Disposed

D.S.S.V.V. Varma, E.G. Dist v. Spl Secy to Govt Animal Husbandry, Dairy Devp, Hyd and 11 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2021WP/19175/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed official respondents to take action against unofficial respondents operating fish ponds on agricultural land without valid permission or complying with conditions, after issuing prior notice. The petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed official respondents to take action against unofficial respondents after issuing notice. No order as to costs.

D.S.S.V.V. Varma, E.G. Dist Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19175 of 2013

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not taking action against the unofficial Respondent Nos.5 to 12 and their associates from converting their agricultural lands situated in Komarigiripatnam Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District into fish ponds without obtaining any permission and without complying with the direction in Writ Appeal No.550 of 2010 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that no permission has been obtained by the unofficial respondents herein for converting their agricultural lands into fish/prawn tanks.

¶6

Notice was served to Respondent Nos.7,8 and 9. But, there is no representation on their behalf. In the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that Respondent Nos.10 and 11 refused to receive the notice.

¶7

Counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.5 stating inter-alia that they have obtained permission from the competent authority.

¶8

Counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.6 stating that the paddy fields and the lands belonging to the petitioner are 630-700 meters away from the aqua tanks of the respondents; it is also stated that some of the respondents have already obtained permission from the competent authority and some do not have

¶9

¶10

permission; hence, notice was issued to other respondents to get their tanks regularized; it is also stated that action will be taken to cancel the permission which was granted to them if they violated any of the terms and conditions.

¶11

As seen from the copies of the permission which are filed by Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the permissions which were granted to them expired in 2015; there is no interim direction passed in this Writ Petition.

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances, if the unofficial respondents No.5 to 12 are operating the fish/prawn tanks without obtaining any permission whatsoever or deviating the conditions of the permission, the official respondents are directed to take action against them after issuing notice and opportunity to them.

¶13

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

__ ________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶16

Date: 22.12.2021 TM

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.19175 OF 2013

¶20

Date: 22.12.2021

¶21

¶22

D.S.S.V.V. Varma, E.G. Dist v. Spl Secy to Govt Animal Husbandry, Dairy Devp, Hyd and 11 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S.S.V.V. Varma, E.G. Dist v. Spl Secy to Govt Animal Husbandry, Dairy Devp, Hyd and 11 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Kumar Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. S.S. Agri Tech REp by its Managing Director P. Prasad Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Kesav Bio-Tech (P) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Smt. Rathnamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle

Kodamanchi Siva, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

M/s. Maddi Tataiah Son and Company Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh