Chittamuru Venugopal Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010297172025

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15199/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

CHITTAMURU VENUGOPAL REDDY, W/O. LATE SUNDARRAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O.PIDURU PALEM VILLAGE, BADDEVOLU POST, MANUBOLU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

A N D

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FISHEIFLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMCHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHARIES, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF FISHARIES, MANUBOLU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, APSPDCL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶18

UGGUMUDI GOPINATH REDDY, S/O. VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. RAMALAYAM STREET, PIDURU PALEM VILLAGE, BADDEVOLU POST, MANUBOLU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶21

2

¶22

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 or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking action against the aquaculture ponds in Sy. No. 378, 379 and 384-B of Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, which were dug by the 8th respondent herein without obtaining any permission for converting agricultural lands into aquaculture ponds and cultivating the shrimp in saline water without obtaining license is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and in violation Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of The Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020, G.O.Ms. No. 7, dated 16.03.2013 and G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 26.05.2015 and Consequently, direct the respondent authorities to evict the 8th respondent herein from the illegal and unlicensed aquaculture ponds in Sy. No. 378, 379 and 384-B of Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 to direct the Respondent authorities not to permit the 8th respondent herein to stock the shrimp seeds by filing the aquaculture ponds with saline water in aquaculture ponds in Sy. No. 378, 379 and 384-B of Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.SARANU PHANI TEJA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶29

2.GP FOR ENERGY

¶30

3.GP FOR FISHERIES

¶31

4.DASAM DURGA SHIVA SAI

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶34

3

¶35

O R D E R:

¶36

This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

¶37

<…to issue a Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking action against the aquaculture ponds in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384-B of Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, which were dug by 8^th respondent without obtaining any permission for converting agricultural lands into aquaculture ponds and cultivating the shrimp in saline water without obtaining license, is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 26.05.2015 and consequently direct the respondent authorities to evict 8^th respondent from illegal and unlicensed aquaculture ponds in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384-B of Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and to pass such other order or orders …’

¶38

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by Writ Petitioner, in

¶39

brief, are that petitioner has an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.6.25 cents in Sy.Nos.380-A1 and 383 in Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and his son viz. Chittamuru Subba Reddy has an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.14 cents in Sy.Nos.380-A4 and 384-A in the same village,

¶40

and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective extents, by cultivating paddy; that the respondent No.8, who has agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.8.99 cents in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384-B in Baddevolu village, Manubolu

¶41

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶42

4

¶43

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, high-handedly dug the shrimp saline water ponds around two years back without any permission or license from the respondent authorities, obtained electricity connection from 7^th respondent and started cultivating the shrimp in saline water ponds.

¶44

(b) That at the time of digging the shrimp saline water ponds by 8^th respondent adjacent to the agricultural lands of petitioner, his son and other villagers, though they objected 8^th respondent not to dig the ponds between the agricultural lands, as paddy is being cultivated in neighbouring lands and they would face changes in ground water and soil in those lands would become saline soil, 8^th respondent paid a deaf ear; that the respondent No.8 was not maintaining any seepage channel between aqua farm and neighbouring agricultural fields and was causing seepage water intrusion and disrupting agricultural activities; that whenever there is overflow of water in ponds, the saline water is coming into the petitioner’s land and the pond waste water is also coming to the petitioner’s land and causing damage to the standing crops.

¶45

(c) That the petitioner made a representation to 4^th respondent to take necessary action through Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) vide Grievance No.

¶46

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶47

5

¶48

NLR202409305155, dated 30.09.2024 and another representation vide Grievance No.NLR20250129755, dated 29.01.2025; that at this juncture, on 21.02.2025, 4^th respondent along with his Field Functionaries visited the said ponds and neighbouring agricultural lands and on the same day, 4^th respondent addressed a letter to 7^th respondent vide Letter No.Spandana/A/2025, dated 21.02.2025 to take necessary action and to disconnect the electricity connection of 8^th respondent, but no action was taken by 7^th respondent; that the respondent No.8 was making arrangements to stock the shrimp seeds in the said ponds. The petitioner another representation vide Grievance No. NLR2025031074, dated 10.03.2025 on the shrimp saline water ponds, but no action was taken by respondent authorities.

¶49

(d) The petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to 4^th respondent seeking information as to whether any permission was granted for cultivating shrimp in saline water in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384-B, and vide Letter No.734/A/2025, dated 27.03.2025, the respondent authorities confirmed that no license was issued in respect of the said land. The waste water and outflow of water in ponds would damage the paddy crop and it is changing the ground water and changing the soil into saline soil. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶50

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶51

6

¶52

Respondent No.6 filed counter-affidavit denying the contents of the affidavit and contending inter alia that the Fisheries Department took measures to stop the aquaculture of 8^th respondent and also directed the Electricity Department to disconnect the power supply and accordingly, stopped the aquaculture activity of 8^th respondent in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384B; that as per the Orders of this Court, dated 25.06.2025, the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Manubolu stopped the aquaculture, but later after a month, a complaint was received from the petitioner, therefore, the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Manubolu issued Notice on 17.09.025 to 8^th respondent to stop the unauthorized aquaculture.

¶53

(b) That the respondent No.8 approached this Court through Writ Appeal seeking permission to continue the illegal aquaculture for 15 days, to which, the Joint Director of Fisheries, SPSR Nellore submitted the instructions stating that illegal and unauthorized aquaculture of 8^th respondent; that the respondent No.8 had not obtained permission for doing aquaculture in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384-B, therefore, the plea of 8^th respondent in Writ Appeal was rejected and 8^th respondent also submitted that unauthorized aquaculture in the Survey No.378 was stopped. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶54

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶55

7

¶56

Respondent No.8 filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the Writ affidavit contending inter alia that he is the absolute owner of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.378, 379 and 384-B of Baddevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and doing shrimp farming; that the respondent No.8 along with local farmers had established fishponds in the village approximately to Ac.50.00 cents over thirty years ago and while some farmers, later, converted their ponds into agricultural land, but the petitioner and others continued shrimp farming. The aquaculture of 8^th respondent holds a valid Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) Registration Certificate with Registration No.AP-II2016 (17804) issued on 04.01.2016 and it is valid up to 03.01.2026, which was renewed on 21.07.2025.

¶57

(b) That upon the complaint of petitioner, dated 30.09.2025, a notice was issued to 8^th respondent on 21.10.2024 and inquiry was conducted on 25.10.2024; that during the course of inquiry, 8^th respondent clarified that he adhered to the regulation and also maintained a distance of 3-meter drainage buffer from his boundary to the land of petitioner and he also produced renewal receipt; that as all the documents are clear, the respondent authorities have not taken any action against 8^th respondent, but the petitioner bore grudge in collusion with official

¶58

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶59

8

¶60

respondents and again, made a representation on 29.01.2025; that a notice, dated 03.02.2025 was issued to the 8^th respondent by respondent No.6 directing him to stop the aquaculture and he submitted his explanation on 10.02.2025; that the official respondents without passing any orders after receipt of his explanation, kept quiet and when 8^th respondent approached their Office for renewal of license under APSADA Act, there is no response from their office till now even after several representations made by 8^th respondent and now, the official respondents in collusion with petitioner got filed the present Writ Petition. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries representing respondent No.6 and learned counsel for the respondent No.8.

¶62

Earlier, this Court vide Order, dated 25.06.2025, disposed of, the present Writ Petition observing as under: (paragraph No.7)

¶63

<Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, as of now, the grievance of the petitioner was already redressed. On perusal of the written instructions submitted by the 6^th respondent dated 24.06.2025 and as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that without there being any permission as contemplated under

¶64

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶65

9

¶66

APSADA Act 2020, nobody can be permitted to carry out the aquaculture even in his own lands. As per the scheme of the APSADA Act, 2020, the respondent authorities shall adhere to the provisions of the Act and not to allow any individual to carry out the aquaculture without there being any permission under the provisions of APSADA Act, 2020. Therefore, in the instant case also, the respondents shall have vigilant and implement the provisions of the Act and not to allow any individual including 8^th respondent herein, hereafter to carry out any aquaculture without obtaining any permission from the concerned authority.=

¶67

Aggrieved of the Order, dated 25.06.2025, 8^th respondent herein preferred Appeal vide Writ Appeal No.1073 of 2025. A Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 10.10.2025, allowed the Writ Appeal, setting-aside the Order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.15199 of 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, and directed the Registry to list the Writ Petition No.15199 of 2025 on 27.10.2025 before the learned single Judge as per Roster. The observation made by the Division Bench of this Court is extracted as under: (paragraph No.4)

¶68

<Although learned counsel for respondent No.1 (petitioner before the learned single Judge) has tried to emphasize the fact that the earlier registration was issued under the provisions of a different Act and not under the latest Act of 2020, which required a fresh licence to be issued in favour of the appellant, yet we are of the opinion that the issues which are now raised by the counsel for respondent No.1 need to be looked at and gone into afresh by the learned single Judge and for that we deem it appropriate to remand

¶69

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶70

10

¶71

the matter to the learned single Judge for consideration afresh.=

¶72

When the matter is taken up for hearing on 11.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one month after submitting the report by the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries about inspecting the subject premises and stopping the aquaculture activities, a complaint was received from the petitioner about unauthorized business activities of aquaculture. In view of the same, 6^th respondent issued notice to 8^th respondent on 17.09.2025 directing him to stop the same. It was further submitted that in spite of issuance of notice, 8^th respondent is carrying on aquaculture business. On the contrary, respondent No.8 claims that he stopped the aquaculture activities.

¶73

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court appointed Sri Namburu Rupeswar Reddy, Advocate as Commissioner to inspect the land in Survey Nos.378, 379 and 384-B of Badevolu village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and he was directed to verify as to whether 8^th respondent is carrying on any aquaculture operations or not in the subject premises and to submit the report within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of warrant.

¶74

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶75

11

¶76

In pursuant to the same, learned Advocate Commissioner submitted his report. According to the learned Advocate Commissioner, he executed the warrant on 20.12.2025 by inspecting the subject premises and after duly taking into consideration of all inputs and technical details provided by the respective parties and officials, who are present on the date of his visit. The finding of the learned Advocate Commissioner revealed that aquaculture pond structures are existing in the subject lands and he found aerators in the subject land premises. According to the report of learned Advocate Commissioner, the subject lands are partially dried as on 20.12.2025 i.e., date of inspection, and the respondent No.8 admitted that he carried on aquaculture activities up to the month of October, 2025 and produced marketing bills pertaining to the said month standing in his name. According to his report, the allegation with regard to release of saline water on 12.12.2025, as asserted by the Writ Petitioner, was denied by the Departmental Officials, who attributed presence of water in the ponds and the drainage canal was because of heavy rainfall.

¶77

A perusal of the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner clearly goes to show that respondent No.8 is not carrying on, the aquaculture activity, at present.

¶78

SRK, J CRP No.15199 of 2025

¶79

12

¶80

Learned Assistant Government Pleader representing

¶81

on behalf of the respondent-Officials too asserted that at present, there is no activity of aquaculture being carried on, by 8^th respondent in the subject premises.

¶82

Recording the findings arrived by the learned Advocate Commissioner in his Report and the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondentOfficials on record, this Writ Petition deserves to be closed.

¶83

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed.

¶84

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if

¶86

any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶87

________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 7^th January, 2026.

¶88

DNB

Chittamuru Venugopal Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

Chittamuru Venugopal Reddy 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Kanaka Durga Constructions Vs the State of Ap

V Savitri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Movva Babu Rao Vs the State of Ap

B. Venkata Ramanaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Singareddy Nagireddy Educational Society Vs Kona Sasidhar

Pudi Chaitanya, S/o. Pudi Sai Shankar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.