IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, J.
Kakarala Visalakshi Ganga Bhavani - Appellant
Versus
Coastal Aqua Culture Authority, Hority – Respondent
Writ Petition No.26769 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2022
AQUACULTURE - COASTAL AQUACULTURE AUTHORITY ACT, 2005 - ANDHRA PRADESH STATE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 2020 - VALIDITY OF LICENSE - ENCROACHMENT OF BUND - IRRIGATION CHANNEL - JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ILLEGAL AQUACULTURE PRACTICES - DIRECTIONS TO AUTHORITIES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the license granted to the 6th respondent for shrimp and prawn culture, alleging that it was illegal and caused damage to her agricultural land due to seepage of saline water. The 6th respondent claimed to have obtained permission from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority in 2009, but the petitioner argued that the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act did not apply to the 6th respondent's aqua farm as it was outside the aquaculture zone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 6th respondent had obtained permission from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority in 2009, but the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder did not apply to the 6th respondent's aqua farm as it was outside the aquaculture zone. The court also found that the 6th respondent had illegally dug a bore well to draw saline water for shrimp and prawn culture, which caused damage to the petitioner's agricultural land.
Issues: 1. Whether the license granted to the 6th respondent for shrimp and prawn culture was valid. 2. Whether the 6th respondent's encroachment of the bund of the Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (drain) was illegal. 3. Whether the 6th respondent's digging of a bore well to draw saline water for shrimp and prawn culture was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the license granted to the 6th respondent for shrimp and prawn culture was invalid as the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder did not apply to the 6th respondent's aqua farm as it was outside the aquaculture zone. 2. The court held that the 6th respondent's encroachment of the bund of the Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (drain) was illegal as it prevented the petitioner and other public from using the bund as a pathway to reach their agricultural fields. 3. The court held that the 6th respondent's digging of a bore well to draw saline water for shrimp and prawn culture was illegal as it was contrary to the provisions of the WALTA Act.
Final Decision: The court directed the Commissioner of Fisheries to take further action to stop the illegal fish culture by the 6th respondent within eight weeks and to take up the issue to its logical conclusion as per the provisions of the APSADA Act. The court also directed the 4th respondent Tahsildar to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent for illegal digging of the bore well within two weeks. The court further directed the competent authority under the provisions of the Irrigation Act, 2019 to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the 6th respondent's encroachment of the bund and to pass appropriate reasoned orders within eight weeks.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to cancel the license No.AQNLFWEG007398 dated 16.6.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and the provisions of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Rules, 2005 and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns and possesses agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.67/1 of I. Polavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. The said land was purchased by the petitioner’s father and kept the same in the petitioner’s name on 12.12.2000 and since then the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner made a complaint to the respondent authorities against the illegal cultivation of shrimp and prawn culture taken up by the 6th respondent, who is her western neighbor in the land extent Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.66-3 of I. Polavaram Mandal. Because of illegal digging of the fish pond by the 6th respondent in his land and cultivating shrimp and prawn culture illegally and due to release and seepage of saline water from the fish pond of the 6th respondent, the petitioner’s land is damaged over a period of time and the paddy crop is withered and dried away and in support of her contention, she filed photographs at Page Nos.49, 50 and 51 along with writ petition. The photographs clearly shows that due to seepage of water from the 6th respondent fish pond, the paddy crop raised by the petitioner is withered away and became pale and yellow. It could be held that due to seepage of saline water from the 6th respondent’s fish pond over a period, the petitioner’s land has become saline and not fit for raising any crop.
3. The 6th respondent in his counter averred that he obtained permission for doing culture of Penaeus Monodn species from the 1st respondent coastal aquaculture authority on 09.2.2009 and the petitioner was permitted to culture the above species not exceeding sock density of 1,00,000 per hector and 2 crops per year under the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made therein.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and Coastal Aquaculture Authority Rules, 2005 have no application to the petitioner’s land as the lands are outside the coastal area. The petitioner at present obtained license/registration on 16.6.2021 from the 3rd respondent for doing fresh water aquaculture in his lands under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to “APSADA Act”), 2020 and the rules made thereunder. The 6th respondent’s land is a fresh water area without any influence of saline water through many water ways and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. However, the registration was given to the 6th respondent as per the recommendation of the District Level Committee of East Godavari District, the same was expired on 08.2.2019 and thereafter it was not renewed. The Coastal Aquaculture Authority received a complaint dated 20.3.2021 against the 6th respondent to take action against the shrimp farming by the 6th respondent vide CAA Registration No.AP-II-2008(3745) in Sy.No.66/3 at Pedamamidi village and the said shrimp farm is surrounded by agricultural lands of the petitioner. The said shrimp farm is reportedly causing soil degradation and salinization of the surrounding agricultural lands due to improper drainage for silt and waste water management in the farm. The complaint was forwarded by Coastal Aquaculture Authority to the District Collector cum Chairman, District Level Committee, East Godavari District on 28.4.2021 and 24.6.2021 with a copy to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada an
The provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder do not apply to aquaculture farms that are outside the aquaculture zone.
The court emphasized the importance of enforcing regulations under the APSADA Act, 2020 and related rules to address unauthorized aquaculture activities.
lands granted permissions for fish culture could not be said to be marshy lands and inundated lands fit for fish culture by digging fish tanks.
The quashing of criminal proceedings is inappropriate when prima facie offences are disclosed, necessitating a trial for proper adjudication.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict regulation of aquaculture activities within the coastal areas as stipulated under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, and the n....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.