HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.12210, 19769 and 21939 of 2014 Date:13.10.2014
WRIT PETITION No.12210 of 2014
Between:
Vegesna Venkata Naga Lakshmi, W/o Venkata Raju and three others.
. Petitioners And:
The Govt of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, Hyderabad and six others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.Sudeep Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:GP for Co-Operation of Government of A.P. Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7: Sri Vasantha Rayudu For Sri B.S.Kartik
WRIT PETITION No.19769 of 2014
Between:
Dandu Ramalinga Raju, S/o Venkata Narasimha Raju and two others.
. Petitioners And:
The Govt of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, Hyderabad and three others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vasantha Rayudu For Sri B.S.Kartik Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Co-Operation of Government of A.P.
AND
WRIT PETITION No.21939 of 2014
Between:
Vegesna Venkata Naga Lakshmi, W/o Venkata Raju and three others.
. Petitioners And:
The Govt of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, Hyderabad and seven.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.Sudeep Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:GP for Co-Operation of Government of A.P. Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7: Sri Vasantha Rayudu For Sri B.S.Kartik The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These Writ Petitions involve common subject matter. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together.
For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.12210 of 2014.
I have heard Sri S.Sudeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries of Government of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel representing Sri B.S.Kartik, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
The facts, in brief, leading to filing of these Writ Petitions are stated hereunder:
The petitioners claim to own certain extent of lands in R.S.Nos.71/6, 76/1, 69/2 and 69/3, which are described as double crop wet lands, situated in Kesavaram Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are owners of land in R.S.Nos.70/3, 71/4, 69/1, 71/2, 71/3 and 21/3, in all admeasuring Acs.9.75 cents of the same Village.
The petitioners specifically pleaded that the aforesaid lands of respondent Nos.5 to 7 are located to the south of their lands and that the paddy crop raised by the petitioners is in existence in their lands. They have further pleaded that the lands belonging to respondent Nos.5 to 7 are also double crop wet lands and that they have been cultivating paddy in the said lands; and that in order to get higher income from their lands, respondent Nos.5 to 7 have been trying to convert their agricultural lands into fish/prawn tanks without permission from the competent authorities. It is further pleaded that if such conversion is made, the neighbouring lands including that belonging to the petitioners will permanently get damaged due to seeping of saline water and chemicals used for aquaculture rendering the lands unfit for paddy cultivation. The petitioners have also relied upon endorsement in Rc.No.SPE.81/2013(D.T)-Prajavani, dated 17.12.2013, of respondent No.4 in support of their plea that the applications, dated 15.05.2013, filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 for permission to dig fish tanks was rejected. By order, dated 29.04.2014, this Court has directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate action as per G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013.
Respondent Nos.5 to 7 have filed Writ Petition No.19769 of 2014 to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not granting final registration certification on the applications submitted by them for carrying on aquaculture activities over the lands which are subject matter of Writ Petition No.12210 of 2014. They have relied upon report, dated 04.06.2014, of respondent No.4 sent to the Mandal Level Committee in support of their claim for a direction to the respondents to grant Final Registration Certificate to enable them to proceed with the digging of fish tanks. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 have, however, not impleaded the petitioners in Writ Petition No.19769 of 2014. This Court by order, dated 16.07.2014, while taking note of the fact that the authorities concerned have recommended for conversion of the agricultural lands belonging to respondent Nos.5 to 7 into fish tanks, permitted them to carry on digging operations in the said lands, but restrained them from commencing the aquaculture activities till Final Registration Certificate is granted to them. This Court has also directed respondent No.2 to dispose of the applications of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013.
The petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.21939 of 2014 to set aside the recommendation made by respondent No.4, vide his report, dated 04.06.2014, as the same is allegedly contrary to G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013.
Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries (Andhra Pradesh), on instructions, submitted that the objections filed by the petitioners before respondent No.2 are pending and that the applications of respondent Nos.5 to 7 are also under consideration of respondent No.2 G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013, governs elaborate procedure for granting permissions for carrying on aquaculture. Clause-7 therein deals with the procedure to be followed by the District Level Committee. Clause-7.29 envisages calling for objections by the District Level Committee from the owners of the neighbouring agricultural lands by publishing a notice of 15 days in the Notice board of the District Fisheries Officer and consider the objections, if any, received, before taking any decision on the registration of the applications for carrying on aquaculture.
Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the petitioners have advanced their respective pleadings for and against the grant of registration. Since respondent No.2 is the authority competent to consider the applications of respondent Nos.5 to 7 with reference to the objections raised by the petitioners, I feel it inappropriate to deal with these rival pleadings at this stage. Instead, it is desirable that respondent No.2 disposes of the applications filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 by duly considering the objections of the petitioners strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013. Till such consideration is made, it is in fitness of things that respondent Nos.5 to 7 do not proceed with further work relating to conversion of the lands into fish/prawn tanks for, in the event, the objections of the petitioners are accepted and permission is declined by respondent No.2, the whole work that may be carried on by respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the meantime may be rendered waste.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the applications of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the light of the objections raised by the petitioners and with reference to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013, take a final decision and communicate the same to both parties within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 shall offer an opportunity of personal hearing to both parties before a final decision is taken. He shall give detailed reasons in support of the decision that may be taken by him on the applications of respondent Nos.5 to 7. Till a decision is taken and communicated by respondent No.2, respondent Nos.5 to 7 shall not proceed with the work of digging of fish tanks.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.Nos. of 2014 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
13th October, 2014
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY