Disposed

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2024WP/3350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged officials were proceeding to grant fish-tank digging licences to respondents without deciding his objections concerning a land dispute and illegal mutation in RS.No.292/1. The Court directed the respondent authority to pass orders on his objections before issuing any fresh licence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to pass orders on petitioner's objections dated 25.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 before issuing any fresh fish-tank licence to respondents 7 and 8.

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3350 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Late Basava Sobhanadri Hindu aged about 65 years, Occu- Cultivation, R/o. Koniki Village, Pedapadu mandal, Eluru^District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI Secretary Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department At Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶11

The District Level Committee, for Registration of Aquaculture Eluru District rep by its Chairman cum The District Collector Eluru District^atEluru.

¶12

Assistant Director of Fisheries, Govt of AP, Postal colony, Srinivasa Nagar Eluru, Eluru District.

¶13

District Fisheries Officer, Govt of A P Postal Colony Srinivasa Nagar Eluru Eluru District.

¶14

Fisheries Development Officer, Pedapadu Pedapadu^{MandalEluruDistrict.} 6. The Tashildar, Pedapadu Mandal Pedapadu Eluru District.

¶15

Yalamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev, S/o. Late Mahesh Chandra Cho\A/dary Hindu aged about 53 years, Occu- Cultivation R/o. Flat No 204, Navya Enclave, Ashok Nagar Eluru Eluru District.

¶16

Yalamanchili Nagamalleswari, W/o Late Gnaneswar Hindu aged about 51 years, Occ: house wife R/o. Pallerlamudi Village Nuzividu^MandalEluru District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No, 2 to 6 in proceeding to grant license to the respondents No, 7 and 8 for digging fish pond in the agricultural land covered by RS No- 292/1 of Koniki village, Pedapadu Mandal Eluru District without considering the objections^{dated25-01-2024and} 31-01-2024 submitted by the petitioner and without conducting enquiry illegal, arbitrary, violation of articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct Respondents 2 to 6 to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner before passing any orders on

¶19

the applications submitted by 7‘^ and 8“^ respondents for grant of license for digging fish tank in the above said land in the interest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to respondents 2 to 6 to consider the objections dated^{25-01-2024and31-01-2024} submitted by the petitioners before passing any order on the applications submitted by 7'^ & 8*^ respondents for grant of license for digging fish tank agricultural land covered by RS.No. 292/1 of Koniki Village, pedapadu mandal, Elur District in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH. B. R. P. SEKHAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR FISHERIES

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : NONE APPEARED

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.3350 OF 2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226^of

¶31

the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶32

“....to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No;^2to6in proceeding to grant license to the respondent No; 7^&8for digging fish pond in the agricultural land covered by RS No.292/1 of Koniki Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District without considering the objections dated 25.01.2024 & 31.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner and without^conducting enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, violation of articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and violation ofprinciples of^{natural Justice} and consequently direct Respondents 2 to 6 to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner before passing^anyorders on the applications submitted by 7*^ and 8'^ respondents^for grant of license for digging fish tank in the above^saidlandin the interest of Justice and pass such other....”

¶33

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.4.50 cents in RS.No.292/1 of Koniki Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District and his name was also mutated in the revenue records for an extent of Ac.4.00 cents out of 4.50^cents in R.S.No.292/1. The respondents 7 and 8 are having

¶34

¶35

Ac.y.OOcents and Ac.2.93 cents respectively in R.S.No.292/1 of Koniki Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District but the 7th respondent illegally got mutated his name for an extent of Ac.7.50 cents in RS.No.292/1 duly including the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents, in which the 7th respondent already dug a fish pond in an extent of Ac.3.50 cents illegally long back without obtaining any permission from the official respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 7th respondent is now contemplating to dig the fish tank in the remaining land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in RS.No.292/1 of Koniki Village with a malafide intention to occupy the land of the petitioner, which he got mutated in his name in the revenue records. The 7* and 8th respondents submitted their applications for survey of their lands, on receiving the same, the 6th respondent got issued a legal notice dated 20.10.2023 to the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted objections regarding the illegal^mutation of his land in the name of 7th respondent in the revenue records. But without considering the objections of the petitioner, the 6th respondent conducted the survey^andon

¶36

¶37

the other hand, the copy of the survey report was also^not served on the petitioner till date. Later, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11.01.2024 to the 6^^ respondents for mutation of his name in the revenue^records for the land in an extent of Ac.4.50 cents by submitting^allthe required/relevant documents by which he acquired title over the said extent of land. The 6* respondent issued notice^vide ROC.No.25/2024(DT) dated 19.01.2024 calling upon the petitioner and respondents 7, 8 to submit their documents relating to the lands in R.S.No.292/1, upon which the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8 have submitted^their documents, but the enquiry is pending before the 6* respondent.

¶38

The respondents 7 and 8 also approached this Court vide Writ Petition Nos.881 and 882 of 2024 respectively. praying to direct the respondent Nos.l to 6 herein^toreceive and consider their applications for grant of license for digging a fish tank in their lands, wherein this Court disposed^ofthe Writ Petition by an order dated 10.01.2024 directing the respondents.7, 8 herein, to submit a fresh application^forgrant

¶39

¶40

of license to dig fish tank in eMatsyakar online portal, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the same shall he scrutinised and processed as per the guidelines of APSADA Act 2020, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶41

When the petitioner came to know about the applications submitted by respondent Nos.7, 8 for grant of license to dig fish tank, petitioner submitted objections to respondent Nos.2 and 4, explaining regarding the land dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 and 8, and requested the respondent Nos.2, 4 not to pass any orders without considering the objections of the petitioner. Though, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 received the objections but they have not initiated any enquiry till date. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of the respondents 7,8 under the guise of the orders of this Court, the respondent Nos.2 to 6 are proceeding to issue license to respondents 7, 8 without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner. If the licence permission is granted to the respondents 7, 8 to dig fish pond in an extent

¶42

¶43

of land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in RS.No.292/1 of^Koniki Village, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶45

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries produced a copy of^the instructions dated 07.02.2024 received from the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, wherein it is stated that the applications submitted by the official respondents 7, 8 have been received through online in e-matsyakar portal but without proper documentation and technical information such as inlet and outlet, setback areas so as to assess^the effect on the neighbouring agricultural farm of the petitioner herein; as such both the applications of respondents 7, 8 were rejected with an advice to resubmit the applications^with proper documentation and information.

¶46

However, the respondents have failed to answer as to whether they have considered the objections raised by the

¶47

¶48

petitioner dated 25.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 before considering the applications made by the unofficial respondents 7 & 8.

¶49

In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the objections raised by the petitioner on 25.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 before proceeding further for issuance fresh license for digging fish tank mi favour of the respondents 7 and 8. The said action shall be initiated within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶51

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶52

Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGIST^IAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and^Fisheries Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, At Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District, A.P.

¶58

The Chairman cum The District Collector District Level Committee, for Registration of Aquaculture Eluru District, Eluru District at Eluru. 3. The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Govt of AP, Postal colony, Srinivasa Nagar Eluru, Eluru District.

¶59

The District Fisheries Officer, Govt of A P Postal Colony Srinivasa Nagar Eluru Eluru District. 5. The Fisheries Development Officer, Pedapadu Pedapadu^MandalEluru District. 6. The Tashildar, Pedapadu Mandal Pedapadu Eluru District. 7. One CC to Sri Ch. B. R. P. Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Fisheries, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10.Three C.D. Copies. Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3350 of 2024

^ OF
"vCtYi
m
5 0 A MAR 7m
y /
X 4- Current Section ,

¶65

¶66

DISPOSING OF THEW.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, 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

Sri Adarsa Vardhan Educational and Rural Development Centre, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Deeaar Agro Chempharms Llp., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parsotam Patel, Vs The State of A.P

S.S.Security Force and Maintenance Service Vs State Project Director

M/S Nagamani Granites Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasarath Reddy and Co. Vs the State of Ap