Dismissed¶93

Datla Srinivasa Raju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Aquaculture licence – APSADA Act, 2020

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2025WP/321/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSADA Act 2020 aquaculture licence; aqua zone notification 06.02.2020 District Collector West Godavari; Rule 12 Sub-Rule 6 exemption from calling objections; Rule 12(3)(ii) verification timeline and deemed provision; alternative remedy Section 35 appeal to Aquaculture Controller within 30 days; Article 226 restraint where statutory appeal exists; Puligumma Canal Pipe No.16 irrigation bode; fish tanks/aquaculture Undi village West Godavari; representations 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024; interim orders 07.01.2025 and 23.01.2025; order Proc.No.321/C-1/2025 dated 27.01.2025; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law, with no costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶93

Datla Srinivasa Raju Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law, with no costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶93

Issue for consideration

Whether the grant of the aquaculture licence (Certificate of Registration) to respondents 9 and 10 without notice to, or enquiry involving, the petitioners and other ryots, despite rejection of their earlier similar application in 2021, is illegal and arbitrary. +2 more

¶52

Court's answer

The subject land (Ac.13.55 cents in the listed RS numbers of Undi village and mandal) is classified as aqua zone as per the Notification dated 06.02.2020 of the District Collector and Magistrate, West Godavari district - a fact recorded as not in dispute.

¶76

Ratio / Principle

The application dated 25.10.2024 made under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 12 of the APSADA Rules, 2020 was forwarded to the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi, who verified it within the stipulated time (with the deemed provision available under Rule 12 Sub-Rule 3(ii)), and it was processed by the Member Secretary, DLIC and the licence issued on 28.10.2024; hence the action of the official respondents is strictly in adherence to the Rules.

¶78

Key takeaways

In view of the order dated 27.01.2025 (Proc.No.321/C-1/2025) passed by the District Fisheries Officer / Member Secretary, DLIC pursuant to this Court's direction dated 07.01.2025, the contention that the representations dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 were not considered is not tenable.ratio¶88
Section 35 of the APSADA Act, 2020 deals with appeals: an aggrieved person/firm may, within thirty days of communication of the Licensing Authority's decision and on payment of prescribed fees, prefer an appeal to the Aquaculture Controller; where the statute prescribes an appellate remedy, this Court will not normally exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, and the petitioners are relegated to avail the remedy of appeal.ratio¶90

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Aquaculture licence - APSADA Act, 2020 - Writ petition (Art. 226) by two ryots of Undi village, West Godavari district, challenging grant of Certificate of Registration (licence) No.AQNHLLW00084185 dt. 28.10.2024 to respondents 9-10 for digging fish tanks in Ac.13.52 cents, allegedly disturbing irrigation to their lands and other ryots (Ac.32.65 cents ayacut) under Pipe No.16 of Puligumma Canal, and alleging inaction on representations dt. 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024. HELD: (i) the subject land (Ac.13.55 cents) is notified aqua zone per the District Collector's notification dt. 06.02.2020 - not in dispute; (ii) the application dt. 25.10.2024 under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 12 of the APSADA Rules, 2020 was verified by the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi and processed by the Member Secretary, DLIC within the prescribed three days (deemed provision under Rule 12 Sub-Rule 3(ii) noted); the official respondents' action is strictly in adherence to the Rules; (iii) the grievance of non-consideration of the representations is not tenable, an order Proc.No.321/C-1/2025 dt. 27.01.2025 having been passed pursuant to the Court's direction dt. 07.01.2025; (iv) Section 35 of the APSADA Act provides an express appeal to the Aquaculture Controller within thirty days, and the Court will not normally exercise Art. 226 jurisdiction where a statutory appellate remedy exists - petitioners relegated to appeal. Writ petition dismissed, remedies left open, no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

APHC010000572025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 321/2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

DATLA SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O DATLA NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-83, SALIPETA, NEAR RAMALAYAM, UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶8

DATLA RAVI KUMAR,, S/O DATLA NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-83, SALIPETA, NEAR RAMALAYAM, UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶12

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM

¶15

¶16

TAHSILDAR, UNDI MANDAL, UNDI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶17

JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, PALAKODERU ROAD, MARKET YARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶18

FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, I.BHIMAVARAM ROAD, AKIVEEDU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SECTION, UNDI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶20

SRI SAGIRAJU SAMBASIVA RAJU, S/O. SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶21

SMT SAGIRAJU SURYAKUMARI, W/O.SAMBASIVA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not taking any action on the representations submitted by them dt. 04.11.2024, 16.12.2024 etc., and granting Certificate of Registration (Licence) in favour of Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 vide AQNHLLW00084185 dt. 28.10.2024 in an extent of Ac. 13.52 cts in S.Nos.318, 319 etc., of Undi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to them and other ryots even though the same was rejected in the year 2021, leading to deprivation of irrigation facilities to their land in an extent of Ac.0.49 cts in S.No.311-2A and Ac.0.50 cts in S.No.312-lC of the said Village and Mandal and of other ryots in an extent of Ac.32.65 cts in S.Nos.310, 311, 312, 313, 318 and 319 in the entire Ayacut under Pipe No. 16 of Puligumma Canal, as illegal, arbitrary etc., with a consequential direction to the Respondents 1 to 8 to conduct detailed enquiiy into the matter, cancel such licence and stop

¶24

¶25

digging of any tanks or doing aquaculture by Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 forthwith etc., and grant such

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to take necessaiy action to forthwith stop digging of fish tanks by Respondent Nos.9 and 10 or doing aquaculture in an extent of Ac.13.52 cts in S.Nos.318, 319 etc., of Undi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District which would deprive irrigation facilities to their land in an extent of Ac.0.49cts in S.No.311-2A and Ac.0.50 cts n S.No.312-1C of the said Village and Mandal and of other ryots in an extent of Ac.32.65 cts in S.Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 318 and 319 in the entire Ayacut under Pipe No. 16 of Puligumma Canal pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such

¶29

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 07.01.2025 passed in WP No.321 of 2025 and dismiss Writ Petition

¶31

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of colour sets of the photographs filed by us along with Reply Affidavit vide WPUSR.No.35485/2025 dt: 01.04.202 and grant

¶33

IA NO: 5 OF 2025

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit and vacate stay application in the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 6 OF 2025

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

¶36

¶37

the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 23.01.2025, passed in W.P. No 321 of 2025 and to pass IA NO: 7 OF 2025

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.5 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

¶39

IA NO: 8 OF 2025

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file the Reply Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the above Writ Petition and grant IA NO: 9 OF 2025

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file the Reply Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 f in the above Writ Petition and grant IA NO: 10 OF 2025

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with filing of English Transited Copies 2025, our representation dt:27.01.2025, link document (Sale deed) dt: 19.03.2021, and Sale Deeds dt: 18.08.2021 along with our Reply Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by 5th Respondent in the above WP for the present Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶43

1.V V L N SARMA

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶46

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶47

3.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

¶48

4.GP FOR FISHERIES

¶49

¶50

THE HON‟BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.321 of 2025

¶51

ORDER :

¶52

This Writ Petition is filed challenging inaction of official respondents in taking action on the representations dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 submitted by the petitioners and in granting Certificate of Registration (license) for aquaculture in favour of respondents 9 and 10 vide No.AQNHLLW00084185, dated 28.10.2024 in an extent of Ac.13.52 cents in survey Nos.310, 312, 318, 319, etc. of Undi village and mandal, West Godavari district, disturbing irrigation facilities to lands of petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in survey No.311-2A and Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.312-1C of the said village and mandal and also of other ryots in an extent of Ac.32.65 cents in survey Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 318 and 319 in entire ayacut under Pipe No.16 of Puligumma Canal, without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and other ryots, though the said permission was rejected in the year 2021, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter and cancel the license and stop digging of any tanks or doing aquaculture by respondents 9 and 10.

¶53

Case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in survey No.311-2A

¶54

¶55

and Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.312-1C, respectively, of Undi village and mandal, and fields of others are existing in between their lands. It is their case that for the said lands, irrigation bode is connected to Puligumma canal in Pipe No.16; that water from the said bode caters to the needs of lands to an extent of Ac.32.65 cents in survey Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 318 and 319 of the said village; that lands of respondents 9 and 10 are at starting point i.e. head point, of Pipe No.16, and they started buying lands bit by bit in survey Nos. 310, 311, 312, 318 and 319, and applied for permission vide application dated 25.10.2024 to dig fish tank in the land in the aforesaid survey numbers, and 6^th respondent, who is Member of DLIC under the APSADA Act, approved the same within 3 days i.e. on 28.10.2024 itself. It is their case that 6^th respondent approved the same without notice to the petitioners and other ryots whose lands are going to be affected adversely and without verification of deprivation of irrigation facilities of neighbouring ryots.

¶56

It is also the case of the petitioners that similar earlier application of the respondents 9 and 10 was negatived at the provisional stage itself. It is their case that water for only agricultural purpose is provided through Pipe No.16, but not to fish tanks which requires 10 times more water than that is required for cultivating the tanks.

¶57

It is their case that they submitted representations dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 to respondent No.4, for

¶58

¶59

taking appropriate action. Without taking any action on the said representations, 6^th respondent granted the subject licence to the respondents 9 and 10 to dig fish tanks in an extent of Ac.13.52 cents of land, which causes disruption of irrigation and drainage facilities to the lands of petitioners and also others. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶60

Counter affidavit, deposed by 7^th respondent, has been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 4, 6 and 7, denying material allegations in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia that appropriate action has been taken by the official respondents duly following the Rules under the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 (APSADA), on the objections dated 4.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 submitted by the petitioners in respect of issuance of aquaculture license to respondents 9 and 10. It is further stated that Rules were framed under the APSADA Act, 2020 vide Notification dated 15.1.2021 vide G.O.Rt.No.28, dated 05.02.2021. The date of commencement of Endorsement/license issuance process for Aquaculture Farms and Aquaculture Business Operations under the APSADA Act, 2020 was notified as 05.02.2021, and as per the APSADA Act and the Rules, 2020, all existing aquaculture farmers and aquaculture business operators have to apply for Endorsement/license for their aquaculture farms/ aquaculture business operations to the Licensing Authority of the respective

¶61

¶62

district within a period of four months from 05.02.2021. In view of the same, applications of respondents 9 and 10 dated 21.01.2021 were rejected on 23.8.2021, as G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.3.2013 has no authority to issue license, in view of coming into force of the APSADA Act and the Rules, 2020.

¶63

It is stated that as per the Rules notified vide Notification dated 15.1.2021, service request for issuance of license applied by an individual shall be forwarded by the software to the Aquaculture Inspector concerned, who, after verification, shall forward the service request to the Member Secretary, DLIC, along with remarks, if any, and recommendations, within the time stipulated but not later than three days from the date of receipt of the service request in his/her login.

¶64

It is stated that the lands of unofficial respondents in RS No.310-4, 318-2A, 318-2B, 319-3, 319-1D-2, 318-1B, 318-1C, 312-3B, 319-2C, 312-2B, 312-3A-1, 2A-2, 318-1A, 319-2B, 318-1D, 319-1C-2, 319-1D-1, 319-1B, 319-1A, 312-2A-1 and 319-1C-1, in an extent of Ac.13.55 cents in Undi village and mandal (for short, „the subject land‟) are notified in aqua zone as per the Notification dated 06.02.2020 of the District Collector, West Godavari, and the respondents 9 and 10 applied for license in aqua zone category under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 12 of the APSADA Act and the Rules vide application dated 25.10.2024, and the same was processed by the Member Secretary, DLIC within

¶65

¶66

3 days and license No. AQNHLLW00084185 was issued in favour of respondent No.9 on 28.10.2024 after verification by the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi. The petitioners did not cultivate any paddy or any sort of agriculture till now, and the same was certified by the Agriculture Officer, Undi, and their lands are served with water demand from Zerayathi bode of respondent No.9 field from Puligumma canal through pipe No.16 and the said farmer arranged alternate zerayathi bode to the petitioners‟ lands for their lands. It is further stated that aquaculture license of respondents 9 and 10 was issued under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 12 of the Rules, according to which, the land falling in aqua zone category need not follow the process of calling objections from neighbouring farmers and the license is issued. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶67

Counter affidavit, deposed by respondent No.9, has been filed on behalf of respondents 9 and 10, reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1, 4, 6 and 7 with regard to framing of Rules under the APSADA Act, 2020 by 1^st respondent vide Notification dated 15.01.2021 vide G.O.Rt.No.28, dated 05.02.2021; rejection of the application dated 21.01.2021 made by them and making the application on 25.10.2024 and granting of the permission on 28.10.2024. It is stated inter alia the petitioners approached this Court by suppressing the material fact regarding the nature of the

¶68

¶69

subject land, which is notified as Aqua zone vide Notification of the District Collector dated 06.02.2020. It is further stated that the entire extent in the vicinity was kept fallow for the last five years. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶70

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 9 and 10 and the learned Government Pleaders appearing for the official respondents.

¶71

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that having rejected the earlier similar request of respondents 9 and 10, the official respondents issued impugned license to respondents 9 and 10 for aquaculture within three days; that the said act of the official respondents is without notice to the petitioners and other ryots whose lands are going to be affected adversely and without verifying the deprivation of irrigation facilities of neighbouring ryots; that though the petitioners made representations dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 to respondent No.4, without taking any action thereon, the subject license has been granted to the petitioners to dig fish tanks in the subject land.

¶72

On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 9 and 10 and the learned Government Pleaders that the objections raised by the

¶73

¶74

petitioners were duly considered by the officials in accordance with the Rules made under the APSADA Act, 2020, and that the earlier applications dated 21.01.2021 of the respondents 9 and 10 were rejected as they adhered to the stipulation under the APSADA Act and the Rules, 2020 that all the existing aquaculture farmers and aquaculture business operators have to apply for endorsement/license for their aquaculture farms/aquaculture business operations to the licensing authority of the respective district within a period of four months from 05.02.2021; that the subject land in respect of which the impugned license has been granted to the respondents 9 and 10 is in aqua zone as per the Notification dated 06.02.2020 of the District Collector, but the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition; that as per the time prescribed under Rule 12 of the APSADA Rules, 2020, the application made by the respondents 9 and 10 was considered by the Member Secretary, DLIC within 3 days, after verification by the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi. It is their further submission that when there is remedy of appeal provided under the provisions of the APSADA Act, 2020, the petitioners cannot maintain the present Writ Petition without availing the said remedy, and hence, there are no grounds for interference in this Writ Petition, and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.

¶75

¶76

Perused the record. It is the case of the petitioners is that they own lands to an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in survey No.311-2A and Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.312-1C, respectively, of Undi village and mandal, and that irrigation bode for the said lands is connected to Puligumma canal in Pipe No.16, and in view of grant of the impugned aquaculture license in favour of respondents 9 and 10, their lands and the lands of other ryots are adversely affected, and that the issuance of the license is without notice to the persons whose lands are going to be affected adversely and that their representations made by them dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 to respondent No.4 are not considered by the official respondents. It is not in dispute that the subject land situated in RS No.310-4, 3182A, 318-2B, 319-3, 319-1D-2, 318-1B, 318-1C, 312-3B, 319-2C, 312-2B, 312-3A-1, 2A-2, 318-1A, 319-2B, 318-1D, 319-1C-2, 319-1D-1, 319-1B, 319-1A, 312-2A-1 and 3191C-1, in an extent of Ac.13.55 cents in Undi village and mandal, is classified as aqua zone as per the Notification dated 06.02.2020 by the District Collector and Magistrate, West Godavari district. Admittedly, application dated 25.10.2024 was made by the unofficial respondents for grant of license for aquaculture in aqua zone category. The application was made under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Rules, 2020, and the same was forwarded online to the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi. As per Rule 12 Sub Rule 3

¶77

¶78

(ii) of the Rules, the service request for issuance of license applied by an individual shall be forwarded to the concerned Aquaculture Inspector by the software, and the Aquaculture Inspector shall verify the details in the service request form and enclosures, and after verification, he shall forward the service request to the Member Secretary, DLIC along with remarks, if any, and recommendation, as soon as possible but not later than three days from the date of receiving the service request in his/her login. There is also deemed provision in the said Rule, which states that in case the Aquaculture Inspector fails to comply with the time period allotted to him/her, the software shall automatically forward it, by invoking „deemed‟ provision. Therefore, after verification by the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi within the time stipulated above, the application was processed by the Member Secretary, DLIC and license No.AQNLFWWG084185 was issued on 28.10.2024 to the respondents 9 and 10. From the above, it is clear that the action of the official respondents is strictly in adherence to the Rules.

¶79

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the grant of the impugned license to the respondents 9 and 10, water to their lands and the lands of other ryots, situated adjacent to the subject lands, are adversely affected and the same is without notice to the persons whose lands are going to be

¶80

¶81

affected adversely and that their representations made by them dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 to respondent No.4. A perusal of the record goes to show that this Court, vide Order dated 07.01.2025 in the present Writ Petition, while issuing notice to the unofficial respondents, directed the official respondents to examine and representations made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and communicate the same to the petitioners, by fixing a time frame. Pursuant to the same, the District Fisheries Officer /Member Secretary, DLIC, Bhimavaram, vide Proc.No.321/C-1/2025, dated 27.01.2025 passed order observing that the contents in the representations are far from truth, and after negotiations with the farmers in amicable manner, observed as under:

¶82

“(i) The lands to a total extent of Ac.32.65 cents includes both the petitioners, unofficial respondents and other farmers are lying vacant and covered with bushes in 310, 311/1, 2; 312/1 to 3, 313/1 to 3, 313/1 to 3, 318/2, 319/1 to 3 of Undi village & Mandal, since last 5 years and the lands are notified in aquazonation gazette 2020 notification issued by the District Collector, West Godavari District.

¶83

(i.a.) The Aquaculture license of unofficial respondents was issued under the provisions read in the sub rule 6 of rule 12 of APSADA Act & Rules notification dated 15.01.2021. According to which, the land falls in the aqua zone category need not to

¶84

¶85

follow the process of calling the objections from the neighbouring farmers and license is issued accordingly. The petitioner‟s lands are also located in aqua zone category which was notified prior to the purchase of lands by the petitioner.

¶86

(ii) The writ petitioners are seeking the crop water for their lands from the middle of ryothwari bodis Sy.Nos.318, 319 which are not specified width & length measurements of ryothwari bodi and only identified by drawn lines as Topo details in FMB Copy.

¶87

(ii.a.) The adjacent farmers/surrounding farmers of the writ petitioners have agreed to provide crop water from their own lands without any damage to their crops and the adjacent farmer of survey number 318, 319 has been agreed to provide crop water from the Puligummu canal to the farmers in 311, 312 by setting up ryotwari bodi in the northern side boundary in his lands. The petitioners‟ lands are vacant and did not cultivate any paddy field or any sort of agriculture till now and the same was confirmed by the Aquaculture Officer, Undi.”

¶88

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid order, the contention that the representations made by the petitioners dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 were not considered, is not tenable.

¶89

¶90

Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 9 and 10 that when there is appeal remedy under Section 35 of the APSADA Act, 2020, the petitioners cannot approach this Court by way of this Writ Petition challenging the grant of the impugned license. A perusal of the provisions of the APSADA Act, 2020 makes it clear that Section 35 of the Act deals with „Appeals‟. According to the said Section, any person/firm, aggrieved by the decision of the Licensing Authority, may, within thirty days from the date on which the decision is communicated to him/her/it and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, prefer an appeal to the Aquaculture Controller. When there is express appeal provision contemplated under the provisions of the APSADA Act, 2020, without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. This Court will not, normally, exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against an order, when the Statute prescribes appellate remedy against the said Order. Therefore, the petitioners can be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act.

¶91

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the present Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶92

¶93

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶94

(JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY)

DRK

.10.2025

THE HON‟BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶99

WRIT PETITION No.321 of 2025

¶100

.10.2025

¶101

DRK

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Grant of Certificate of Registration (aquaculture licence) No.AQNHLLW00084185 dated 28.10.2024 in favour of respondents 9 and 10 for Ac.13.52 cents in Undi village and mandal, West Godavari district, without enquiry or notice to the petitioners and other ryots.¶52
Member Secretary, DLIC (Licensing Authority), after verification by the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi · 28.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Subject land (Ac.13.55 cents in the listed RS numbers of Undi village) notified as aqua zone by Notification dated 06.02.2020 of the District Collector, West Godavari.¶64
Prior proceeding
Earlier licence applications of respondents 9 and 10 dated 21.01.2021 were rejected on 23.08.2021, as G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.3.2013 had no authority to issue licences after commencement of the APSADA Act and Rules, 2020.¶62
Prior proceeding
Respondents 9 and 10 applied on 25.10.2024 for licence in aqua zone category under Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 12; the application was processed by the Member Secretary, DLIC within three days after verification by the Aquaculture Inspector, Undi.¶64
Prior proceeding
Petitioners submitted representations dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 to respondent No.4 seeking appropriate action.¶57
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 07.01.2025 in this Writ Petition, the Court, while issuing notice to the unofficial respondents, directed the official respondents to examine the petitioners' representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a time frame.¶81
Prior proceeding
Interim orders dated 23.01.2025 passed in the Writ Petition (vacation sought by respondents through IA No.6 of 2025).¶37
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Court's direction, the District Fisheries Officer / Member Secretary, DLIC, Bhimavaram passed order Proc.No.321/C-1/2025 dated 27.01.2025 observing that the contents of the representations were far from truth and recording that adjacent farmers agreed to provide crop water.¶81

Datla Srinivasa Raju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datla Srinivasa Raju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katam Jaya Prakash Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanthala Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Ex Hill Zamindar and Mokasadars Samkeshema Sangam Vs the Principal Secretary

Chirumamilla Nagarani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunja Ramudu, Vs the State of Ap

Kunja Ramudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh