Thadelu Padma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

I :

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

1
/ *

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRUUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 20864 OF 2023

Between:

...PETITIONER

.AND

of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its PrI. Secretary, Department of

¶14

F'shenes and Animal Husbandry. Secretariat. Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶15

2. The District Collector cum Chairman Of District Level Implementation Committee, Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Anakapalle. Anakapalle District. . ’^'sheries, Poranki Bandar Road Vij ayawada NTR

¶16

District Andhra Pradesh 521135.

¶17

k' I!]® Anakapalle District R L ® ^'Shenes Development Officer, Nakkapalle. Anakapalle District 6. Masahebpe a Gram Panchayath. Rep. by its Panchayath Secretary Masahebpeta Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal. Anakapalle District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ. Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on part of Respondent no.4 in rejecting the application of the petitioner for aquaculture of Letter No.52/2023 dt.04-082023 without properly considering the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner and basing upon the fake complaints of unlawful persons without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, is nothing but and unlawful, unreasonable and in violation of. the Coastal Aqua Authority Act 2005. The APSADA Act 2020 and GOMS no.7,14-03-2013-issued by the Respondent no.4 and in violation of The Principles of Natural Justice and the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Art. 14.19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, by

¶20

I

¶21

4

¶22

rejection or permission on the part of the respondents. In view of Section 22(3) & 22(4) of the Act, after receipt of the applicat.on, if the respondents are. not acted within 15 days either for rejection or granting permission, there is a deemed permission in favour of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s application was not rejected by written order it shaft be presumed that the petitioner was granted deemed permission in her favour for cultivating aqua farms.

¶23

It is also brought to the notice of this Court, the District Fisherres Officer submitted a report dated 31.05.2023 in respect of the lands situated in Masahebpeta Village stating that the lands m Masahebpeta Village were notified under aquaculture zone and there are no agricultural lands for continuing agricultural activities in the said village. Therefore, the allegation as mentioned in the present show cause notice is quite contrary to the report of the District Fisheries Officer. Therefore, the impugned notices to be looked into with reference to the report dated 31.05.2023. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions and in view of the submissions made by the both the learned counsel, this court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit her explanation in

¶24

1

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶28

/t’/l

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRUUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 20864 OF 2023

¶32

Between:

¶33

Thadelu Padma. W/o.Malleswara Rao. Hindu, aged about 37 years. r/o.D.No.3-1 13 Tnakasi Apparao Veedhi. S Annavaram. Tuni Mandal. East Godavari District.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its PrI. Secretary. Department of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry. Secretariat. Velagapudi. Guntur District

¶37

The District Collector cum Chairman of District Level Implementation Committee. Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Anakapalle. Anakapalle District.

¶38

The Commissioner of Fisheries. Poranki Bandar Road Vij ayawada NTR District Andhra Pradesh 521135. ’

¶39

The District Fisheries Officer. Anakapalle. Anakapalle District 5. The Fisheries Development Officer. Nakkapalle. Anakapalle District 6. Masahebpeta Gram Panchayath. Rep. by its Panchayath Secretary Masahebpeta Village. Payakaraopeta Mandal. Anakapalle District. ’

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ. Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on part of Respondent no.4 in rejecting the application of the petitioner for aquaculture of Letter No.52/2023 dt.04-082023 without properly considering the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner and basing, upon the fake complaints of unlawful persons without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, is nothing but and unlawful, unreasonable and in violation of the Coastal Aqua Authority Act 2005. The APSADA Act 2020 and GOMS no.7.14-03-2013 issued by the Respondent no.4 and in violation of The Principles of Natural Justice and the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Art.14.19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, by

¶42

t

¶43

/

¶44

consequently directing the Respondent no.4 to issue license in the name of petitioner for doing Aquaculture farming over the land of Ac.2.44cts in sy.nos. 13/1,13/2,13/3,13/4,13/5,13/6,13/7 at Masahebpeta village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶45

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶46

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Orders of Direction directing the Respondent no.4 not to proceed with further action against the Petitioner over the land of Ac.2.44cts in sy.nos. 13/1,13/2,13/3,13/4,13/5,13/6,13/7 at Masahebpeta village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to the Letter No.52/2023 dt.04-08-2023, either in demolishing or seizing or interfering with the Aquaculture Farm existing therein, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of Writ Petition.

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR FISHERIES Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI N. SRIHARI, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶50

WRIT PETITION No.20864 of 2023

¶51

ORDER;

¶52

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶53

Constitution of . India seeking the following relief:

¶54

"to issue a writ, brder or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondent No. 4 in rejecting the application of the petitioner for aquaculture of letter No.52/2023 dated 04.08.2023 without properly considering the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner and basing upon the fake complaints of unlawful persons without giving any opportunity to the petitioner is nothing but unlawful, unreasonable and in violation of the Costal Aqua Authority Act, 2005, the APSADA Act, 2020 and G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 14.03.2013 issued by the respondent No.4 and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, by consequently directing the respondent No.4 to issue license in .the‘name of the petitionerfor doing Aquaculture farming over the land of . Ac.2.44 cents in survey Nos. 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, 13/4, 13/5, 13/6 and 13/7 at Masahebpeta Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to pass such other order or orders....”

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶56

Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶58

petitioner has taken the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents on

¶59

is

¶60

2

¶61

ease srtuated in survey Nos.13/1. 13/2. 13/3. 13/4, 13/5 13/6 and 13/7 of Masahebpeta ViUage Payaharaopeta Mandaf’ AU these farms are notified within the aquaculture sond. WhUe so, the petitioner got leasehold rights in respect of the said lands, from the original pattadar of the said lands. Then, he submitted an appUcation to the Costal Aquaculture Authority for grant Of permission for cultivating aquaculture farms under the provisions of APSADA Act anon <= .■ Act, 2020. Sectton 22(3) & 22(4) of

¶62

the Act reads as foUows:

¶63

(3) The appV^r^ received, under sub-section (2)

¶64

endorsement of edsdn, licenses/registrations. °f endorsen,ent shod be completed by licensing authority unthirt 15 days byfoOoudng the prescribed procedure. (4) If acceptance or rejection of application made under, sub-section | (2) IS not issued within the stipulated time offifti ■een (15) days, the license shall be deemed to be endorsed. » Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application on 20.06.2023, 3Q far there is no rejection order against the petitioner. As per the above provisions, the petitioner was granted permission under the deemed clause and she has been cultivating the aquaculture

¶65

3

¶66

/./

¶67

farms. While being so, the respondent authorities pursuant to I the third party intervention, issued notice dated 27.07.2023 directing the petitioner to stop the cultivation of aqua farms in the said lands on the ground that there is no permission in favour of the petitioner. Without giving any time, the respondents issued final order dated 04.08.2023, directing the petitioner not to cultivate aqua farms, since no permission was granted in favour of the petitioner herein. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶68

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that since no show cause notice was issued before directing the petitioner to stop the aquaculture operations, the impugned notices dated 27.07.2023 and 04.08.2023 should be treated as show cause notices and the petitioner shall submit explanation with reasons for continuing her aquaculture farms. Thereupon, the respondent authorities will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶69

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and upon perusal of the material placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioner submitted her application/explanation on 20.06.2023 for granting license under APSADA Act, 2020. For which there is no \ • ••

¶70

4

¶71

****

¶72

rejection or permission on the part of the respondents. In view of Section 22(3) & 22(4) of the Act, after receipt of the appUcation, if the respondents are, not acted within 15 days either for rejection or granting permission, there is a deemed permission in favour of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s appUcation was not rejected by written order it shall be presumed that the petitioner was granted deemed permission in her favour for cultivating aqua farms.

¶73

It is also brought to the notice of this Court, the District Fisheries Officer submitted a report dated 31.05.2023 in respect of the lands situated in Masahebpeta Village stating that the lands in Masahebpeta Village were notified under aquaculture zone and there are no agricultural lands for continuing agricultural activities in the said village. Therefore, the allegation as mentioned in the present show cause notice is quite contrary to the report of the District Fisheries Officer. Therefore, the impugned notices to be looked into with reference to the report dated 31.05.2023.

¶74

In view of the foregoing discussions and in view of the submissions made by the both the learned counsel, this court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit her explanation in

¶75

5

¶76

respect of notices dated 27.07.2023 as weU as 04.08.2023 within a period of one(lj week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and on receipt of such explanation from the petitioner, the 4th respondent shall consider the the said explanation with reference to the report dated 31.05.2023 within a period of four(4) weeks thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained to interfere with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and operations of the aquaculture farms of the petitioner.

¶77

9. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed sbaU be no order as to costs.

¶78

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

¶79

the writ petition shall stand closed.

****

/ !

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1.

2. The District Collector pPHur District. Committee, Andhra Pradesh State '"’Ptementatioh Anakapalle, Anakapalte dTsW Development Authority

¶87

District A^hS'pradesh ayawada NTR

¶88

i SsSSrSsJ^ ^'““District.

¶89

to.Two C.D. Copies Panchayat (OPUC) '

Cnr o M

- /

HIGH COURT

bATED:16/Q8/2023

ORDER

WP.No.20864 of 2023

¶96

0 7 OCT 2023 |
. Current Section

¶97

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Thadelu Padma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thadelu Padma, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Ashok reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept.

Jai Sriram Sand and Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Krishna Constructions Vs G K Dwivedi,I.a.S

Ponnapurette Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Ap and 9 Others

Kudupudi Kanakaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Annapurna Degree College Vs the State of Ap