Disposed

Kollamshetty Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Oct 2016WP/34626/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the relevant fisheries authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioners' objections before granting final permission to others for converting surveyed agricultural land into fish tanks, relying on two Government Orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of the petitioners' objections/representation dated 16.08.2016 before granting final permission.

Kollamshetty Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.34626 OF 2016 and WRIT PETITION No.32920 of 2016

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri G.Raja Babu, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioners that they are owning agricultural land in Survey Nos.98/1A, 3C, 99/2B, 80/6B, 101/1B, 2, 3, 4A1, 105/1A, 105/3 & 4, 103/1A, 100, 101/1A, 107/1A. 107/4, 107/3A, 107/2, 33/3, 5, 6, 33/1B, 33/2A, 33/4A, 34/1B5, 106/4 & 4, 104/3, 101/2 and 4, 34/A, 98/3C and 101/4A2, 107/1C, 34/2, 12/1A3, 45/1B and 34/1B4 & 5 of Munipalle Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.5 to 9 have taken the agricultural land on lease for the purpose of converting the same as fish tanks. It is the further case of the petitioners that after issuing a notice dated 08.08.2016 calling for objections, respondent Nos.5 to 9 obtained provisional permission from the competent authority on 29.08.2016. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioners submitted a representation on 16.08.2016 raising objections. For one reason or other, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not disposed of the said representation.

¶5

At the time of arguments, the only relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the

¶6

¶7

petitioners dated 16.08.2016. The learned Government Pleader also consented for the same.

¶8

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the main case.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to dispose of the representation/objections of the petitioners dated 16.08.2016 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.7, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 16.03.2013 and also G.O.Ms.No.15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish) Department, dated 26.05.2015, before granting of final permission to respondent Nos.5 to 9.

¶10

With the above direction, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶11

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in both the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶12

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶13

Date: 14.10.2016

¶14

Note: Issue CC in one week (B/o) Ivd

Kollamshetty Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollamshetty Satyanarayana v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pilli Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Reo Agri Sciences , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

K. Sanyasi Naidu, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation

T.Venkateswarlu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Suppa Janardhan Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sri Sai Srinivasa Transport Vs Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.