Allowed

P.Srinivasa Reddy, v. The District Panchayat Officer

Telangana HC15 Nov 2008WP/27806/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a writ petition challenging fishing rights conferred by the Fisheries Department to a cooperative society over a tank where the petitioner was the highest bidder for a lease from the Gram Panchayat. The court held the Gram Panchayat had valid authority under Section 80 of the Panchayat Raj Act and granted the petitioner exclusive rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be entitled to catch fish; sixth respondent not entitled to any right; other authorities directed to ensure no interference.

P.Srinivasa Reddy, Vs The District Panchayat Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27806 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Way back in 1967, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 18.01.1967, directing that the fishery rights in the tanks with ayacut of Acs.100.00 and above in Telangana Area and Acs.200.00 and above in Andhra Area would vest with the Fisheries Department and those in the tanks below that ayacut would vest in the Gram Panchayat. This was reiterated in Memo, dated 10.01.1975. Wherever there exists the genuine Fishermen Cooperative Societies in the villages, in which, the minor irrigation sources are located, they would have preferential rights to be awarded the leases. The upset price, at which, the auction is to be conducted or the leases are to be offered, is to be fixed by the District Collector or the District Panchayat Officer, as the case may be.

¶5

There is a tank, by name, Uppali Cheruvu in Suraram Village of Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. Its ayacut is Acs.60.00. There is no Fishermen Cooperative Societies in the Village. The Gram Panchayat intended to conduct the auction of leasehold rights in respect of the tank and approached the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhongir. He fixed the upset price at Rs.35,000/- through proceedings, dated 14.11.2007. The Gram Panchayat of the Village passed a resolution on 05.10.2007,

¶6

proposing to conduct the auction of leasehold rights on 25.10.2007. The petitioner emerged as a highest bidder by offering Rs.7,10,000/- per year. The amount was required to be paid in three instalments and that the first instalment together with E.M.D. of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 30.11.2007 and a lease deed was executed.

¶7

The petitioner states that when he made arrangements for catching the fish, the sixth respondent, by name, Rajeeva Rythu Sangham, offered resistance by stating that it was granted fishing rights by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, vide proceedings, dated 13.11.2007. The petitioner claims to have approached the authorities of the Panchayat Raj Department as well as the Station House Officer and submits that his rights are being protected.

¶8

The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhongir Division, the second respondent herein, filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the first respondent. He states that when approached by the Gram Panchayat, he had fixed the upset price at Rs.35,000/- and that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.7,10,000/-. He asserted that the instalments were paid as contemplated under the lease deed. According to him, the Fisheries Department has no right over the tank, since the ayacut is less than Acs.100.00.

¶9

The sixth respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that it comprises of persons, whose lands are affected on account of restoration of the tank to its optimum level. It is stated that when

¶10

the Government was not in a position to pay the compensation, it approached the District Collector with a request to permit its members to undertake fishing in the tank and accordingly, the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, the fourth respondent herein, had accorded permission.

¶11

Heard Sri D.Goverdhana Chary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, Sri G.Elisha, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Sri S.R.Sanku, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

¶12

There is hardly any controversy as to the authority, which is competent to grant leases of fishing rights in respect of minor irrigation sources. The Gram Panchayat is vested with the power to grant such rights in respect of the tanks with ayacut less than Acs.100.00 in Telangana Area and Acs.200.00 in Andhra Area. In fact, none of the respondents have taken any contrary view. Therefore, the right of the third respondent-Gram Panchayat to conduct auction of the leasehold rights is unbridled. The vesting of such tank in the Gram Panchayat is by operation of Section 80 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Since there was no Fishermen Cooperative Societies in the Village, it conducted the auction, wherein nine persons are said to have participated. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and was granted lease.

¶13

The fourth respondent has absolutely no role to play in respect of the tank in question. Even where the tanks vest in the

¶14

Fisheries Department, the leasehold rights are granted by conducting auction or by awarding them in favour of Fishermen Cooperative Societies by fixing the lease amount. The question of granting permission to any agency in respect of a tank that vests in the Fisheries Department free of cost is totally unknown to law. The fourth respondent was very generous in awarding the fishery rights in favour of the sixth respondent without collecting or stipulating any amount. This only shows the shallow manner, in which, he has exercised the power and brought an unnecessary litigation, putting the authorities of the Panchayat Raj Department on the one side and those of the Fisheries Department on the other. The conduct of the fourth respondent in granting such lease is despicable and reprehensible. Instead of guiding the Gram Panchayat and other authorities to follow the prescribed procedure, he has resorted to a blatant deviation thereof. The sixth respondent based its claim solely upon the proceedings, dated 13.11.2007, issued by the fourth respondent. It has already been pointed out that the said proceedings are without any basis or support of law. Therefore, the sixth respondent does not derive any right out of it.

¶15

The petitioner has already been subjected to lot of inconvenience and unnecessary litigation. He cannot be made to face any further litigation nor can his right be permitted to trample either by the Fisheries Department or by the sixth respondent.

¶16

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner alone shall be entitled to catch the fish in terms of the lease executed in his favour by the Gram Panchayat, duly

¶17

ensuring the compliance with the terms and the sixth respondent shall not be entitled to any right vis-à-vis the tank. The Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station, the fifth respondent, and the other authorities of the Panchayat Raj Department are directed to ensure that there is no interference from any other person in the fishing operation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.11.2008 kdl

P.Srinivasa Reddy, v. The District Panchayat Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Srinivasa Reddy, v. The District Panchayat Officer

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

Prabhakar Rao Vairagare Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer

Kavili Govindappa Vs Special Officer (Land Acquisition)

The Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., No.C-54, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

K.Venkatesham, Vs The Panchayat Secretary

Sherla Ramulu, Vs The National Highways Authority of India

Suraram Gram Panchayat of Suraram Village, Vs The State of A.P. rep by its Secretary to Government