JUDGMENT PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd April, 2012 passed in Writ Petition No.3490 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “To issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the action of the second respondent in transferring Rajampalli Minor Irrigation Tank, Rajampalli Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District from the control of the Fisheries Department to the fourth respondent and permitting the fourth respondent to auction the lease of fishery rights by public auction as being illegal, without jurisdiction and in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.776, Fisheries and Agriculture (Fish-II) Department, dated 31.12.1990 and consequently set aside the auction notice issued by the fourth respondent in Roc.No.1/2012 dated 4.2.2012.” 3. The Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the official respondents to follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.776, Fisheries and Agriculture (Fish-II) Department, dated 31.12.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.343, Panchayat Raj (Sam-I), Department, dated 10.4.1978 in leasing out the fishery rights in respect of Rajampalli Minor Irrigation Tank, Rajampalli Village, Darsi Mandal in Prakasam District. The said order is assailed in this writ appeal. 4. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the right to dispose of the fishing lease in respect of Rajampalli Minor Irrigation Tank vests in the Fisheries Department or in the Gram Panchayat? 5. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 65 and sub-section (2) of Section 85 read with sub-section (1) of Section 217 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, the Government of Andhra Pradesh made the Rules Relating to Leasing of Fishery Rights in Minor Irrigation Tanks, Tanks and Other Sources Vested in the Gram Panchayats under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, notified in G.O.Ms.No.343, Panchayat Raj (Sam-I. Department, dated 10.4.1978. The said Rules occupy the field even after the enactment of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. According to Rule 3(a. of the said Rules, the Gram Panchayat shall lease out the rights of fishing in Minor Irrigation Tanks and other tanks vested in it without public auction to the Fishermen Co-operative Society of the local area. The said Rules occupy the field even after the enactment of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. According to Rule 3(a. of the said Rules, the Gram Panchayat shall lease out the rights of fishing in Minor Irrigation Tanks and other tanks vested in it without public auction to the Fishermen Co-operative Society of the local area. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that fishery rights shall be leased out annually in case of open auction and for periods not exceeding three years at a time in all leases given to Fishermen Co-operative Societies or Rajaka Seva Sangham as the case may be. 6. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, after examining the policy of allotment of fishery rights in the water sources in the State, issued G.O.Ms.No.776, Food and Agriculture (Fish.II) Department, dated 31.12.1990 by canceling the earlier orders in that regard. Paragraph 3 of the said G.O. says that all the sources which stand vested in the Gram Panchayats under the Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 shall continue to be with the respective Gram Panchayats for the purpose of disposal of fishery rights. The Government prescribed detailed procedure to be followed in leasing out the water sources. 7. By G.O.Ms.No.288, Irrigation (Irrigation VI) Department, dated 27.6.1983, the Government of Andhra Pradesh revised the control of minor irrigation sources in the State as a whole for their maintenance between Panchayat Raj Department and Irrigation Department. The relevant portion from the said G.O. reads as follows:- a. The Minor Irrigation sources having an ayacut upto 100 acres shall be under the control of the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department. b. The Minor Irrigation having an ayacut of above 100 acres shall be under the control of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Irrigation Department. 8. There is no dispute with regard to above position. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the ayacut of the tank in question is Ac.150.69 cents and, therefore, the second respondent District Collector had no power or authority to divest the control of the tank from the Fisheries Department to the Gram Panchayat, assuming that the ayacut is only Ac.88.19 cents. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the ayacut of the tank in question is Ac.150.69 cents and, therefore, the second respondent District Collector had no power or authority to divest the control of the tank from the Fisheries Department to the Gram Panchayat, assuming that the ayacut is only Ac.88.19 cents. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the Notification dated 17.10.2007 issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 to show that the ayacut of Rajampalli Tank is Ac.150.69 cents. He also submitted that Section 80(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act has no application as the tank is admittedly under the control of Fisheries Department and that it is not vested in the Gram Panchayat. 9. It is no doubt true that according to the notification dated 17.10.2007 issued by the District Collector, the ayacut of the tank in question is Ac.150.69 cents. However, as per the report of the Tahsildar, Darsi, dated 26.7.2012, which was submitted during the pendency of the writ appeal, the total extent of ayacut in respect of six territorial constituencies of Rajampalli Village is Ac.150.69 cents, but the extent under cultivation is only Ac.88.19 cents, and the remaining extent of Ac.62.50 cents is fallow. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector in WAMP.No.2311 of 2012 in Writ Appeal No.722 of 2012 that action will be taken to publish modifications in the ayacut of Rajampalli Tank in the ensuing Gazette Notification of the District as the tank is categorized as Panchayat Raj tank and as the ayacut is less than Ac.100.00. 10. The learned Government Pleader for Fisheries contends that as the ayacut of the tank in question is Ac.88.19 cents only as per the field report of the Tahsildar, Darsi, the right vests in the Gram Panchayat as per G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 27.6.1983, under which the minor irrigation sources having an ayacut up to 100 acres were placed under the control of the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj. Therefore, the action of the District Collector in transferring the control to dispose of the fishery rights from Irrigation Department to the Gram Panchayat cannot be faulted. 11. Therefore, the action of the District Collector in transferring the control to dispose of the fishery rights from Irrigation Department to the Gram Panchayat cannot be faulted. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that his client participated in the auction conducted on 18.6.2012 after disposal of the writ petition and the bid was knocked down in his favour. In spite of the same, the appellant suppressed the said fact before this Court and obtained an order of status quo on 19.6.2012 without making respondent No.5 as party to the writ appeal (respondent No.5 was permitted to be impladed by order dated 25.7.2012.. He submitted that as on the date of issuance of notification i.e., 17.10.2007, the ayacut of the tank was Ac.150.69, and presently the ayacut is only Ac.88.19 cents, and this is certified by the Tahsildar, Darsi and, therefore, the reliance placed on the notification by the appellant is misconceived. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that irrigation tanks with an ayacut of Ac.25.00 and up to Ac.100.00 in Telangana Region and Ac.25.00 and up to Ac.200.00 in Andhra Region are considered as minor irrigation tanks for the purpose of classification. Placing reliance on an un-reported the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.997 and 1005 of 1997, disposed of on 1.10.1997, and a judgment of a single Judge of this Court in Harijana Fishermen Mutually Aided Co-op. Society Ltd. v. The District Collector, Guntur District AIR 2001 AP 416 , the learned counsel contended that if the tank in question is a major irrigation tank, then the power to grant fishing rights would vest in the Fisheries Department and if the tank is a minor irrigation tank, such power vests in the Gram Panchayat. Thus, viewed from any angle, as the tank in question is a minor irrigation tank, it vests in the Gram Panchayat and it alone has got the right to grant fishing lease by following the procedure stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 10.4.1978. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that his client (respondent No.5) became the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 18.6.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- towards EMD, the bid being Rs.50,20,000/-, and in view of the order of status quo granted by this Court, he is suffering irreparable loss. 14. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that his client (respondent No.5) became the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 18.6.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- towards EMD, the bid being Rs.50,20,000/-, and in view of the order of status quo granted by this Court, he is suffering irreparable loss. 14. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.997 and 1005 of 1997 considered the similar question. In the said case, it was the contention of the Gram Panchayat that the total area covered by the tank is 95.05 acres, hence is a minor irrigation tank which is vested in Gram Panchayat and the Fisheries Department has no power to grant lease. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge found that the area of the tank in question was 110.29 acres on the basis of the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, and as the area is not less than 100 acres, the same cannot stand transferred to Gram Panchayat, and accordingly found that the Fisheries Department alone and not the Gram Panchayat is entitled to grant fishery rights. However, the Division Bench noticed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department issued Memo No.1840/Pts.IV/744, dated 10.11.1975, wherein it is stated that all irrigation tanks with an ayacut of 25 acres and up to 100 acres in Telangana Region and 25 acres and up to 200 acres in Andhra Region are generally considered as minor irrigation tanks for the purpose of classification vide G.O.Ms.No.100, PWD, dated 18.1.1963, and accordingly found that any irrigation tank in Andhra Region whose ayacut is up to an extent of 200 acres shall be considered as minor irrigation tank. 15. In Harijana Fishermen Mutually Aided Co-op. Society Limited also, the learned Single Judge observed: “The tank being located in the Andhra area of the State if it has an ayacut of up to 200 acres it is to be treated as a minor irrigation tank and if the area of the ayacut is beyond 200 acres, it would fall to be characterized as a major irrigation tank.” 16. However, the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vaddavalli Fishermen Co-op. However, the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vaddavalli Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd. v. R. Krishna Kumari 2000 (4) ALD 259 , contended that as per the proviso to Section 80(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Gram Panchayat has no right to lease out the fishery rights in respect of the tank in question, and only the tanks and other water works mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 80 not falling within the proviso to the said sub-section get vested in Panchayat. We are of the opinion that this contention is made by the learned counsel without reference to Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Act. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Act is extracted below:- “56. Maintenance of irrigation works, execution of kudimaramat etc. (1) (a) Subject to such conditions and control as may be prescribed, the Government may transfer to any gram panchayat the protection and maintenance of any village irrigation work, the regulation of turns of irrigation, or of distribution of water from any such irrigation work to the field depending on it. (b) Subject to such restriction and control as may be prescribed, the fishery rights in minor irrigation tanks and the right to auction weeds and reeds in such tanks and the rights to plant trees on the bunds of such tanks and enjoy the usufruct thereof shall vest in the gram panchayat. xxxxx xxxxx” A reading of the extracted portion as above shows that subject to such restriction and control, the Government may transfer to any gram panchayat the protection and maintenance of any village irrigation work; and the fishery rights in minor irrigation tanks and the right to auction weeds and reeds in such tanks etc. shall vest in the gram panchayat. The Division Bench in Vaddavalli Fishermen Co-operative Society was dealing with the fishing rights in major tanks, and while considering the provisions of Section 80 of the Panchayat Raj Act, held that the gram panchayat has been vested with the fishery rights only in respect of such water courses, tanks etc. mentioned in sub-section (1) and which have been specifically vested in the gram panchayat and no fishery rights have been vested in respect of irrigation works which have been excluded under the proviso. mentioned in sub-section (1) and which have been specifically vested in the gram panchayat and no fishery rights have been vested in respect of irrigation works which have been excluded under the proviso. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case, as we are dealing with fishing rights in minor irrigation tanks transferred to the Gram Panchayat under Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Act. 17. We are also of the view that the District Collector exercising power under Section 56 of the Panchayat Raj Act transferred the tank in question to the Gram Panchayat taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar, Darsi that the total extent of the ayacut under cultivation is only Ac.88.19 cents and, therefore, the same is valid. In view of what is stated above, we hold that the right to dispose of the fishing lease in respect of Rajampalli Minor Irrigation Tank vests in the Gram Panchayat only and not in the Fisheries Department. 18. From the counter-affidavits filed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ongole as well as District Collector, Prakasam district, it is evident that the Fishermen Co-Operative Society like the appellant herein is entitled to preferential claim at the time of grant of fishing rights and the fishing rights were earlier granted to the appellant by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ongole under proceedings dated 16.6.2011 for Rajampalli minor irrigation tank for 1420 Fasli, 1421 Fasli and 1422 Fasli for Rs.25,700/-. The appellant is seeking to enforce the said right. It is further evident that the said order was kept in abeyance by the very same Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ongole under proceedings dated 11.8.2011 on the ground that the working of society was not properly studied while sanctioning the lease orders, the interest of Rajampalli village with a population of nearly 10,000 has not been taken into consideration, priority has been given to the appellant society which has a very little membership in the said village and an enquiry under Section 52 of the A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 is already pending against the appellant society. A further order was also passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Ongole dated 18.1.2012, which was communicated by registered post with acknowledgement due to the appellant, informing that ayacut of the said tank is only 88 acres as per the report of Tahasildar, Darsi and the fishing rights vest with the Gram Panchayat and hence the fishing rights earlier granted to the appellant on 16.6.2011 were cancelled. The appellant, however, was informed that the cancellation order does not restrain the society from obtaining fishing rights from the Gram Panchayat, Rajampalli in terms of G.O.Ms.No.343, Panchayat Raj, dated 10.4.1971. It is further evident from the record that even the Gram Panchayat, Rajampalli offered lease of fishing rights of the said tank to the appellant society by way of registered post dated 12.5.2012. But, however, the appellant society has not availed the said opportunity and has not responded to take the fishing rights at the upset price fixed. Consequently the fishing rights have been disposed of by conducting public auction on 18.6.2012 whereunder the highest bid of Rs.50,20,000/- was knocked down in favour of Bathineni Narsimha Rao, respondent No.5 herein. 19. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the appellant was given preferential claim to take the lease and thereafter the respondent authorities have auctioned the said tank by duly following the Rules referred to above and thereby as against Rs.25,700/-which was earlier fixed towards lease rent under order dated 16.6.2011, now the Gram Panchayat would be benefited by an income of Rs.50,20,000/-. 20. We find no ground to interfere with the order under appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The interim order of status quo granted by this Court stands vacated.