Disposed

Penumaka Subba Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jul 2021WP/10556/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice directing regularization of fish ponds. Court was informed the relevant Act had not come into force and rules were not framed, leading to setting aside of the notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 26.02.2021 set aside; respondents free to issue appropriate notice regarding possession of assigned and government land.

Penumaka Subba Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.10556 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the 4^th respondent on 26.02.2021 directing the petitioner to regularize the fish ponds admeasuring an extent of Ac.30.64 cents in Sy.Nos.61, 494, 99, 490 and 487 of Vinnakota Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, he filed an application along with others before the 3^rd respondent to grant permission for fresh aquaculture farm and the same was granted on 30.10.2008 and thereafter the petitioner has dug the ponds in accordance with the said permission. While so, one G.Nagendra Rao gave a complaint to the 7th respondent and the 7th respondent sought a report from the DSP, CID, PCR Cell, Vijayawada and the same was received on 15.11.2020 pursuant to which, the 7th respondent addressed a letter, dated 27.01.2021 directing the 4th respondent to initiate necessary action for restoring the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.39 cents in Sy.No.62 which was alleged to be assigned to 20 members of the weaker sections by the 6th respondent on 08.01.1992. A perusal of the said letter, dated 27.01.2021 alleges that the fish ponds are in an extent of Ac.127.21 cents, whereas permission was obtained for only Ac.112.12 cents and that for the remaining extent no permission was obtained. No government land is surrounding

¶6

¶7

the land of the petitioner, as alleged in the impugned notice, dated 26.02.2021. The impugned notice is issued to the petitioner directing him to regularize his fish ponds as per The Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act , 2020 ( Act 29 of 2020). As the petitioner has already obtained permission, there is no necessity to regularize the ponds and the permission for the remaining extent of Ac.13.26 cents is pending with the competent authority. Challenging the said notice, dated 26.02.2021 present writ petition is filed.

¶8

The impugned notice, dated 26.02.2021 shows that the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.86.48 cents, but the permission was obtained only for Ac.81.48 cents and an extent of Ac.3.29 cents of ‘assigned land’ and Ac.0.29 cents of ‘government land’ were occupied by the petitioner and an inspection was conducted on 09.02.2021 with Survey and Boundaries Department.

¶9

It is alleged in the said notice that petitioner has dug the fish ponds in land admeasuring an extent of Ac.86.48 cents whereas permission is for Ac.81.48 cents and the revenue officials confirmed that land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.29 cents of assigned land and an extent of Ac.0.29 cents of the government land are in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to apply for regularization of the ponds in accordance with The Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act , 2020 .

¶10

¶11

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents submits that the said Act did not come into force yet and the rules are not yet framed under the Act. In view of the categorical statement made by the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, the petitioner cannot not be asked to get his ponds regularized, in accordance with the said Act.

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned notice. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law as it is alleged that the petitioner is in possession of ‘assigned land’ and the ‘government land’ which was converted into fish ponds. No costs.

¶13

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶15

Date: 15.07.2021 Note: Issue CC by 24.07.2021

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.10556 of 2021

¶19

Date: 15.07.2021

¶20

Note: Issue CC by 24.07.2021

¶21

(B/o) IS

Penumaka Subba Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penumaka Subba Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moturi Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Cheedipalli Chinatutayya, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Donaka Poorna Chandra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K S Inayathullah Vs the State of Ap

Sri Venkata Sai Veerabrahmendra Gertilizers, Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Saptagiri Traders, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh