Statutory fishery settlement rules require sanctioned departures to remain within the legal framework, preserving appeal rights.

Settlement of fisheries under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation had to remain within the statutory rules, and a sanction permitting departure from the ordinary procedure did not authorise action outside the rules altogether. The Deputy Commissioner's auction and referral of the bid list to Government were treated as lawful steps within the scheme, with Government sanction operating on the settlement act itself. The later cancellation and resettlement were also treated as acts of the Deputy Commissioner, so the appellate remedy under rule 190 applied. The presumption of regularity reinforced a construction favouring legality over illegality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the settlement and resettlement of the fishery were made in accordance with the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the rules framed under it, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under rule 190 to entertain the appeal against the cancellation and resettlement.

Analysis: Fisheries in Assam were brought under statutory control by the Regulation and could be settled only in accordance with the rules made under it. Rule 190-A did not authorise the Provincial Government to remove the transaction from the statutory framework and act purely in an executive capacity. The expression permitting settlement otherwise than by the ordinary procedure, with previous sanction of the Provincial Government, meant only a sanctioned departure within the rules, not a departure from the rules altogether. On that construction, the Deputy Commissioner's auction and his reference of the bid list directly to Government were lawful steps within the statutory scheme, and the Government's sanction operated upon his act of settlement. The later cancellation and resettlement were likewise acts of the Deputy Commissioner, so the appellate remedy under rule 190 was attracted. The presumption that official acts are regularly performed also supported a construction that preserved legality rather than illegality.

Conclusion: The settlement with the first respondent was valid, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the challenge to the cancellation and resettlement failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's order was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory departure permitting Government sanction does not authorise executive action outside the rules; where the prescribed statutory procedure is substantially followed and the sanction operates within the rule, the resulting settlement remains a legal act within the statutory framework and is appealable under the applicable rule.

---