Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 202 (AP)

Pathivada Ramaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-25

M.GANGA RAO

body2023
ORDER : 1. The petitioners claims to be the marginal and small farmers having small extent of agricultural land in various survey numbers in Gubbalavaripalem, Hamlet of Gollalakoderu Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District filed this writ petition questioning the final registration certificate No. FRN011600004636 dated 31.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent and his family members to do fresh water aquaculture in the 7th respondent lands is contrary to the procedure laid down in the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 7 dated 16.3.2013 as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 26.5.2015. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and the same and filed W.P. No. 16003 of 2018 being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent Commissioner of Fisheries (Ex-Officio) confirming the final registration certificate in FRNo11600004636 issued in favour of the 7th/8th respondents in W.P. Nos. 16269 of 2017 and 16003 of 2018 respectively for fresh water aquaculture farm by proceedings No. 2125/P2/2017 dated 27.10.2017 in the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the final registration certificate dated 31.10.2016 as being illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 7 and 15. 3. In these two writ petitions, petitioners as well as the respondents are one and the same and the cause of action in both the writ petitions is the grant of final registration certificate No. FRN011600004636 on similar facts and law hence, these two writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 4. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners are villagers of Gubbalavaripalem, Hamlet of Gollalakoderu Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District and they are small and marginal farmers holding small extent of agricultural lands in various survey numbers as detailed below and eaking out their livelihood from cultivating their lands: S. No. Petitioner Extent of Land Ac. cents Sy. Nos. 1 1st petitioner 1-00 50/2 and 50/3 2 2nd petitioner 2-00 60/3 3 3rd petitioner 1-20 58/1B 4 4th petitioner 0-32 57/5 5 5th petitioner 2-36 28/1 6 6th petitioner 1-91 67/3 7 7th petitioner 0-98 57/1F 8 8th petitioner 0-56 51 9 9th petitioner 0-18 53/TB The lands are double crop wet lands and extremely fertile lands irrigated through canal water. Sri Katari Prudvi Raju, 7th/8th respondent in the above writ petitions submitted an application to the 2nd respondent District Level Committee for grant of provisional registration certificate for doing fresh water aquaculture in respect of his land extent Ac. 17.43 cents in Sy. Nos. 60/1, 2F, 61/1, 2A, 2B, 62, 65, 65/2 of Gubbalavaripalem, Hamlet of Gollalakoderu Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District which are double crop wet lands and extremely fertile and suitable for cultivation. When the 2nd respondent without conducting any proper enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the neighbouring land owners granted provisional registration certificate for fresh water farming to the 7th respondent on 1.7.2014 to an extent of land Ac. 22.78 cents, W.P. No. 20520 of 2014 is filed and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioners before granting final registration. But, the 2nd respondent without considering the objections passed orders on 24.07.2014 in favour of 7th/8th respondent permitting him to dig fresh water aquaculture tank, after laying drain pipe lines into the Undi main canal. Assailing the said order, some of the petitioners filed W.P. No. 38650 of 2014 and an interim order was granted on 16.12.2014 restraining the 8th respondent from proceeding with the process of laying the drain pipes and the District Level Committee was restrained from considering the application of the 7th/8th respondent for final registration. After filing counter affidavit by the 7th/8th respondent, the writ petition was allowed with the following directions: “Now, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 24.07.2014 can be set aside, but the application of the 7th respondent for final registration can be considered independently by the District Level Committee in accordance with the rules applicable. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent dated 24.07.2014 and vacating the order restraining the District Level Committee from considering the application filed by the 7th respondent for final registration. It is open to the District Level Committee to consider the application of the 7th respondent, if it is filed for final registration in accordance with law. The District Level Committee issued final registration certificate bearing No. FRN011600004636 dated 31.10.2016 in favour of the 7th/8th respondent in respect of his land extent Ac. It is open to the District Level Committee to consider the application of the 7th respondent, if it is filed for final registration in accordance with law. The District Level Committee issued final registration certificate bearing No. FRN011600004636 dated 31.10.2016 in favour of the 7th/8th respondent in respect of his land extent Ac. 17.43 cents with a total water spread area of Ac. 13.94 cents in Sy. No. 60/1, 2F, 61/1, 2A, 2B, 62, 65, 65/2 of Gollalakoderu, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 7 and 15.” 5. The petitioners initially filed W.P. No. 16269 of 2017 and at the time of admission, the Government Pleader raised an objection stating that an appeal lies to the appellate authority against the order granting final registration certificate as per G.O.Ms. No. 7 dated 16.3.2013. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Fisheries (Ex-Officio) and Appellate Authority and the appellate authority without considering the objections of the petitioners and without calling for the relevant reports from the concerned officials, passed an order on 27.10.2017 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.10.2016 and remanded back the matter to the District Level Committee, West Godavari District to take further necessary action. The District Level Committee, West Godavari District has not taken any action in the matter as per the orders dated 27.10.2017, which action of the respondents questioned in W.P. No. 16003 of 2018 as being illegal and arbitrary. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries shows that notices were issued to the appellants and to the Joint Director of Fisheries, Eluru of West Godavari District and a report was submitted by the Joint Director of Fisheries, Eluru, West Godavari District who has issued final registration certificate dated 31.10.2016. The Joint Director of Fisheries informed that the petitioners in the writ petitions are not adjacent farmers, which is not correct and more over, upon joint field inspection it is observed that there is no scope for damage while letting the water from the southern side of the tank into the ‘Karra Kodu’ drain, which is shown as non-notified drain certified by the District Engineer Drainage Sub Division, Bhimavaram. The appellate authority without properly considering the objections observed that there is no need to interfere with the action taken by the District Level Committee at this stage and ordered to remand back the case to District Level Committee, West Godavari with a request to take further necessary action in the case. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the 7th/8th respondent who was granted final registration certificate dated 31.10.2016 is doing fresh water aquaculture and releasing the drain water through pipeline into the existing main canal known as Undi canal. The Undi canal is coming from Chilakalapadu via Gollalakoderu Mahadevapatnam, Undi, Pedamaram, Cherkuvada, Kalla, Bondana, Akiveu which is about 15 K.M. and all these villagers are utilizing the water from the main canal (Undi canal) through the sub canals for the purpose of yielding agriculture, for drinking purpose under the scheme of Rakshitha Drinking Water System (Rakshitha Manchineeti Pathakam). The 7th/8th respondent is releasing the fish tank polluted water through pipelines into the main canal i.e. Undi canal by which the surrounding villagers are suffering with pollution and the agriculture fields are getting damaged, apart from being forced to drink water polluted with chemicals and other pollutants from the fish ponds. The final registration certificate is granted without calling for no objection certificate from the concerned Gram Panchayats. The matter is remanded back for fresh consideration confirming the provisional certificate contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 7 dated 16.3.2013 as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 26.5.2015. The fresh water aquaculture could be permitted in the inundated, submergible lands and subsequently the Government has notified the aquaculture zones and prawn culture zones. The permission granted to the 7th/8th respondent for freshwater aquaculture in the lands in Sy. Nos. 60/1, 2F, 61/1, 2A, 2B, 62, 65, 65/2 of Gubbalavaripalem, Hamlet of Gollalakoderu Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District, which are double crop wet lands highly fertile for cultivation is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 7 and 15 and in view of letting the aquaculture ponds water through pipelines into the Undi main canal, polluted and contaminated water is being used by the villagers for drinking, agriculture and for animals thereby spoiling the health of the villagers and animals and impact on the agriculture yield. No. 7 and 15 and in view of letting the aquaculture ponds water through pipelines into the Undi main canal, polluted and contaminated water is being used by the villagers for drinking, agriculture and for animals thereby spoiling the health of the villagers and animals and impact on the agriculture yield. This aspect has not been properly considered by the District Level Committee in proper perspective, which is illegal and arbitrary. However, the 2nd respondent Commissioner already remanded the matter back to the District Level Committee for reconsideration. 8. In view of the above discussion and finding, the 2nd respondent and District Level Committee is directed to consider the matter of grant of permission for fresh water aquaculture to the 7th/8th respondent in the writ petitions afresh by giving opportunity to the petitioners and others for submitting objections by calling objections from the concerned Gram Panchayat as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 7 dated 16.3.2013 as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 26.5.2015 and as per the provisions of A.P. State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder and pass appropriate reasoned order as per law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.