COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SB NASEEMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ Petitions though the relief is claimed in different ways but the common issue that arises for consideration is the validity of Notification issued in G.O.Ms. No.76 Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (Forest III) Department, dated 25-9-1995 under Section 18 of the Wild Life Protection Act (for short 'the Act') and whether the petitioners could be prohibited from carrying on pisciculture in the lands owned or occupied by them till final notification under Section 26-A of the Act is issued.

(2.) THE petitioners in some of these writ Petitions are the owners of various extents of land situated in West Godavari and Krishna districts abutting Kolleru lake. It is their case that they have been conducting agricultural operations for some time but as the time went on it became uneconomic for them to conduct conventional agricultural system and therefore, they converted the land into fishing tanks and rearing the fish for commercial purposes. Some of the petitioners are lessees of Government land and they contend that the Government has leased out certain lands in the area abutting Kolleru lake and the leases were granted for purposes of fish tanks for eking out livelihood. Some others are D-form patta holders and they have dug the fish ponds and rearing the fish for sale. THE petitioners also contend that they have already converted the land into fish tanks and they are trying to repair the tanks, the authorities are interfering the repair work. It is stated by the petitioners that Kolleru lake is one of the largest sweet water lakes in the country and it is the biggest shallow water lake in Asia THE major drains have been let out into the streams leading into the lake. THE lake is connected to sea at Upputeru point. Apart from regular lowering of water level due to the heavy silting, there is heavy inflow of polluted drain water from the cities of Vijayawada, Eluru and Gudivada etc. and that a part of heavy industrial wastes are diverted to the lake. On account of which the economic viability of agriculture had dwindled but, however, it was found that the pisciculture was found to be more economical in view of the changed circumstances and most of the petitioners have taken to fishing industry. But, however, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Jagannadh v. Union of India, 1996 9 Scale 167 the authorities have been interfering with the fishing operations conducted by the petitioners on the ground that the area fell in the CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone). But, however, it appears that the Government have again clarified that this Kolleru Lake did not fall in the CRZ area But, at the same time the Government issued notification under Section 18 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.76, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (Forest-III) Department, dated 25-9-1995. THE proclamation under Section 21 was also published in the District Gazette on 7-1-1997. However, no final notification has been issued. THErefore, it is the case of the petitioners that until final notification under Section 26(A) is issued, the authorities are not entitled to interfere with the fishing operations conducted by the petitioners by converting the lands into fish tanks. It is also their case that fishing operation is undertaken on conventional basis and it is not done on large scale commercial basis. THErefore, there will not any threat for ecology or environment if the petitioners are permitted to continue fishing operations in the area It is also the case of the petitioners that the area notified under Section 18 is impossible for conversion into sanctuary since the Government will not be able to pay the enormous compensation to the owners. THErefore, in the nutshell they submit that the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the activities of rearing and catching of fish in the tanks raised by them. It is also further case of the petitioners that until final notification is issued, it is not permissible for the authorities to interfere with such activity as admittedly some of the petitioners are owners of the land and some of them are lessees and some of them have been assigned the land for purpose of developing the fish ponds.

(3.) THE Parliament enacted the Wild life (Protection) Act, 1972, which came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 5-8-1973. THE prime object of the enactment is for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. THE lake is one of the country's largest fresh water lakes and a Bird sanctuary attracting enormous species of birds and a variety of flora and fauna. It is, however, being threatened by economic and industrial development, expanding fisheries and pollution. Pressure on the lake has led to a proliferation of weeds fewer visiting birds, decline in fish catches, reduction in its catchment area, flooding and loss of drinking water. Sewage from the towns of Eluru, Gudivada and Vijayawada industrial effluents and pesticides from nearby villages also contaminated the lake.