SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 374

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.CHELAMESWAR, M.S.LIBERHAN
Vaddavalli Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Rayidi Krishna Kumari - Respondent
Decided On : 06-08-00

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 80(3) - Consultation with Gram Panchayat - Consultation necessary only when a notification issued in respect water works but not in the case irrigation works

M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose ,of the Writ appeal as well as the Writ Petition, which was taken up for decision on merits with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE dispute involved in these matters relates to leasing of fishery rights over the tondapi major irrigation tank situate in tordapi Gram Panchayat in Guntur district. The Gram Panchayat claiming that the minor irrigation tank in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat auctioned the fishery rights in favour of the 6th respondent herein by operation of Section 80 of the andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act ). The Gram Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch initially filed the Writ Petition No. 15090 of 1999 against respondents 1 to 4 seeking a declaration that the tank vests in the Gram Panchayat with a consequential relief of issuing a mandamus injuncting the respondents from interfering in the rights of the panchayat over the tank in dispute and other tanks situate within the limits of the Tondapi gram Panchayat and to declare the contemplated action of the respondents 1 to 4 in divesting the control and regulatory power of the Gram Panchayat in regard to such rights in favour of the Fisheries department by issuing administrative instructions as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Act.

( 3 ) THE contention of the writ petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Sections 80 and 81 of the Act, the Gram Panchayat was vested with the fishery rights in any water work vested in it under sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Act subject to such restriction and control prescribed. It is also contended that Article 243-G has been introduced by the Constitution Amendment act, 1992 to endow the Gram Panchayats with such power or authority to function as institutions of self-governance and after the amendment of Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as a consequence of the Constitution amendment Act, 1992, the tanks and other water resources within the limits of the gram Panchayats vest in the Gram panchayats and the same shall be under the control of the Gram Panchayats only. After the amendment of the Act, the fishery rights over the tanks etc. vested with other authorities shall be deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayats by virtue of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act. The gram Panchayat alone has the rights over the tanks and water resources situate in the limits of Gram Panchayat and the respondents 1 to 4 have no power of control and Gram Panchayat alone has the right to lease out fishery rights of such tanks or resources. The administrative instructions issued by the Government empowering the 4th respondent to exercise the rights and control over the tanks are contrary to sections 80 and 81 of the Act.

( 4 ) THIS Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim direction on 21-7-1999 not to interfere with the rights of the Gram Panchayat over the tanks within its limits pending disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the Vaddavalli fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. , vaddavalli who claims that it was registered in the year 1961 for the benefit of the fishermen community of the area and who claims that the Fisheries Department is leasing the fishery rights over the tanks of that area to the society and was holding the fishery rights over the Tondapi tank was impleaded as 5th respondent. Thereafter, the Fishermen Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Ltd. , Tondapi in whose favour the Gram Panchayat has granted the lease of fishery rights in the tank was impleaded as respondent No. 6. On 16-2-2000, on the applications filed by the respondents 5 and 6 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 21-7-1999, the learned single Judge by the order under appeal, modified the interim order to the effect that respondents 1 to 4 shall not in any manner interfere with the rights of the writ petitioner as well as the 6th respondent from carrying on fishing operations till 30-6-2000

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top