ORDER : In both the writ petitions, the cause of action arose out of digging of fish tanks in the land extent Ac.3.54 cents in Sy.No.20/1 & 2 and land extent Ac.3.32 cents in Sy.No.20/3A & 3B of Pendyala Village, Nadadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.39854 of 2016, Sri B.Somasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017/respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.39854 of 2016 and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. 3. In Writ Petition No.39854 of 2016, the complaint is that the fish tanks were dug contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 26.05.2015. In Writ Petition No.3798 of 2016, the complaint is that the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the prawn culture taken up in the petitioners’ fish tanks situated in R.S.No.20/3A & 3B and R.S.No.20/1 & 2 of Pendyala Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District, on the ground that they are taken up culture of L.Vannamei, which is prohibited. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and passing this common order. 4. W.P.No.39854 of 2016: The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are three in number, filed this writ petition stating that they are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring extent Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.Nos.20/3A & 3B of Pendyala Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District; the land extent Ac.6.37 cents in R.S.Nos.91/11, 102/20, 104/2, 104/3, 104/4 and 104/5 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District; the land extent Ac.1.82 cents in R.S.Nos.91/11 and 102/20 and the land extent Ac.1.61 cents in R.S.Nos.102/13B, 102/14 and 102/15 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District. They are the neighbouring land owners to the lands of respondents 6 and 7, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017. The lands are valuable fertile lands suitable for cultivation of double crop paddy, banana, coconut plantations and other valuable commercial crops and they are rich yielding fields. The lands are ayacut lands under Pendyala Pumping Scheme. They are the neighbouring land owners to the lands of respondents 6 and 7, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017. The lands are valuable fertile lands suitable for cultivation of double crop paddy, banana, coconut plantations and other valuable commercial crops and they are rich yielding fields. The lands are ayacut lands under Pendyala Pumping Scheme. As the lands are irrigated under pumping scheme and as no public feeder or drain channels are provided, the lands are feeding through ayacut channels one after another under the pumping scheme and the excess and remaining water runs into Latchiraju tank belongs to the Pendyala and Kanuru Gram panchayats. The water in the Latchiraju tank serves the needs of the villagers for drinking their cattle. The fishing rights of the tank are auctioned, thereby the gram panchayat earns considerable income. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 6 and 7 had dug the fish tanks in their lands. The petitioners have submitted their objections for grant of provisional registration and final registration in favour of respondents 6 and 7 in respect of their lands stating that conversion of agricultural land into fish tanks by the respondents 6 and 7 destroys the petitioners and other cultivators’ fertile double crop paddy growing wet lands. The lands sought to be converted into fish tanks are ayacut lands under the pumping scheme. The water supplied under the pumping scheme is hardly sufficient to meet the needs of the agricultural crops and it is not sufficient for fish culture. The respondents 6 and 7 have clandestinely dug the bore wells for raring prawn culture under the guise of obtaining permission for fish culture. The same is rejected by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nidadavolu dated 28.10.2016. In respect of very same lands, when one Sri Nalla Rama Krishna, lessee of the respondents 6 and 7, applied for license for fresh water aquaculture pond through Mee-seva on 18.03.2016, the official respondents after enquiry as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15, rejected the application for conversion of the land extent Ac.6.86 cents in R.S.Nos.20/1, 20/2, 20/3A, 20/3B of Pendyala Village on 25.04.2016. However, the respondents 2 and 3, contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15, granted provisional registration permitting the respondents 6 and 7 to dug the fish tanks in the land. However, the respondents 2 and 3, contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15, granted provisional registration permitting the respondents 6 and 7 to dug the fish tanks in the land. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, the lands irrigated under bore wells cannot be given permission for fish ponds. The permission can be given for low lying or inundated lands and prone to floods and cyclones. Without considering the objections raised by the petitioners and the report dated 28.10.2016 submitted by the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Nidadavolu, final registration was granted to the respondents 6 and 7 on 04.11.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 6. W.P.No.3798 of 2017: The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.39854 of 2016. They are the absolute owners of the land extent Ac.3.54 cents in Sy.No.20/1 & 2 and Ac.3.32 cents in Sy.No.20/3A & 3B of Pendyala Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. They applied for permission to convert their lands into fish tanks and obtained provisional registration on 16.07.2016 and final registration on 04.11.2016, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, stating that their lands are low lying lands and not fit for paddy cultivation due to inundation of water from the surrounding lands during the rainy season and getting low yielding of paddy. The petitioners wanted to convert their lands into fish tanks on the advice given by the famous aquaculturist recommending to culture the fish and prawns together, so that the maintenance cost would be low and the growth of the species is relatively high, if both are cultured together. Accordingly, the petitioners made an application to the 3rd respondent, Convenor of the District Level Committee, to grant permission for taking up the culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland farms on 07.12.2016 and the same was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent. Neither the 3rd respondent nor any other staff caused any inspection of the fish tank as required under the guidelines issued in this regard in sub-clause (2) of guideline 3-A of G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (FII) Department, dated 29.04.2013. The impugned notice dated 30.01.2017 was issued directing the petitioners to vacate the tanks on the ground that the petitioners are doing prawn culture, without notice and without conducting any enquiry. The impugned notice dated 30.01.2017 was issued directing the petitioners to vacate the tanks on the ground that the petitioners are doing prawn culture, without notice and without conducting any enquiry. Without considering the petitioners’ application dated 07.12.2016 for taking up culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland farms, the respondents are not supposed to interfere with the petitioners’ aquaculture activities. In pursuance of the notice dated 30.01.2017, the 4th respondent is directing the 6 petitioners to demolish the fish tanks. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 7. The short points that fell for consideration of this Court are - (1) Whether the permissions granted to the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 (respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.39854 of 2016) for cultivation of aquaculture in respect of their lands is valid? and (2) Whether the impugned notices dated 30.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent directing the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 to vacate fish tanks and action of the 4th respondent asking the petitioners to demolish the fish tanks and their interference, is illegal and arbitrary? 8. This Court granted interim order on 03.02.2017 directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the existing L.Vennamei culture was concerned. The same was extended on 20.02.2017 and 06.03.2017 till 13.03.2017. Thereafter, the same was not extended. 9. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, when the farmers indiscriminately digging fish tanks in the agricultural fields, especially in the Coastal region of Andhra Pradesh i.e., in the districts of East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam and Nellore and rearing of fish and prawn in the tanks situated in agricultural fields. This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court issued series of directions to the fisheries authorities. When the fish activities are causing environmental pollution and damage to the crops of neighbouring land owners, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013 and thereafter amended orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.05.2015 framing guidelines for grant of permission for fresh water Aquaculture and regulating the pisciculture in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 10. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, wherein there was a reference of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 11.12.1996 in the case of S.Jagannath Vs. 10. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, wherein there was a reference of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 11.12.1996 in the case of S.Jagannath Vs. Union of India, the judgment of this Court dated 26.07.2001 in the case of M.Padma Rambabu Vs. The District Forest Office, Kakinada, the judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2011 in the case of Pulavarthy Ankaraju and others Vs. The Special Chief Secretary, AH, DD & Fisheries, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, the Andhra Pradesh Water Tax Act, 1988, the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the District Level Committee with the District Collector as the Chairman of the Committee and the Mandal Level Committee headed by the Mandal Revenue Officer were created as the authorities to grant permissions of fresh water aquaculture ponds and for registration of the existing fresh water aquaculture ponds. The persons/farmers who intend to dig new aquaculture water farms have to make an application to the District Level Committee. The District Level Committee on the recommendations of the Mandal Level Committee, after considering the objections of the neighbouring farmers, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013, grants provisional registration certificate. The existing fish ponds have to get registration for continuing fish culture in the existing fish tanks. Thereafter, the Government issued guidelines for culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland farms. 11. As per G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 29.04.2013, no person shall carry on the culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland waters without permission in accordance with the guidelines. The District Level Committee is the competent authority to permit the culture of L.Vannamei in fresh water/inland farms located outside the jurisdiction of Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CCA). Permission for taking up culture of L.Vannamei shall be accorded only to farms which have been already registered with the Fisheries Department and which have complied with the guidelines in the G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013. As per the guidelines, the DLC shall consider only the farms which are outside the jurisdiction of the CAA and water salinity in the farm is above 0.5 ppt. Permissions shall be accorded within 60 days basing on the recommendations of the inspections conducted by the DLC members regarding the suitability of the farm for farming of L.Vannamei. As per the guidelines, the DLC shall consider only the farms which are outside the jurisdiction of the CAA and water salinity in the farm is above 0.5 ppt. Permissions shall be accorded within 60 days basing on the recommendations of the inspections conducted by the DLC members regarding the suitability of the farm for farming of L.Vannamei. Stocking density should not exceed 60 number/sq.m. Culture of L.Vannamei is regulated by another series of guidelines. 12. When Sri Nalla Rama Krishna, lessee of the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017/respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.39854 of 2016, applied for license on 18.03.2016, the officials of the Fisheries Department after affixing notice on 19.03.2016 at the notice board of the Gram panchayat calling for objections for grant of provisional permission for cultivating fish tanks in the land extent Ac.6.86 cents in R.S.Nos.20/1, 20/2, 20/3A and 20/3B of Pendyala Village. The provisional license was rejected on 25.04.2016. However, on the application submitted by the petitioners in respect of the very same lands in spite of objections submitted by the adjacent and neighbouring land owners on 25.07.2016, 08.08.2016 and 03.10.2016. The officials having acknowledged of the same, granted provisional registration on 16.07.2016 and the provisional permission only allow the applicants to dig the fish tanks as per the norms fixed in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15 and without obtaining final registration, they cannot put the water in the tanks and rear the fish culture. The authorities after satisfying that the fish tanks are dug as per the norms prescribed in the guidelines and the final registration will be granted allowing the applicants to rear the fresh water fish in the tanks. Rearing of prawn culture is prohibited as it requires some sort of saline water, otherwise they will die. The saline water used for prawn culture will seep into the neighbouring land and thereby damage the crops and in the long run the neighbouring lands will become unfit for cultivation. Hence, the permissions are granted only for rearing fresh water fish. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Fisheries Department created aquaculture zones and Coastal Aquaculture zones. In coastal aquaculture zones, the marshy lands receiving saline water are allowed to rear prawn culture. Hence, the permissions are granted only for rearing fresh water fish. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Fisheries Department created aquaculture zones and Coastal Aquaculture zones. In coastal aquaculture zones, the marshy lands receiving saline water are allowed to rear prawn culture. Rearing of fish culture and prawn culture are being regulated by issuing guidelines in G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 15 as per the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. 13. Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.39854 of 2016 and the lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 are situated in Pendyala and Kanuru Villages, which are adjacent to each other and the lands are under the Ayacut of Pendyala Pumping Scheme. Hence, lands granted permissions for fish culture could not be said to be marshy lands and inundated lands fit for fish culture by digging fish tanks. However, the petitioners were granted provisional registration certificate on 16.07.2016 and final registration certificate was also granted on 04.11.2016. 14. It appears as per the orders dated 18.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.39854 of 2016, the Executive Engineer was directed to file status report on the location of the land, preventive steps taken by the unofficial respondents and also the steps required to be put in place during and in the course of operation of fish tanks. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Godavari Western Division, Nidadavole deputed the Executive Engineer, Delta SubDivision, Tadepalligudem and sought a report. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Delta Sub-Division, Tadepalligudem inspected jointly along with the Tahsildar, Nidadavole and Fisheries Development Officer, Nidadavole on 09.12.2016, wherein it was observed that the agricultural lands owned by the respondents 6 and 7 were converted into fish tanks duly taking pre and final permissions from the District Level Committee, West Godavari. It was also observed thus: “The owners of the fish tanks taken preventive steps so as to maintain a seepage bhodi all around the tanks and also provide outlets of fish tanks in west side of the tanks seepage bhodi. Whenever, the tanks are emptied, the released water passed through the fish tank outlets and entered to latchiraju tank via west side of fish tank seepage bhodi. To avoid water into Latchiraju tank during operation of fish tanks, the following precautions are suggested to the owners of the above tanks. Whenever, the tanks are emptied, the released water passed through the fish tank outlets and entered to latchiraju tank via west side of fish tank seepage bhodi. To avoid water into Latchiraju tank during operation of fish tanks, the following precautions are suggested to the owners of the above tanks. (1) The owners of fish tanks has to provide a cross bund of the d/s of their outlets in the seepage bhodi during operation of fish tanks. (2) The owners of the fish tanks have to divert their tanks released water from west side seepage bhodi to the other side seepage bhodi adjacent to the road through the existing pipe across the Jeedigunta and Pendyala road. So, the water will reach to Kanuru drain through seepage bodhies of adjacent existing fish tanks of Koripalli village.” The petitioners state that the preventive steps as suggested by the Executive Engineer was complied with in the month of December, 2016 itself as per the certificate dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Executive Engineer, Godavari West Division, Nidadavole. The petitioners having stated so, copy of the same is not filed. 15. This Court found that the lands in respect of which registration was granted for fish culture is covered by the Ayacut under Pendyala Pumping Scheme and they are double crop wet lands only but not marshy lands or inundated lands or not falling within the aquaculture zones or coastal aquaculture zones to rear the L.Vennamei or prawn culture. The objections raised by the adjacent and neighbouring land owners, the petitioners in W.P.No.39854 of 2016, are not properly considered before granting provisional and final registration as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013 and without properly considering the compliance of the guidelines, final registration certificate is granted on 04.11.2016. The fish tanks appear to have been located in non-aquaculture zone, which is found to be illegal. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered. 16. Though the petitioners are granted final registration only to dig the fresh water fish tanks to rear the fresh water fish culture, but it appears that on mere submitting application for permission to rear the L.Vennamei in fresh water tanks on 07.02.2016 and without waiting for permission, started culturing L.Vennamei prawn culture. Rearing of L.Vennamei prawn culture is prohibited in the fresh water fish tanks and only it is permitted in Coastal Aquaculture zones, where there is sufficient saline water. Rearing of L.Vennamei prawn culture is prohibited in the fresh water fish tanks and only it is permitted in Coastal Aquaculture zones, where there is sufficient saline water. However, issuance of notices dated 30.01.2017 to vacate and demolish the fish tanks, found to be illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered. 17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned notices dated 30.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent asking the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 to vacate the fish tanks, found to be arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Hence, they are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 18. Accordingly, the issue is remanded back to the District Level Committee for re-consideration afresh in the light of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and the rules framed thereunder by giving opportunity to both the parties and take a fresh decision as per law. Pending fresh consideration, the petitioners in W.P.No.3798 of 2017 are entitled to cultivate fresh water fish in the fresh water fish tanks and they should not be allowed to rear any other fish like L.Vennamei in the fish tanks, on complying with the conditions imposed in the report submitted by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Delta Sub-Division, Tadepalligudem. 19. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 20. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.