As per the records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said lands are recorded as wet lands and if that being so, for the purpose of doing traditional agriculture, there is no need to construct any bund. As evident from the counter, it appears that the petitioners want to raise bunds for the purpose of making fish ponds. It is true that as per the notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.120, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department (For.-III), dated 04.10.1999, traditional agriculture is permitted, but at the same time, all other activities, namely aquaculture using pesticides within the area covered by Wild Life Sanctuary, are prohibited. Though it is the case of the petitioners that such bunds are necessary for the purpose of traditional agriculture, it is very difficult to accept the plea of the petitioners. Even for paddy cultivation, only a small portion of water locking is required in the fields and for such purpose, bunds are not necessary. By raising bunds within the notified area, it is resulting in submersion of lands, which are outside +5’ Contour. Even in the Writ Petition, except the vague allegation of interference, no particulars are given with regard to the date of obstruction for constructing such bunds. As it is not in dispute that the lands are already registered as wet lands, they are within +5’ Contour and covered by G.O.Ms.No.120, no direction can be granted as sought for by the petitioners and the Writ Petition is devoid of merit.
