus: 5. We have our own doubt as to whether fish is a forest produce notwithstanding the fact that the definition of "forest produce" is an inclusive one. In Divisional Forest Officer v. Mool Chand Saraugi Jain, AIR 1971 SC 694 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that stone is not a forest produce. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this Court also held in Bejiram Ingty v. The State of Assam (1981) 1 GLR 222, that "forest produce" does not include stone. For the reasons set firth in those decisions, we are of the tentative view that fish is not a forest produce contemplated under the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation and "the Rules." 6. We have every reasons to doubt whether the provisions of "the Rules" are applicable to fishery settlement. However, when both the parties acted under the impression that the Rules wee applicable to the settlement of fishery we do not propose to decide the question as to whether the provisions of "the Settlement Rules, 1977" govern settlement of fisheries. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules are not applicable to the present case. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules are not applicable to the present case. Even if "fish" may be somehow brought within definition of the expression "forest produce" "Fishery" cannot be "a mahal" nor "a Coupe" as defined under "the Rules." Under Rule 21 of the Rules the period of settlement of "mahals" and "coupes" only can be extended. The Rule does not apply to any other class or category of settlement. However, we also pass over the point as the Petitioner has not taken up the point in the writ petition. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1981 All 205 (State of U.P. v. District Judge, Bijnor) so as to emphasis that fishery being a forest produce, the fishery within the forest area including reserved forest can only be settled by the Forest Department. He has also placed reliance on the decision reported in (1996) 5 SCC 194 (State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation) to emphasis that the Forest Settlement Officer has the power of a Civil Court for declaring and notifying a reserved forest so as to contend that upon declaring and notifying of land as reserved forest, all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and would be no longer available. 17. In Jagannath Choudhury (supra) the issue as to whether the fishery is a forest produce within the meaning of the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation 1891 was not conclusively decided. Similarly, whether the term "fishery" would come within the definition of forest produce was also not decided. However, certain observations regarding applicability of the said Regulation have been made. On the other hand in District Judge, Bijnor (supra), the Allahabad High Court, it has been held that no person can carry on fishing within the reserved forest area unless the same is permitted by the Forest Settlement Officer or by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It has been observed that fish is produced in water channels, ponds and lakes by natural process. It has been observed that fish is produced in water channels, ponds and lakes by natural process. If such water channels, ponds or lakes or rivers fall within the area of the reserved forest, any fishing in such water channels lakes or ponds would naturally be subject to the effect of a notification issued under Section 20 of the Act. The definition of forest produce as indicated in the judgment, is more or less in tune with the definition of forest produce finds mention in the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. 18. Apart from the above, the Petitioner was settled with the fishery called No. 7 Bhati Subansiri Meen Mahal falling in the district of Lakhimpur by Annexure-B order dated 2.2.2009. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 6 was settled with the fishery called Subansiri Reserved Fishery Mahal falling in the district of Dhemaji by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhemaji Division, Dhemaji. Admittedly they are two distinct and different fisheries. However, the Petitioner by virtue of the settlement made in his favour claims operation of the fishery even to the extent of the area of operation of the fishery that has been settled with the Respondent No. 6. 19. The settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 6 on 14.12.2009 came under challenge through the writ petition filed after 6 months thereafter during which the Respondent No. 6 operated the fishery settled with him by the Forest Department. Both the settlements i.e. one settled with the Petitioner and the one settled with the Respondent No. 6 were through two different processes initiated and completed by two different departments of the Government of Assam i.e. Fishery Department and Forest Department. 20. As noted above, both the departments have claimed their respective rights over the fisheries. While the Fishery Department has claimed its right over the fishery in question, the Forest Department has claimed its right by virtue of the aforesaid regulation including the provisions of the Forest Act. In this connection it has also been brought in record that the Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal is located well inside the notified Subansiri Reserve Forest under Dhemaji Forest Division, as per the notification issued way back in the year 1927 (14.12.1927) 21. In this connection it has also been brought in record that the Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal is located well inside the notified Subansiri Reserve Forest under Dhemaji Forest Division, as per the notification issued way back in the year 1927 (14.12.1927) 21. In view of the conflicting claim by two different departments of the Government of Assam, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be resolved by the Government of Assam upon hearing both the departments and other authorities of the related department(s), whose views might be required to be taken to resolve the issue. Accordingly the matter is sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, who in turn may conclusively decide the issue upon hearing all the authorities towards resolving the dispute. Let the dispute be resolved by passing a speaking order and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 4 months. 22. This now leads us to the question as to who will run the Subansiri Reserve Fishery in the interregnum till the dispute is resolved. As noted above, the Respondent No. 6 was settled with the fishery by Annexure-K order dated 14.12.2009. Such settlement was made pursuant to the Annexure-J sale notice dated 14.7.2009. The Petitioner never challenged the sale notice dated 14.7.2009. It is only after the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 6 by the impugned order dated 14.12.2009 and that too after expiry of more than 6 months the Petitioner made the challenge to the same. This was after the Annexure-B order of settlement dated 2.2.2009 of the fishery called No. 7 Bhati Subansiri Meen Mahal made in his favour. As per the own admission of the Petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, he was given possession of 13.5 KM and not entire 75 KM. Coupled with this, the fishery that has been settled with the Respondent No. 6 is all along under the settlement of the Forest Department since 1998. Moreover, the settlement would expire in December, 2011. On the other hand the Petitioner has been settled with the other fishery by the Fishery Department for a period of 7 years. 23. Considering all the above, I am of the view that the interim order passed on 2.2.2010 requires to be vacated which I accordingly do. Moreover, the settlement would expire in December, 2011. On the other hand the Petitioner has been settled with the other fishery by the Fishery Department for a period of 7 years. 23. Considering all the above, I am of the view that the interim order passed on 2.2.2010 requires to be vacated which I accordingly do. The Respondent No. 6 be allowed to run the fishery as per settlement made in his favour till his term expires. In the meantime, the Chief Secretary shall resolve the issue in terms of the direction contained in this judgment and order. Future settlement of the fishery will be based on the outcome of the order to be passed by the Chief Secretary. 24. Writ petition is disposed of, without, however, any order as to cost.