JUDGMENT: 1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment dated 19.06.2006 in O.S. No.04 of 2004 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short, ‘trial court’). 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments of the plaint are as under: (a) The plaintiff society filed the suit for declaration that they got Fishery rights over the scheduled property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaint scheduled property by converting the same for any other purpose to deprive the legitimate Fishery rights of the plaintiff society. (b) The plaintiff society was formed for the purpose of catching fish in the canal, rivers and tanks on lease from the Government to benefit the members of the Society with the income derived therefrom. There is Pit No.1 belonging to the Irrigation Department adjoining the Vayyeru Canal, and it has been under the lease of the plaintiff's Society for more than 50 years. There are more than 150 families in Duvva village, and their source of income is catching fish from the tanks and pits taken on lease or issued by the Government, including the Fishing in Enamdurru Drain, and this has been in practice for more than 50 years. (c) The defendant proposed to convert Pit No.1 of the Irrigation Department under the guise of converting the same Drinking Water tank, which is under the lease of the plaintiff society. Pit No.1 is situated on the Western side of the Duvva Village, about 1½ kilometres away, intervened by Enamdurru Drain. Though there are a number of tanks available to take over for conversion as Drinking water tanks, they proposed the said Drinking water project through the defendant Panchayat and are particular in respect of the conversion of Pit No.1. (d) The Sarpanch and her father proclaimed in the Village that they would not allow the Society to rear fish on the scheduled property. Duvva village is having protected Drinking water supply scheme. There is a Drinking water tank at an extent of Ac.4.00 cents, and there are two bore wells connecting to the overhead tank for the drinking water supply. Duvva village is having protected Drinking water supply scheme. There is a Drinking water tank at an extent of Ac.4.00 cents, and there are two bore wells connecting to the overhead tank for the drinking water supply. The defendant Panchayat cannot act against the interests of the Society concerning the scheduled property or interfere with the fishery rights as the Schedule property is under the control of the Irrigation Department. So far, the same is not transferred as required under the law. The scheduled property is under the control of the Irrigation Department, and they cannot permit the proposal to convert the same into any Drinking water tank to deprive the right of Society without following the procedure contemplated under the law. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint, contending that the plaintiff society conveniently omitted the Gram Panchayat, Duvva Village, to show as one of the parties to the suit in O.S. No.833 of 2003 to get over the provisions of Section 22-A of Panchayat Raj Act, as amended under Act XXII of 2002, as such, the present suit is not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. Pit No.1 is not a minor irrigation tank. As such, the Gram Panchayat, Duvva cannot have any control over the Pit, either invoking the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act or as per G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 10.04.1978 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. (a) According to B.S.O. No.211, as modified in the G.O.Ms.No.1685 Revenue dated 26.10.1965, the Revenue Divisional Officers are empowered to grant fishery leases in favour of the Cooperative Societies and Panchayats while the Collector is the Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue is the Revisional Authority. As per the Rules and Regulations framed by the Fisheries Department, the plaintiff society shall supply 10,000 major CARP fish seed to the fishery department free of cost, for which an amount of Rs.1125/- has to be deposited as security in advance, and the plaintiff should also execute an agreement before taking up fishing rights. But, the said conditions are not fulfilled so far by the plaintiff society, and it is for the plaintiff to explain why the lease granted in its favour cannot be cancelled for noncompliance with the above-referred conditions. But, the said conditions are not fulfilled so far by the plaintiff society, and it is for the plaintiff to explain why the lease granted in its favour cannot be cancelled for noncompliance with the above-referred conditions. (b) Based on the guidelines, the Government of India has introduced a scheme known as the 'Sujala Dhara Scheme' and agreed to release necessary funds in the rural areas to provide protected water in the respective villages. The population of Duvva has been increasing abnormally, and the present overhead tank is not serving the purpose of distributing drinking water in the entire Village; as such, it is necessary to have a protected water system by converting Pit No.1 into the freshwater tank. In the event of lease cancellation in favour of the plaintiff and handing over the control of Pit No.1 to the Gram Panchayat, Duvva, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer and from the orders of the R.D.O., a revision would lie to the Collector. As such, the plaintiff, without availing the remedies before the said authorities cannot file the present suit, is bad for the misjoinder of parties. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its absolute fishery rights over the scheduled property? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for against the defendants? (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C.? (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties? (5) To what relief? 6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined, and Exs.A1 to A19 documents were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined, and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present Appeal. 8. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined, and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present Appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence adduced and produced on behalf of the plaintiff in proper perspective while deciding the matter; The trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant is a lessee entitled to continue in possession of the property and as such the issue of lease or license does not arise. He further contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit interpreting Ex.A3 giving a finding that the word lease is loosely employed and the findings of the trial Court with regard to the word ‘lease’ or ‘license’ and the process of the license which applies to the present case is incorrect. He further contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit by applying the principle of law, which does not apply to the facts of the case. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? 11. A perusal of Ex.A1-Byelaws establishes that the plaintiff society is duly registered. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued instructions to lease out the canals, tanks etc., to the Fishermen Cooperative Society at the first instance. Ex.A3-Proceedings dated 19.07.2002, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tanuku shows that the plaintiff society was authorized to catch fish from the Faslies from 1413 to 1415 till June 2006 on payment of the amount mentioned in Ex.A2 in pursuance of Ex.A3 proceedings. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the Society has been enjoying fishing rights in Pit No.1 for the past 50 years. The Gram Panchayat has no right to pass a resolution requesting the Government to transfer the Pit for converting into drinking water under the 'Sujala Dhara Scheme'. Exs.A4 to A6 are the representations and office copies of the notices and telegrams, respectively, sent to the Gram Panchayat in this regard. To establish their right, the plaintiff also relied on Ex.A7, Ex.A10, to Ex.A19 photographs with negatives. Exs.A4 to A6 are the representations and office copies of the notices and telegrams, respectively, sent to the Gram Panchayat in this regard. To establish their right, the plaintiff also relied on Ex.A7, Ex.A10, to Ex.A19 photographs with negatives. The said documents are not in dispute. 12. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat issued Exs.B1 to B4 proceedings, where it requested the Government to transfer the plaint schedule property to the Gram Panchayat for utilizing it as a protected water source under the 'Sujala Dhara Scheme'. It is not the plaintiff's case that, based on such Exs.B1 to B4 proceedings, the Government has passed orders transferring the Pit to the Gram Panchayat. It cannot be anticipated whether the Government is going to consider the request made by the Gram Panchayat or not. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the Government passed the orders cancelling the fishing rights given to the plaintiff society. 13. Based on the above-established fact, the trial Court found that the alleged cause of action is a misconceived one. The trial Court has considered Ex.A3-proceedings to decide whether the terms of the said document can be treated as a licence or lease. The word ‘lease’ is undoubtedly employed in Ex.A3. As pointed out in Ex.A3, the plaintiff society is given fishing rights on payment of amounts fixed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries up to June 2006. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court that no interest in the immovable properties is transferred to the plaintiff's Society in Ex.A3 by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 14. The trial Court, referring to the G.O.Ms.No.897 dated 09.04.1964, observed that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to permanently deal with the transfer of the plaint schedule property. According to Ex.A3 proceedings, the Mandal Revenue Officer has been given the power to auction the leasehold rights only. It is not the plaintiff's case that Mandal Revenue Officer is a competent authority to transfer the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, only fishing rights were given by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the plaintiff society up to the end of June 2006. In the said facts of the case, the trial Court is justified in holding that rights given in Ex.A3 will fall under the definition of 'licence' though the word 'lease' is loosely employed in the said document. Admittedly, only fishing rights were given by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the plaintiff society up to the end of June 2006. In the said facts of the case, the trial Court is justified in holding that rights given in Ex.A3 will fall under the definition of 'licence' though the word 'lease' is loosely employed in the said document. In the facts of the case, the trial Court rightly observed that the fishing rights were only given to the plaintiff society for a specific period on payment of a specific amount. This Court is of the view that the respondent/Gram Panchayat is in no way concerned with the declaratory relief claimed in the suit. The reading of the plaint and the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff clearly shows that the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Eluru is a competent authority who issued Ex.A3 proceedings. 15. In the facts of the case, to claim a relief of declaratory right, the said authority must have been shown as a party to the proceedings when the Gram Panchayat is in no way concerned with the leasehold rights of the tank. The suit, as framed, is not maintainable. The Gram Panchayat passed the resolution, requesting the Government to transfer the plaint schedule property for utilizing it as a source of protected water scheme. In the absence of any physical obstruction on the part of the officials of Gram Panchayat except for passing a resolution, at any stretch of the imagination, it cannot be concluded that Gram Panchayat has interfered with the fishing rights of the plaintiff society. 16. Given the preceding discussion, the view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference, and this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld. 17. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed by confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S. No.04 of 2004, dated 19.06.2006, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.