Yadla Venkata Simhachalam, S/O. ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1799 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

   WRIT PETITION Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018,
          19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019


COMMON 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 2 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

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 3 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

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 pending, the official respondents should be

restrained from eviction and demolition of fish tanks belonging

to the petitioners in W.P.No.1057 of 2018.

5. Another writ petition, being W.P.No.19438 of 2019,

was filed by seven petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in

W.P.No.1057 of 2018 are petitioner Nos.7 and 6 respectively in

W.P.No.19438 of 2019. The mother of petitioner No.1 in 4 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

W.P.No.1057 of 2018 is petitioner No.5 in W.P.No.19438 of

2019. It is to be noted that petitioner No.5 is relying upon the

same Certificate of Registration issued to petitioner No.1 in

W.P.No.1057 of 2018. Further, it is to be noted that respondent

Nos.9, 11, 13 and 14 in W.P.No.36300 of 2015 are petitioner

Nos.1, 3, 6 and 5 in W.P.No.19438 of 2019. In this writ petition

also, the contention of the petitioners is that their provisional

registration granted under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry,

Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

16.03.2013 was cancelled and they had sought regularisations

under G.O.Ms.No.32, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development

and Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 25.10.2017 and that

their tanks should not be demolished while the said applications

are pending.

6. W.P.No.20425 of 2019 has been filed by the person

who is petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.1057 of 2018 and petitioner

No.6 in W.P.No.19438 of 2019. The contention of the petitioner

is that the provisional registration of the petitioner was

cancelled on 12.11.2017 and the petitioner had applied for

regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.32, Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development and Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated

25.10.2017 and the respondents were seeking to demolish the

tanks of the petitioner during pendency of the regularisation of

the application.

7. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners in W.P.No.36300 of 2015 and the respondents in 5 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

all the other writ petitions, would submit that the fish tanks

said to have been excavated under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 16.03.2013 cannot be regularised under

G.O.Ms.No.32, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 25.10.2017 or G.O.Ms.No.15

Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015, inasmuch as these are existing

fish tanks, which had been given provisional registration under

G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013 and upon

cancellation of such provisional registration, the authorities

could not have regularised the illegal formation of fish tanks and

carrying on aquaculture activities, inasmuch as the fish tanks of

the respondents do not meet the conditions set out

G.O.Ms.Nos.32 and 15.

8. Sri S.Subba Reddy, would also point out to the

subsequent registrations obtained under G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015 to contend that these certificates

were said to have been issued on 13.08.2016 and 12.10.2015,

while it is the case of the said respondents in the writ petitions

filed much later that the applications for regularisations are still

pending. In such a situation, Sri S.Subba Reddy contends that

these certificates are fabricated and this Court should not grant

indulgence to persons who have come with unclean hands

before this Court.

6 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

9. Sri S.Subba Reddy also submits that in view of the

stay granted by this Court in W.P.No.1057 of 2018, the

Certificates of Regularisation produced by the fish tanks owners

could not have been issued at all. It is further contended that

the very same persons also filed W.P.No.17301 of 2018 in which

they have specifically stated that they have been raising fish in

the ponds and such activities are clearly prohibited unless and

until due permission is granted under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 16.03.2013.

10. Sri B. Soma Sekhar, learned counsel for the fish

tank owners, would submit that his clients were unaware of the

issuance of the regularisation certificates under G.O.Ms.No.15,

Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015, at the time when the Writ

Petitions were filed, and as such, they could not place the

certificates or plead completion of the regularisation process.

11. Before going into the controversy in the present

cases, it is necessary to set out the statutory regime governing

this issue.

12. In view of the large scale conversion of lands, both

agricultural lands as well as non-agricultural lands, into fish

tanks for the purpose of carrying on aquaculture operations, the

Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

16.03.2013, to regulate aquaculture activities and also the 7 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

conversion of lands into fish tanks. The said G.O. prohibited

fresh water aquaculture without registration in accordance with

the G.O. A District Level Committee was set up under the G.O.

as the competent authority to permit fresh water aquaculture by

way of registration with the committee. The guidelines which

should be applied by the committee for grant of registration

were also set out in the said G.O. In the guidelines annexed to

this G.O., it was stated that aquaculture farms and installations

whether fully or partly excavated and whether abandoned or

active before 16.03.2013, would be treated as existing

aquaculture farms and the G.O. would not be applicable to such

farms. However, all such existing farms could also be

regularised by making applications for that purpose within three

months from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 16.03.2013, which would mean that such

applications for regularisation could be filed on or before

16.06.2013. Subsequently, by way of G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015, this guideline was amended to

permit the applications for regularisation of existing

unregistered aquaculture farms till 31.03.2016.

13. Another feature of the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.7,

Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 16.03.2013, was the introduction of a two

step registration process. Under these guidelines, an applicant

would first apply for provisional registration, which would be 8 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

granted upon the application, meeting all the terms and

conditions set out in the G.O. Upon such provisional

registration being granted, the applicant could excavate and

complete the setting up of fish tanks. Thereafter, the District

Level Committee would verify whether the tanks have been

established in accordance with the provisional registration

under G.O.Ms.No.7 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013 and upon

being satisfied with the compliance of these conditions, a final

registration certificate would be issued. It was also stipulated

that the applicant cannot carryon or commence any

aquaculture activities in the tanks until the final registration

certificate is issued. A slight modification was made in relation

to these guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.15 Animal Husbandry,

Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

26.05.2015 by requiring the District Level Committee to

complete the issue of final registration within one month from

the date of receipt of application for final registration. There are

other modifications which are not germane to the present case

and are not being referred to.

14. After the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015 the Government again issued

G.O.Ms.No.32, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 25.10.2017. Under this G.O.,

the time for regularisation of existing unregistered aquaculture

farms was extended upto 31.03.2018.

9 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

15. In the present case, the fish tank owners had been

granted registration under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry,

Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

16.03.2013 and thereafter, these registrations were cancelled.

On account of the cancellation of the registrations, it would have

to be treated that all these fish tanks were existing unregistered

aquaculture farms. Upon such cancellation, the owners of these

farms had liberty to apply for regularisation upto 31.03.2016

under G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development

and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 26.05.2015 and

subsequently till 31.03.2018 under G.O.Ms.No.32, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish)

Department, dated 25.10.2017. The details of the persons who

had made such applications have already been recorded. On the

basis of these applications, it appears that the fish farms have

been regularised under G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry,

Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

26.05.2015 on various dates set out in the certificates. However,

these certificates also specified that regularisation is in relation

to provisional registration only and the applicants would have to

apply in Form-C for final registration. It was also stipulated that

till such registration is granted by the authority, the applicant

cannot fill water or stock of fish/prawn culture.

16. On account of the contentions raised by Sri S.

Subba Reddy that the certificates of regularisation issued in

favour of the fish tank owners were fabricated documents, the

learned Government Pleader for Fisheries was directed to obtain 10 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

instructions in this regard. However, the instructions obtained

by the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries are totally

irrelevant, as the instructions spoke about the initial

registrations under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

16.03.2013 and were totally silent on the question of whether

the subsequent certificates issued for regularisation were

genuine or not. In these circumstances, this Court would have

to fall back on the pleadings of the private parties to the

litigation. On one hand, it is the contention of the parties

represented by Sri S. Subba Reddy that the certificates are fake,

on the other hand the parties represented by Sri B.Soma Sekhar

contend that they are genuine certificates and the discrepancy

in the pleading is due to ignorance of the fact that regularisation

had already been completed by the authorities. In these

circumstances, it would be difficult for this Court to arrive at

any conclusion on either side.

17. Looking at this issue from any angle, it is clear that

even according to the case of the parties represented by Sri B.

Soma Sekhar, final registration has not been done in relation to

the fish tanks of the parties represented by Sri B. Soma Sekhar.

18. In these circumstances, these writ petitions are

disposed of with the following directions:

1) The parties represented by Sri B. Soma Sekhar in those

cases where regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.15,

Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries 11 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

(Fish.II) Department, dated 26.05.2015 is claimed to

have been completed, shall apply for final registration

under G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated

16.03.2013 read with G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.32,

Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries

(Fish) Department, dated 25.10.2017.

2) Upon such application being made, the District Level

Committee, after giving appropriate notice to the

parties represented by Sri S. Subba Reddy and after

giving opportunity to place their objections, shall

consider whether the fish tanks are in accordance with

the conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 16.03.2013; G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal

Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)

Department, dated 26.05.2015; and G.O.Ms.No.32

Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries

(Fish) Department, dated 25.10.2017, along with the

guidelines attached to these G.Os.

3) After considering all the issues raised by both sides and

after going into the question of whether the

regularisation certificates produced by the fish tank

owners are genuine or not, the District Level Committee 12 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

shall pass orders either rejecting the final registration

or granting final registration within a period of three (3)

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4) The District Level Committee shall take all steps to

ensure that such applicants do not carry out any

aquaculture operations in these fish tanks until the

applications for grant of final registrations are

considered and orders are passed on the said

applications.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

1st day of April, 2021 sdp

RRR,J.

After pronouncement of the judgment, Sri B. Somasekhar,

submits that there is an existing fish crop in the tanks.

The said fish crop may be harvested, however, no fresh

fish seed or other aquatic life will be introduced in the fish tanks

until a decision is taken by the District Level Committee.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

1st April, 2021 Js.

13 RRR,J W.P.Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.36300 of 2015, 1057 of 2018, 19438 of 2019 and 20425 of 2019

1st day of April, 2021

sdp