Point of Law: Eviction and demolition of fish Tank - Applications for regularisations were pending, the official respondents should be restrained from eviction and demolition of fish tanks

ORDER :

All these writ petitions are interrelated and are on the question of whether certain aquaculture activities in Sy.Nos.469 to 552 of Pedanindra Kolanu Village, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District, and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. About 11 agriculturists had filed W.P.No.36300 of 2015 before this Court. In this writ petition, the petitioners contend that “the petitioners are owners of various extents of agricultural lands in Pedanindra Kolanu Village, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District”. On the ground that the unofficial respondents were seeking to convert the neighbouring lands of the petitioners into fish tanks, the petitioners had been making various representations to the official respondents from June, 2013 onwards. The 3rd respondent, who is the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Eluru, by his proceedings dated 28.02.2015 and 10.03.2015, had informed the petitioners that the unofficial respondents were not converting the agricultural lands into fish tanks as no permissions had been granted. As the petitioners could see the operations being made by the unofficial respondents, a complaint was given to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar on 13.04.2015. In reply to this complaint, the Tahsildar, on 18.06.2015, informed the petitioners that no excavation activities are going on. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that the unofficial respondents were undertaking excavation which need to be stopped.

3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit stating that out of unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 15, respondent No.6 did not have any land; respondent Nos.10 and 15 had not filed any application for conversion; and the application of respondent No.8 had been rejected and as such he has not converted the land. As far as respondent Nos.7, 9, 11 and 12 to 14 are concerned, they had obtained provisional registration under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013 and these registrations were given on the ground that the conversion of such land adjacent the Kolleru River is permissible as the land was about 10+5 contour. With a view to verify whether any pollution was taking place on account of the aquaculture activities of the private respondents, this Court had directed the Pollution Control Board to file a report. A report dated 22.09.2016 was filed by the Pollution Control Board stating that a test of the water in the fields of various farmers showed that the water quality was not upto the standard in one case and was within the parameters in the other cases. However, that report also stated that the crop cycle was 6 to 8 months while the test was conducted when the crop cycle was only 1 to 2 months old. The report cautioned that it was only in the later part of the crop cycle that large scale additions would be made to the tanks which would result in higher pollution.

4. After filing of the above case, W.P.No.1057 of 2018 was filed by three petitioners, including respondent No.13 and son of respondent No.14 in W.P.No.36300 of 2015. In this writ petition, it is contended that the Joint Director of Fisheries, Convener of District Level Committee, West Godavari District, on a complaint made by the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.36300 of 2015, had issued a notice dated 12.12.2017 stating that the provisional Certificate of Registration issued to the petitioners has been cancelled. It is the case of the petitioners that after the said cancellation, respondent No.1 in W.P.No.1057 of 2018 had issued G.O.Ms.No.32, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 25.10.2017 for regularisation of fresh water aquaculture tanks which were existing under registered farms. In view of the said G.O., the petitioners had applied for regularisations and the same was pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. It was the case of the petitioners that while such applications for regularisations were pend