ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to cancel the license No.AQNLFWEG007398 dated 16.6.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and the provisions of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Rules, 2005 and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns and possesses agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.67/1 of I. Polavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. The said land was purchased by the petitioner’s father and kept the same in the petitioner’s name on 12.12.2000 and since then the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner made a complaint to the respondent authorities against the illegal cultivation of shrimp and prawn culture taken up by the 6th respondent, who is her western neighbor in the land extent Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.66-3 of I. Polavaram Mandal. Because of illegal digging of the fish pond by the 6th respondent in his land and cultivating shrimp and prawn culture illegally and due to release and seepage of saline water from the fish pond of the 6th respondent, the petitioner’s land is damaged over a period of time and the paddy crop is withered and dried away and in support of her contention, she filed photographs at Page Nos.49, 50 and 51 along with writ petition. The photographs clearly shows that due to seepage of water from the 6th respondent fish pond, the paddy crop raised by the petitioner is withered away and became pale and yellow. It could be held that due to seepage of saline water from the 6th respondent’s fish pond over a period, the petitioner’s land has become saline and not fit for raising any crop. 3. The 6th respondent in his counter averred that he obtained permission for doing culture of Penaeus Monodn species from the 1st respondent coastal aquaculture authority on 09.2.2009 and the petitioner was permitted to culture the above species not exceeding sock density of 1,00,000 per hector and 2 crops per year under the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made therein. 4. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and Coastal Aquaculture Authority Rules, 2005 have no application to the petitioner’s land as the lands are outside the coastal area. The petitioner at present obtained license/registration on 16.6.2021 from the 3rd respondent for doing fresh water aquaculture in his lands under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to “APSADA Act”), 2020 and the rules made thereunder. The 6th respondent’s land is a fresh water area without any influence of saline water through many water ways and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. However, the registration was given to the 6th respondent as per the recommendation of the District Level Committee of East Godavari District, the same was expired on 08.2.2019 and thereafter it was not renewed. The Coastal Aquaculture Authority received a complaint dated 20.3.2021 against the 6th respondent to take action against the shrimp farming by the 6th respondent vide CAA Registration No.AP-II-2008(3745) in Sy.No.66/3 at Pedamamidi village and the said shrimp farm is surrounded by agricultural lands of the petitioner. The said shrimp farm is reportedly causing soil degradation and salinization of the surrounding agricultural lands due to improper drainage for silt and waste water management in the farm. The complaint was forwarded by Coastal Aquaculture Authority to the District Collector cum Chairman, District Level Committee, East Godavari District on 28.4.2021 and 24.6.2021 with a copy to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada and to visit the site and submit report to the Coastal Aquaculture Authority. 5. The Fisheries Development Officer, Katrenikona who is the 5th respondent herein filed counter stating that on the recommendation of the District Level Implementation Committee (DLIC), registration certificate dated 16.6.2021 is issued to the 6th respondent in strict compliance of the APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder and the same was not issued under the provisions or guidelines under Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and the rules made thereunder. Prior to grant of permission for fresh water aquaculture by regularizing his existing aquaculture farm, the 6th respondent has been resorting to unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp in saline water conditions and the same was stopped by the 5th respondent along with the Village Revenue Officer on 10.5.2021 basing on complaints received from the petitioner and neighboring land owners. Prior to grant of permission for fresh water aquaculture by regularizing his existing aquaculture farm, the 6th respondent has been resorting to unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp in saline water conditions and the same was stopped by the 5th respondent along with the Village Revenue Officer on 10.5.2021 basing on complaints received from the petitioner and neighboring land owners. After regularizing the existing aquaculture farm of the 6th respondent, he is currently doing fresh water culture of ornamental fish (Aquarium fish) in his aquaculture farm. The grant of license dated 16.6.2021 for fresh water aquaculture in favour of the 6th respondent does not suffer from any irregularity, which requires cancellation of 6th respondent’s license under the provisions of APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder. As per clause 10 and 11 of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.5.2015, the petitioner can make an appeal to the Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh against any dispute under the provisions of Section 35 of APSADA Act, 2020 and Rule 27 of the Rules. 6. The petitioner by way of reply states that on 02.8.2021 she submitted an appeal in the shape of representation to the Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh who in turn vide Memo dated 03.08.2021 directed the Joint Director of Fisheries, East Godavari District to conduct detailed enquiry and take action and submit report to the Commissioner of Fisheries. So far no action is taken with regard to illegal cultivation of the shrimp and prawn culture by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent has dug bore well unauthorizedly contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act and using the same to draw saline water to rear shrimp and prawn culture in the aqua ponds for which the 4th respondent Tahsildar has not taken any action. 7. The further grievance of the petitioner is that abutting to the petitioner’s land, there exist a Ryotwari drainage channel in Survey No.66/3, which is used to drain out the excess water in the fields. On the drainage channel (1) towards her land she raised coconut trees and (2) drainage channel bund is only the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s land and other farmers. On the drainage channel (1) towards her land she raised coconut trees and (2) drainage channel bund is only the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s land and other farmers. But the 6th respondent illegally occupied the channel bund and formed a pathway over the drainage channel for the purpose of doing prawn/shrimp culture illegally thereby, preventing the ingress and egress to the petitioner and other farmers to reach their agricultural fields which is illegal. On the representation submitted to the Chief Minister Office, the petition is numbered as No.43100/CMO-G/2021 of the Chief Minister’s office, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the same was forwarded to the District Collector, East Godavari District vide Refer.No.H2/02/2022 dated 28.7.2021 to take necessary action on the petitioner’s representation against prawn culture and obstruction of passage to the petitioner’s land. Then, on 17.8.2021, the Tahsildar, I. Polavaram along with Mandal Revenue Inspector, VRO and Mandal Surveyor inspected the agricultural land of the petitioner and adjacent prawn tank situated in Sy.No.66-3 of the 6th respondent. The Tahsildar found that there exists a Ryotwari Murugu bodhi in Sy.No.66-3 which is used to drain out the field water and on the bund of Murugu Bodi, shed and electrical transformer are erected by the 6th respondent. The petitioner used the pathway on the bund of Ryotwari Murugu bodhi to reach her agriculture field and the Tahsildar recorded the statement of the mediators and exercising the power under the provisions of Section 147 of Civil Procedure Code, directed the 6th respondent not to take possession of the said land (or water) to the exclusion of the enjoyment of the right of the use until he obtain the decree or order of a competent Court adjudicating him to be entitled to exclusive possession. There exists a dispute with regard to use of bund of Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (Drain) in Sy.No.66-3 of I.Polavaram Village and Mandal used as common passage to the fields situated within the local jurisdiction, the possession of which land is claimed exclusively by the 6th respondent and erected shed and electrical transformer. There exists a dispute with regard to use of bund of Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (Drain) in Sy.No.66-3 of I.Polavaram Village and Mandal used as common passage to the fields situated within the local jurisdiction, the possession of which land is claimed exclusively by the 6th respondent and erected shed and electrical transformer. In the enquiry, it is revealed that the said Murugu Bodhi land is open to the use and enjoyment of the petitioner and other public from olden days and to go to their fields the 6th respondent should not claim exclusive possession of the Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (drain) situated in Sy.No.66-3 of I.Polavaram village or any one shall not take possession of the said land and without getting any decree or order from the competent court declaring that the bodhi is in exclusive possession. The 6th respondent filed OS.No.93 of 2001 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram for permanent injunction against the petitioner and others, seeking injunction and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises which is pending. But the 6th respondent has erected the electrical transformer for use of aquaculture farm on the bund illegally and preventing the petitioners and others from using the bund to reach their agricultural fields as the said bund is used by public as pathway to reach their agricultural fields since long time, which cannot be prevented by the 6th respondent abruptly, illegally and giving rise to disturbance to public peace and tranquility and without getting order of declaration from the competent civil court. 8. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent contends that the allegation of the petitioner that the 6th respondent constructed shed and electrical transformer on the Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (Drain) and creating obstruction preventing ingress and egress to the petitioner’s land and other public could not be decided by this Court sitting under the provisions of Article 226 before this Court. The petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of her grievances and the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of her grievances and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner having availed the appeal remedy before the Commissioner of Fisheries, during the pendency of appeal filed this writ petition seeking a direction for cancellation of the license dated 16.6.2001 before this Court, which is contrary to the provisions of APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder and the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the 5th respondent while reiterating the averments of the counter states that the writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy is only before the Commissioner of Fisheries by way of appeal under the provisions of Section 35 of APSADA Act and Rule 27 of the rules made thereunder and further states that as per license, now the 6th respondent is culturing fresh water aquaculture of ornamental fish (Aquarium fish) in his aquaculture farms as per the physical inspection made by the respondents. 10. In view of the above discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the 6th respondent having obtained permission from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority in the year 2009 even though the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder do not apply to the 6th respondent’s aqua farm and the same is outside the aqua culture zone, the same was got renewed and later expired on 08.2.2019. Since 2009 it appears that the 6th respondent has resorted for illegal shrimp and prawn culture by drawing saline water from the bore well, contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act. The freshwater aquaculture permission could be granted where the lands are submersible, inundated, due to stagnation of water not fit for paddy culture or agricultural purpose. Hence, the question of digging the bore well for fresh water aquaculture does not arise. The freshwater aquaculture permission could be granted where the lands are submersible, inundated, due to stagnation of water not fit for paddy culture or agricultural purpose. Hence, the question of digging the bore well for fresh water aquaculture does not arise. Under the guise of the drawing saline water from the bore wells, aqua culture farmists are resorting to shrimp and prawn culture by using saline water drawn from the bore wells dug illegally contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act and thereby, due to seepage of waste water from the aquaculture farms, surrounding agricultural lands have become saline and not fit for any agricultural purpose and the crop is withered and dried away and thereby, damage is caused to neighboring land owners and in turn, the waste water discharged into the fresh water areas and into agricultural lands will certainly cause environmental damage in the area, de hors to all the provisions of law enumerated under the APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder and also under Air and Water Pollution Act and environmental laws and contrary to the provisions of APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder. Most of the aquaculture farms are outside the aquaculture zone. In the present case, the 6th respondent’s aquaculture farms are situated outside the aquaculture zone and illegally obtained permission under the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder and continued shrimp and prawn culture by drawing saline water from the bore wells and due to seepage of waste water/saline water from the 6th respondent aqua farms, the neighbouring lands, including the petitioner’s land got damaged and paddy crop is withered away and the crop has become pale and yellow as seen from the photographs and it can be presumed that what amount of damage is caused to the land and environment due to the illegal aquaculture under taken by the 6th respondent. 11. 11. In these circumstances, this court felt it appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Fisheries to take further action to stop the illegal fish culture by the 6th respondent in his land within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and take up the issue to its logical conclusion as per the provisions of the APSADA Act, by considering the appeal/representation dated 2.8.2021 vide Memo dated 3.8.2021 issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries directing the Joint Director of Fisheries to conduct detailed enquiry and take action with regard to illegal digging of the bore well which is contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act to draw saline water for use in shrimp and prawn culture. The petitioner is given liberty to the approach the competent authority under the provisions of the WALTA Act to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent for illegal digging of the bore well in his fields within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of receipt of this order and on submission of such complaint /representation, the 4th respondent Tahsildar who is the competent authority under the provisions of the WALTA Act is directed to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent for digging illegal bore well in his fields. Further grievance of the petitioner that the 6th respondent constructed shed and electrical transformer by encroaching bund and prevent the ingress and egress, as seen from the proceedings dated 30.9.2021 of the Tahsilar I. Polavaram Mandal and Executive Magistrate under the provisions of 147 of CPC which reveals that the 6th respondent occupied the bund of Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (Drain) in Sy.No.66- 3 in I. Polavaram Village, the 6th respondent having approached the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram by filing OS.No.93 of 2021 seeking permanent injunction, failed to get any injunction order. The sheer question that falls for consideration before the authorities is whether the bund of Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (drain) situated in Sy.No.66-3 used for drain of the excess water from the fields’ falls within the definition of irrigation channel. The sheer question that falls for consideration before the authorities is whether the bund of Ryotwari Murugu Bodhi (drain) situated in Sy.No.66-3 used for drain of the excess water from the fields’ falls within the definition of irrigation channel. If any encroachment of the bund by others and it creates obstruction to the free flow of drain water from the fields, as in the present case, the 6th respondent constructed shed and electrical transformer for use of aqua culture form thereby, prevented the petitioners and others for use of path away on the bund, for redressal of such grievance, the petitioner could approach by way of effective representation to the competent authority under the provisions of Irrigation Act, 2019 or any competent authority as per law for removal of the obstruction created by the 6th respondent by erecting the shed and electrical transformer, which prevents ingress and egress to other public to reach their agricultural fields within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the competent authority is directed to consider the same as per law and pass appropriate reasoned orders and communicate the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Before closing the case, this Court has taken the judicial notice of the fact that the fisheries authorities as and when complaint received on the illegal digging of fish ponds and doing aquaculture or came to know on their own, without recording panchanama in the presence of two indepndent mediators, they are straightaway asking the aqua culture farmists to stop the aqua culture and directing the electricity authorities to disconnect the electricity power, without there being any factual foundation with regard to illegal shrimp or prawn culture taken up by the aqua culture farmists enabling the aqua culture farmists to approach this Court by filing writ petitions. Hence, whenever the Fisheries authorities found illegal aqua culture is carried on, they are directed to record panchanama in the presence of mediators and issue notice and thereafter take appropriate effective action for prevention of illegal aqua culture as per law even by cancellation of the permission or license granted under the provisions of APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder. 13. 13. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.