Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.GANGA RAO, J.
Chekuri Subba Lakshmi - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.39854 of 2016 and 3798 of 2017
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 – Fish culture - Petitioners are granted final registration only to dig fresh water fish tanks to rear fresh water fish culture, but it appears that on mere submitting application for permission to rear L.Vennamei in fresh water tanks and without waiting for permission, started culturing L.Vennamei prawn culture - Rearing of L.Vennamei prawn culture is prohibited in fresh water fish tanks and only it is permitted in Coastal Aquaculture zones, where there is sufficient saline water - However, issuance of notices to vacate and demolish fish tanks, found to be illegal and arbitrary - Whether permissions granted to petitioners in W.P. for cultivation of aquaculture in respect of their lands is valid - Whether impugned notices issued by 3rd respondent directing petitioners in W.P. to vacate fish tanks and action of 4th respondent asking petitioners to demolish fish tanks and their interference, is illegal and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
Court found that lands in respect of which registration was granted for fish culture is covered by Ayacut under Pendyala Pumping Scheme and they are double crop wet lands only but not marshy lands or inundated lands or not falling within aquaculture zones or coastal aquaculture zones to rear L.Vennamei or prawn culture - Objections raised by adjacent and neighbouring land owners, petitioners in W.P. are not properly considered before granting provisional and final registration as per guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. and without properly considering compliance of guidelines, final registration certificate is granted fish tanks appear to have been located in non-aquaculture zone, which is found to be illegal - Petitioners are granted final registration only to dig fresh water fish tanks to rear fresh water fish culture, but it appears that on mere submitting application for permission to rear L.Vennamei in fresh water tanks and without waiting for permission, started culturing L.Vennamei prawn culture - Rearing of L.Vennamei prawn culture is prohibited in fresh water fish tanks and only it is permitted in Coastal Aquaculture zones, where there is sufficient saline water - However, issuance of notices to vacate and demolish fish tanks, found to be illegal and arbitrary.
Result: Writ Petitions are disposed of.
ORDER :
In both the writ petitions, the cause of action arose out of digging of fish tanks in the land extent Ac.3.54 cents in Sy.No.20/1 & 2 and land extent Ac.3.32 cents in Sy.No.20/3A & 3B of Pendyala Village, Nadadavole Mandal, West Godavari District.
2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.39854 of 2016, Sri B.Somasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017/respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.39854 of 2016 and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries.
3. In Writ Petition No.39854 of 2016, the complaint is that the fish tanks were dug contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 26.05.2015. In Writ Petition No.3798 of 2016, the complaint is that the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the prawn culture taken up in the petitioners’ fish tanks situated in R.S.No.20/3A & 3B and R.S.No.20/1 & 2 of Pendyala Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District, on the ground that they are taken up culture of L.Vannamei, which is prohibited. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and passing this common order.
4. W.P.No.39854 of 2016:
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are three in number, filed this writ petition stating that they are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring extent Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.Nos.20/3A & 3B of Pendyala Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District; the land extent Ac.6.37 cents in R.S.Nos.91/11, 102/20, 104/2, 104/3, 104/4 and 104/5 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District; the land extent Ac.1.82 cents in R.S.Nos.91/11 and 102/20 and the land extent Ac.1.61 cents in R.S.Nos.102/13B, 102/14 and 102/15 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District. They are the neighbouring land owners to the lands of respondents 6 and 7, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017. The lands are valuable fertile lands suitable for cultivation of double crop paddy, banana, coconut plantations and other valuable commercial crops and they are rich yielding fields. The lands are ayacut lands under Pendyala Pumping Scheme. As the lands are irrigated under pumping scheme and as no public feeder or drain channels are provided, the lands are feeding through ayacut channels one after another under the pumping scheme and the excess and remaining water runs into Latchiraju tank belongs to the Pendyala and Kanuru Gram panchayats. The water in the Latchiraju tank serves the needs of the villagers for drinking their cattle. The fishing rights of the tank are auctioned, thereby the gram panchayat earns considerable income.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 6 and 7 had dug the fish tanks in their lands. The petitioners have submitted their objections for grant of provisional registration and final registration in favour of respondents 6 and 7 in respect of their lands stating that conversion of agricultural land into fish tanks by the respondents 6 and 7 destroys the petitioners and other cultivators’ fertile double crop paddy growing wet lands. The lands sought to be converted into fish tanks are ayacut lands under the pumping scheme. The water supplied under the pumping scheme is hardly sufficient to meet the needs of the agricultural crops and it is not sufficient for fish culture. The respondents 6 and 7 have clandestinely dug the bore wells for raring prawn culture under the guise of obtaining permission for fish culture. The same is rejected by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nidadavolu dated 28.10.2016. In respect of very same lands, when one Sri Nalla Rama Krishna, lessee of the respondents 6 and 7, applied for license for fresh water aquaculture pond through Mee-seva on 18.03.2016, the official respondents after enquiry as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
