Yerubandi Bapanna Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3902 AP

                      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.22330 of 2021
                                    PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No.       Date                               ORDER                               OFFICE
                                                                                     NOTE

 01.     04.10.2021     MGR, J

                                 Notice before admission.
                                 Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries
                        takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5, waives

further notice and seeks time to file counter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on the 7th respondent by 'PRAD' and file proof of service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.6.91 cents situated in R.S.No.559/1, 559/2, 560/1 and 560/2 of Ponnamanda village of Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. He is carrying on agriculture by raising paddy and other crops. The 7th respondent is the neighbor of the petitioner. Towards Western side of the land of the petitioner, 7th respondent is having land to an extent of Ac.5.12 cents in Sy.No.558. The petitioner and 7th respondent are carrying on cultivation with canal irrigated water with double crop fertile agricultural lands. When the 7th respondent attempted to convert the agricultural land into fish pond, the petitioner filed OS.No.200 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Razole, seeking permanent injunction restraining the 7th respondent from converting the agricultural land into fish tanks. The suit was decreed by decree and judgment dated 05.05.2000. The same has become final. and obtained certificate of provisional registration, which allows him to dig the fish tanks in his land. The 7th respondent also filed OS.No.72 of 2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Razole, for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequently, when the application of the 7th respondent for fresh water aquaculture farm was not being disposed of, 7th respondent filed WP.No.30962 of 2017. By orders dated 25.04.2018 the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the application as per law. The petitioner submitted objections dated 13.05.2017, to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner on 13.05.2017 granted certificate of provision registration on 13.03.2020. If the 7th respondent is allowed to dig the fish ponds in the middle of the paddy fields, it will affect the paddy cultivation of the petitioner.

Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries states that in view of the new enactment viz., Andhra Pradesh State Aqua Culture Development Authority Act, 2020 ['the Act', for short] and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner has appeal remedy under Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Act. As per the provisions of the Act, the 7th respondent could not proceed with the aquaculture without obtaining fresh licence.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for grant of interim order of status quo.

Accordingly, there shall be an order of status quo obtaining as on today.

Post on 26.11.2021.

                                         \          ______
                                                      MGR, J
Vjl