Chekuri Surya Narayana Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1007 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

     Writ Petition Nos.39854 of 2016 and 3798 of 2017


COMMON 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, rejected the application for

conversion of the land extent Ac.6.86 cents in R.S.Nos.20/1,

20/2, 20/3A, 20/3B of Pendyala Village on 25.04.2016.

However, the respondents 2 and 3, contrary to the guidelines

issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15, granted provisional

registration permitting the respondents 6 and 7 to dug the

fish tanks in the land. As per the guidelines issued in

G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, the lands irrigated under

bore wells cannot be given permission for fish ponds. The

permission can be given for low lying or inundated lands and

prone to floods and cyclones. Without considering the

objections raised by the petitioners and the report dated

28.10.2016 submitted by the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries,

Nidadavolu, final registration was granted to the respondents

6 and 7 on 04.11.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, this

writ petition is filed.

6. W.P.No.3798 of 2017:

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 and

2 are the respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.39854 of 2016.

They are the absolute owners of the land extent Ac.3.54 cents

in Sy.No.20/1 & 2 and Ac.3.32 cents in Sy.No.20/3A & 3B of

Pendyala Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District.

They applied for permission to convert their lands into fish

tanks and obtained provisional registration on 16.07.2016

and final registration on 04.11.2016, as per the guidelines

issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, stating that their

lands are low lying lands and not fit for paddy cultivation due

to inundation of water from the surrounding lands during the

rainy season and getting low yielding of paddy. The

petitioners wanted to convert their lands into fish tanks on

the advice given by the famous aquaculturist recommending

to culture the fish and prawns together, so that the

maintenance cost would be low and the growth of the species

is relatively high, if both are cultured together. Accordingly,

the petitioners made an application to the 3rd respondent,

Convenor of the District Level Committee, to grant permission

for taking up the culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland

farms on 07.12.2016 and the same was acknowledged by the

3rd respondent. Neither the 3rd respondent nor any other staff

caused any inspection of the fish tank as required under the

guidelines issued in this regard in sub-clause (2) of guideline

3-A of G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development

& Fisheries (FII) Department, dated 29.04.2013. The

impugned notice dated 30.01.2017 was issued directing the

petitioners to vacate the tanks on the ground that the

petitioners are doing prawn culture, without notice and

without conducting any enquiry. Without considering the

petitioners' application dated 07.12.2016 for taking up

culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland farms, the

respondents are not supposed to interfere with the

petitioners' aquaculture activities. In pursuance of the notice

dated 30.01.2017, the 4th respondent is directing the

petitioners to demolish the fish tanks. Being aggrieved by the

same, the writ petition came to be filed.

7. The short points that fell for consideration of this Court

are - 1) Whether the permissions granted to the petitioners

in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 (respondents 6 and 7 in

W.P.No.39854 of 2016) for cultivation of aquaculture in

respect of their lands is valid? and

2) Whether the impugned notices dated 30.01.2017

issued by the 3rd respondent directing the petitioners in

W.P.No.3798 of 2017 to vacate fish tanks and action of the

4th respondent asking the petitioners to demolish the fish

tanks and their interference, is illegal and arbitrary?

8. This Court granted interim order on 03.02.2017

directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the

existing L.Vennamei culture was concerned. The same was

extended on 20.02.2017 and 06.03.2017 till 13.03.2017.

Thereafter, the same was not extended.

9. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, when the farmers

indiscriminately digging fish tanks in the agricultural fields,

especially in the Coastal region of Andhra Pradesh i.e., in the

districts of East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur,

Prakasam and Nellore and rearing of fish and prawn in the

tanks situated in agricultural fields. This Court and the

Hon'ble Apex Court issued series of directions to the fisheries

authorities. When the fish activities are causing

environmental pollution and damage to the crops of

neighbouring land owners, the Government of Andhra

Pradesh had issued guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated

16.03.2013 and thereafter amended orders were issued in

G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.05.2015 framing guidelines for grant

of permission for fresh water Aquaculture and regulating the

pisciculture in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

10. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated

16.03.2013, wherein there was a reference of the Coastal

Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court dated 11.12.1996 in the case of S.Jagannath Vs.

Union of India, the judgment of this Court dated 26.07.2001

in the case of M.Padma Rambabu Vs. The District Forest

Office, Kakinada, the judgment of this Court dated

29.04.2011 in the case of Pulavarthy Ankaraju and others Vs.

The Special Chief Secretary, AH, DD & Fisheries, the Andhra

Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural

Purposes) Act, 2006, the Andhra Pradesh Water Tax Act,

1988, the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002,

the District Level Committee with the District Collector as the

Chairman of the Committee and the Mandal Level Committee

headed by the Mandal Revenue Officer were created as the

authorities to grant permissions of fresh water aquaculture

ponds and for registration of the existing fresh water

aquaculture ponds. The persons/farmers who intend to dig

new aquaculture water farms have to make an application to

the District Level Committee. The District Level Committee

on the recommendations of the Mandal Level Committee, after

considering the objections of the neighbouring farmers, as per

the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013,

grants provisional registration certificate. The existing fish

ponds have to get registration for continuing fish culture in

the existing fish tanks. Thereafter, the Government issued

guidelines for culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland

farms.

11. As per G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 29.04.2013, no person shall

carry on the culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland

waters without permission in accordance with the guidelines.

The District Level Committee is the competent authority to

permit the culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland farms

located outside the jurisdiction of Coastal Aquaculture

Authority (CCA). Permission for taking up culture of

L.Vannamei shall be accorded only to farms which have been

already registered with the Fisheries Department and which

have complied with the guidelines in the G.O.Ms.No.7 dated

16.03.2013. As per the guidelines, the DLC shall consider

only the farms which are outside the jurisdiction of the CAA

and water salinity in the farm is above 0.5 ppt. Permissions

shall be accorded within 60 days basing on the

recommendations of the inspections conducted by the DLC

members regarding the suitability of the farm for farming of

L.Vannamei. Stocking density should not exceed 60

number/sq.m. Culture of L.Vannamei is regulated by

another series of guidelines.

12. When Sri Nalla Rama Krishna, lessee of the petitioners

in W.P.No.3798 of 2017/respondents 6 and 7 in

W.P.No.39854 of 2016, applied for license on 18.03.2016, the

officials of the Fisheries Department after affixing notice on

19.03.2016 at the notice board of the Gram panchayat calling

for objections for grant of provisional permission for

cultivating fish tanks in the land extent Ac.6.86 cents in

R.S.Nos.20/1, 20/2, 20/3A and 20/3B of Pendyala Village.

The provisional license was rejected on 25.04.2016. However,

on the application submitted by the petitioners in respect of

the very same lands in spite of objections submitted by the

adjacent and neighbouring land owners on 25.07.2016,

08.08.2016 and 03.10.2016. The officials having

acknowledged of the same, granted provisional registration on

16.07.2016 and the provisional permission only allow the

applicants to dig the fish tanks as per the norms fixed in

G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15 and without obtaining final registration,

they cannot put the water in the tanks and rear the fish

culture. The authorities after satisfying that the fish tanks

are dug as per the norms prescribed in the guidelines and the

final registration will be granted allowing the applicants to

rear the fresh water fish in the tanks. Rearing of prawn

culture is prohibited as it requires some sort of saline water,

otherwise they will die. The saline water used for prawn

culture will seep into the neighbouring land and thereby

damage the crops and in the long run the neighbouring lands

will become unfit for cultivation. Hence, the permissions are

granted only for rearing fresh water fish. Subsequently, the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Fisheries Department

created aquaculture zones and Coastal Aquaculture zones. In

coastal aquaculture zones, the marshy lands receiving saline

water are allowed to rear prawn culture. Rearing of fish

culture and prawn culture are being regulated by issuing

guidelines in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15 as per the provisions of

the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and as per the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.

13. Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.39854

of 2016 and the lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of

2017 are situated in Pendyala and Kanuru Villages, which are

adjacent to each other and the lands are under the Ayacut of

Pendyala Pumping Scheme. Hence, 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. However, the petitioners were granted provisional

registration certificate on 16.07.2016 and final registration

certificate was also granted on 04.11.2016.

14. It appears as per the orders dated 18.11.2016 passed in

W.P.No.39854 of 2016, the Executive Engineer was directed

to file status report on the location of the land, preventive

steps taken by the unofficial respondents and also the steps

required to be put in place during and in the course of

operation of fish tanks. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer,

Water Resources Department, Godavari Western Division,

Nidadavole deputed the Executive Engineer, Delta Sub-

Division, Tadepalligudem and sought a report. The Deputy

Executive Engineer, Delta Sub-Division, Tadepalligudem

inspected jointly along with the Tahsildar, Nidadavole and

Fisheries Development Officer, Nidadavole on 09.12.2016,

wherein it was observed that the agricultural lands owned by

the respondents 6 and 7 were converted into fish tanks duly

taking pre and final permissions from the District Level

Committee, West Godavari. It was also observed thus:

"The owners of the fish tanks taken preventive steps so as to maintain a seepage bhodi all around the tanks and also provide outlets of fish tanks in west side of the tanks seepage bhodi. Whenever, the tanks are emptied, the released water passed through the fish tank outlets and entered to latchiraju tank via west side of fish tank seepage bhodi.

To avoid water into Latchiraju tank during operation of fish tanks, the following precautions are suggested to the owners of the above tanks.

1) The owners of fish tanks has to provide a cross bund of the d/s of their outlets in the seepage bhodi during operation of fish tanks.

2) The owners of the fish tanks have to divert their tanks released water from west side seepage bhodi to the other side seepage bhodi adjacent to the road through the existing pipe across the Jeedigunta and Pendyala road. So, the water will reach to Kanuru drain through seepage bodhies of adjacent existing fish tanks of Koripalli village."

The petitioners state that the preventive steps as

suggested by the Executive Engineer was complied with in the

month of December, 2016 itself as per the certificate dated

22.12.2016 issued by the Executive Engineer, Godavari West

Division, Nidadavole. The petitioners having stated so, copy

of the same is not filed.

15. This Court found that the lands in respect of which

registration was granted for fish culture is covered by the

Ayacut under Pendyala Pumping Scheme and they are double

crop wet lands only but not marshy lands or inundated lands

or not falling within the aquaculture zones or coastal

aquaculture zones to rear the L.Vennamei or prawn culture.

The objections raised by the adjacent and neighbouring land

owners, the petitioners in W.P.No.39854 of 2016, are not

properly considered before granting provisional and final

registration as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated

16.03.2013 and without properly considering the compliance

of the guidelines, final registration certificate is granted on

04.11.2016. The fish tanks appear to have been located in

non-aquaculture zone, which is found to be illegal.

Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

16. Though the petitioners are granted final registration

only to dig the fresh water fish tanks to rear the fresh water

fish culture, but it appears that on mere submitting

application for permission to rear the L.Vennamei in fresh

water tanks on 07.02.2016 and without waiting for

permission, started culturing L.Vennamei prawn culture.

Rearing of L.Vennamei prawn culture is prohibited in the

fresh water fish tanks and only it is permitted in Coastal

Aquaculture zones, where there is sufficient saline water.

However, issuance of notices dated 30.01.2017 to vacate and

demolish the fish tanks, found to be illegal and arbitrary.

Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered.

17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned notices

dated 30.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent asking the

petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 to vacate the fish tanks,

found to be arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural

justice. Hence, they are liable to be set aside and accordingly

set aside.

18. Accordingly, the issue is remanded back to the District

Level Committee for re-consideration afresh in the light of the

Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority

Act, 2020 and the rules framed thereunder by giving

opportunity to both the parties and take a fresh decision as

per law. Pending fresh consideration, the petitioners in

W.P.No.3798 of 2017 are entitled to cultivate fresh water fish

in the fresh water fish tanks and they should not be allowed

to rear any other fish like L.Vennamei in the fish tanks, on

complying with the conditions imposed in the report

submitted by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Delta Sub-

Division, Tadepalligudem.

19. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

order as to costs.

20. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ

Petitions shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

24-02-2022 anr

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

Writ Petition Nos.39854 of 2016 and 3798 of 2017

24-02-2022

anr