DATLA SRINIVASA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging inaction of official respondents in taking action on the representations dtd. 4/11/2024 and 16/12/2024 submitted by the petitioners and in granting Certificate of Registration (license) for aquaculture in favour of respondents 9 and 10 vide No.AQNHLLW00084185, dtd. 28/10/2024 in an extent of Ac.13.52 cents in survey Nos.310, 312, 318, 319, etc. of Undi village and mandal, West Godavari district, disturbing irrigation facilities to lands of petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in survey No.311-2A and Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.312-1C of the said village and mandal and also of other ryots in an extent of Ac.32.65 cents in survey Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 318 and 319 in entire ayacut under Pipe No.16 of Puligumma Canal, without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and other ryots, though the said permission was rejected in the year 2021, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter and cancel the license and stop digging of any tanks or doing aquaculture by respondents 9 and 10.

(2.) Case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in survey No.311-2A and Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.312-1C, respectively, of Undi village and mandal, and fields of others are existing in between their lands. It is their case that for the said lands, irrigation bode is connected to Puligumma canal in Pipe No.16; that water from the said bode caters to the needs of lands to an extent of Ac.32.65 cents in survey Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 318 and 319 of the said village; that lands of respondents 9 and 10 are at starting point i.e. head point, of Pipe No.16, and they started buying lands bit by bit in survey Nos. 310, 311, 312, 318 and 319, and applied for permission vide application dtd. 25/10/2024 to dig fish tank in the land in the aforesaid survey numbers, and 6th respondent, who is Member of DLIC under the APSADA Act, approved the same within 3 days i.e. on 28/10/2024 itself. It is their case that 6th respondent approved the same without notice to the petitioners and other ryots whose lands are going to be affected adversely and without verification of deprivation of irrigation facilities of neighbouring ryots.

(3.) Counter affidavit, deposed by 7th respondent, has been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 4, 6 and 7, denying material allegations in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia that appropriate action has been taken by the official respondents duly following the Rules under the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 (APSADA), on the objections dtd. 4/11/2024 and 16/12/2024 submitted by the petitioners in respect of issuance of aquaculture license to respondents 9 and 10. It is further stated that Rules were framed under the APSADA Act, 2020 vide Notification dtd. 15/1/2021 vide G.O.Rt.No.28, dtd. 5/2/2021. The date of commencement of Endorsement/license issuance process for Aquaculture Farms and Aquaculture Business Operations under the APSADA Act, 2020 was notified as 5/2/2021, and as per the APSADA Act and the Rules, 2020, all existing aquaculture farmers and aquaculture business operators have to apply for Endorsement/license for their aquaculture farms/ aquaculture business operations to the Licensing Authority of the respective district within a period of four months from 5/2/2021. In view of the same, applications of respondents 9 and 10 dtd. 21/1/2021 were rejected on 23/8/2021, as G.O.Ms.No.7, dtd. 16/3/2013 has no authority to issue license, in view of coming into force of the APSADA Act and the Rules, 2020.