UDDARAJU PADMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claims that they got final registration of existing fresh water fish tanks in respect of the subject lands filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2ndrespondent in the impugned appeal proceedings dtd. 19/4/2021 wherein and whereby, directed the petitioners (i) to harvest the existing crop within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order to enable the Revenue Department to conduct survey for demarcation of the appellant's land; (ii) the Tahsildar to arrange to conduct survey and set apart the land of the appellants and fix up the boundaries duly checking the survey numbers, documentary evidences, original link documents etc., and (iii) further the respondents shall construct the tanks in their own land only after setting apart the land of Appellants (Respondents 6 and 7) after demarcation by the Revenue Department duly obtaining approval from Department of Fisheries as per the provisions contained under A.P. State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and for further continuation of culture in respondents' ponds is subject to the orders to be issued by the Court in the pending cases in this regard, which is being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the 2ndpetitioner Uddaraju Venkata Subba Raju and others were granted permission for fresh water aquaculture/prawns existing fish tanks from 29/1/2009 to 28/1/2014 for a period of five years spreading in an extent of Ac.31.15 cents in Sy.Nos.9, 24 and 25 of Undi village and Mandal. It appears from the record that even the fish ponds are formed including the land of the Respondents 6 and 7 in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.9/2C and 9/6A of Undi village and Mandal and jointly converted the entire lands into a single fish tank and leased out the same to others. After expiry of the lease period, remaining portion of the fish ponds were handed over to the respondents 6 and 7. As per the unregistered lease deed, the understanding among all of them is that as and when any of the owners is not interested or the lease period is expired, either the petitioners or the remaining owners are at liberty to cultivate their respective lands on their own with demarcation of the respective portions of land from that of the entire fish tank, including restoration of irrigation and drainage facilities as were existing before conversion of the entire land into fish ponds. After expiry of lease period, the petitioners were not interested to continue the aquaculture on lease basis. They intended to have their fish tanks within the specified boundaries. The 6thand 7threspondents land in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.9/2C and 9/6A is to be handed over to them from the entire fish pond spread over Ac.31.15 cents, by restoring the irrigation and drainage facilities and demarcating the land, however, the petitioners were postponing the same on one pretext or the other. A part of the land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Rs. No.9-1C and 9- 1D belong to one Smt K. Sujatha who is a close blood relative of the 2ndpetitioner. She is in abroad for more than three years. The 2ndpetitioner has been looking after the same, including taking lease amounts from the lessees. However, the petitioner got certificate of registration of existing fresh water aquaculture farm on 15/11/2015 under the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dtd. 16/3/2013 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.15 dtd. 26/5/2015 in respect of the existing fish ponds spread over in an extent of land in Ac.31.15 cents in Sy.Nos.9, 24 and 25 of Undi Village and Mandal. As per the counter filed by the 4threspondent Joint Director of Fisheries/Convener, District Level Committee for fresh water aquaculture, the lease period is from 5/11/2015 to 6/11/2018 and the same was expired on 6/11/2018. The petitioners have no license to do aquaculture. When the petitioners are not cooperating for demarcation of the land extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.9/2C and 9/6A of Undi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District even after surrender of the original lease deeds to the 6thand 7th respondents and they got issued a registered notice dtd. 23/2/2018 demanding to cooperate for demarcation of their land and to restore the irrigation and drainage facilities by restoring Murugu Bodhi to status-quo ante position and not to water the tank and start aquaculture till the demarcation is done and the irrigation and drainage facilities are restored. They submitted F-line application on 1/4/2017 to the 5th respondent -Tahsildar for conducting survey and demarcation of the land. When such application is pending, the petitioners' again started making hectic efforts to water the fish pond, without renewing the existing license to do fresh water aquaculture. The respondents constrained to file O.S.No.42 of 2018 on 28/2/2018 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram against the writ petitioners for grant of temporary injunction directing to demarcate their land out of entire extent of land of Ac.31.15 cents and to restore the irrigation bodhi along with I.A.No.710 of 2018 for grant of temporary injunction to restrain watering the tank, pending disposal of the suit. In view of the petitioners filing caveat petition, notice is ordered. Thereafter, the 5threspondent by endorsement Rc.No.74/2018(A) dtd. 9/3/2018 informed the respondents that since their land is in the part of the fish tanks formed in the entire extent of Ac.31.15 cents. The demarcation of the land in the presence of Ryoths is not possible to survey the land since it is in fish pond with water and civil dispute is pending before the Court. In those circumstances, the respondents 6 and 7 filed W.P.No.10280 of 2018 to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 5 in not taking action on the representation submitted on 1/4/2017 for conducting survey and fixing boundaries of their land in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.9/2C and 9/6A situated in Undi village and Mandal, West Godavari District and subsequent representations on 5/3/2018 and 3/3/2018 and the petitioners are doing aquaculture illegally without license contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dtd. 16/3/2013 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dtd. 26/5/2015 and without demarcating their land from their fish ponds spread in Ac.31.15 cents.

(3.) The 6thand 7threspondents pending writ petition preferred an appeal on 22/9/2020 before the 2ndrespondent as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and 15 against the renewal of the registration of the existing fresh water aquaculture ponds in favour of the writ petitioners on 5/11/2015 on 6/1/2018. The 2ndrespondent after issuing notices to the petitioners and to the officials of the Fisheries Department and after obtaining the report found that the petitioners got renewed fresh water existing aquaculture tanks spread in Ac.31.15 cents and also land in an extent of Ac.3.75 cents on 6/1/2018 and another extent of land Ac.3.75 cents on 12/1/2018 without consent of the 6thand 7th respondents. The respondents 6 and 7 being appellants in the appeal requested the respondents 7 and 10 in the appeal who are the official respondents in this writ petition/officials of the Fisheries Department to prevent respondents 7and 10 in the appeal from doing prawn culture covered by the impugned certificates of registration of existing freshwater aquaculture farm and the respondents 7 and 10 in the appeal who are the petitioners herein are not adopting environmental friendly and sustainable aquaculture management practices and doing prawn culture with four bore wells and without permission from the competent authority. The appellate authority after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and 7threspondent in the appeal filed by Sri U.V.Subbaraju of Undi Vilalge who stated that the land of the appellants is set apart and kept vacant and the remaining land from Ac.31.15 cents is constructed into four tanks. The Tahsildar, Undi Mandal has stated that the demarcation of Ac.31.15 cents land is not possible in view of construction of pond as reported by the Mandal Surveyor. The Joint Director of Fisheries, Eluru has furnished a report stating that Sri Uddaraju Venkta Subbaraju and others of Undi village and Mandal have obtained permission for conversion of their agriculture lands into fish tanks in an extent of Ac.31.15 cents in R.S.Nos.9, 24, 25 of Undi village and Mandal in the year 2010 vide Regd.No.1800/A3/07/4018 of 4threspondent District Level Committee, West Godavari District dtd. 31/5/2010 and after lapse of permission in the year 2014, they have renewed the license on 5/11/2015 vide Registration No.FROC011500002003. The appellants/ Respondents 6 and 7 are having lands of Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.9/2C, 9/6A of Undi village and Mandal. Sri Madunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/5thpetitioner obtained permission on 6/1/2018 for fish pond in an extent of Ac.3.75 cents in R.S.No.24/3 and he also obtained permission on 12/1/2018 in respect of land Ac.3.75 cents for conducting fresh water aquaculture and the respondents 6 and 7 (Appellants) applied for demarcating their land from the total extent of the fish tank through Mee-seva on 1/4/2017. The Tahsildar, Undi Mandal has rejected their application for demarcation of the boundaries as the land boundaries are already converted into big fish tanks and informed the respondents 6 and 7 (Appellants) that it is not possible to demarcate without F- lines are altered. Sri Rudraraju Venkta Subbaraju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju are trying to modify the said tanks by forming the internal bunds in their respective lands. The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Bhimavaram along with Revenue officials and respondents 6 and 7 (Appellants) conducted field enquiry on 4/6/2020 in Undi Village and noticed that the subject fish tank was bifurcated into four small tanks and L.Vanamei culture is in progress in the four tanks and in the middle of the tank about Ac.2.00 cents land was kept vacant and not converted and that the demarcation of the scheduled land comes under the purview of the Revenue Department. Based on the said report, the Commissioner - Appellate Authority passed the impugned proceedings.