Disposed

Kajuluri Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2022WP/25924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court disposed of a writ petition challenging the failure of officials to act against unauthorized fish tank construction on adjacent land. The court issued personal notice to the respondent, found no action taken after a prior directive, and directed officials to demolish the farms within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to take appropriate action, including demolition of unauthorized aquaculture farms, within three weeks.

Kajuluri Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.25924 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleaders for Fisheries and Revenue. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶5

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not taking appropriate action against the 6^th respondent for converting his land into fish tank without obtaining any permission, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.9.24 cents in Survey Nos.545/1B, 571/4A, 571/4B, 571/4C, 571/4D, 571/5 and 593 situated in Pallipalem Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. The 2^nd petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.8.23 cents in Survey Nos.572/2, 581/3, 582/2, 581/1 and 579 situated in Pallipalem Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. The 3^rd petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.32 cents in Survey Nos.539/2 and 583 situated in Pallipalem Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. The land of the 6^th respondent is adjacent to the lands of the petitioners. But without obtaining any permission from the competent

¶7

¶8

authority, the 6^th respondent is digging the fish tanks illegally in his land in Survey Nos.584, 585/1, 585/2, 586/1 and 586/2 situated in Pallipalem Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. Hence, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 15.06.2021 to respondent Nos.2 to 6 and in reply thereto, the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 28.06.2021 has directed respondent Nos.3 to 5 to take action as per law. But no action has been taken by the official respondents. Hence, the writ petition.

¶9

When the writ petition came up for admission, learned counsel for the petitioners was permitted to take out personal notice to the 6^th respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and file proof of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 31.01.2022 vide USR No.3544 of 2022 stating that the notice was served on unofficial respondent No.6 on 27.12.2021. However, none appeared for unofficial respondent No.6 and there is no representation whatsoever.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating inter alia that the 6^th respondent has dug aquaculture farm in land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.585/1 of Pallipalem Village, Kajuluru Mandal without applying for any permission whatsoever and hence, the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries issued a notice dated 26.06.2021 and stopped the 6^th respondent from indulging in aquaculture activity in the

¶11

¶12

subject land and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- per acre was also imposed on him. But the 6^th respondent continued to resort to unauthorized aquaculture without paying the penalty amount. Hence, the 2^nd respondent issued order dated 18.10.2021 directing the Tahsildar/Chairman, Mandal Level Committee to demolish the unauthorized aquaculture farms.

¶13

As seen from the counter affidavit, the 6^th respondent is resorting the unauthorized aquaculture in his land without obtaining any permission whatsoever. The counter affidavit of the official respondents shows that the 2^nd respondent also directed the Tahsildar on 18.10.2021 to demolish the unauthorized farms. Even though the counter affidavit was filed by one K.Karunakar Rao, Assistant Director of Fisheries on 14.12.2021, the subsequent events pursuant to the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 18.10.2021 are not mentioned. It is not known from the counter as to whether subject farms were demolished in fact or not and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries also did not have any latest instructions in the matter.

¶14

In view of the facts and circumstances, the official respondents are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law and in accordance with the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 18.10.2021, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

¶16

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶17

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶19

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶20

Date: 11.02.2022 Ivd

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.25924 of 2021

¶24

Dated: 11.02.2022

¶25

Ivd

Kajuluri Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kajuluri Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayudu Saroja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Karanam Mohana Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rev Bugge a Kumar Vs M Venkateswara Rao

B.Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Ganga Bai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vakati Balaji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh