Disposed

M/s. Mathsya Parisramika Sahakara Sangam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2020WP/12715/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by a Fishermen Co-operative Society seeking fishing rights in a village tank. The court directed the Gram Panchayat to lease the tank to the petitioner for the year 2020-21 at a fixed upset price, with provisions for revision and refund.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 9th respondent (Gram Panchayat) to award the lease for 2020-21 at Rs. 12,000 pending revision application to the District Panchayat Officer within two weeks.

M/s. Mathsya Parisramika Sahakara Sangam Vs The… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12715 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

It//s^{l_\aqtfr-sy.qParisramika} lahakara^{Sangam, (Fishermen Co-Operative Society)Regd.} !.'19^{lt/;22_0, Kothur Village, Rayaparthy lVlandal,Warangal Rural) and District.reip by tt's} It/emebr Bhimani Peda Swamy, Sio. Komuraiah Age. 50 Years,

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Slate of Telangana, Rep by its Prl. Secretary (Home Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The District Collector, Warangal (Rural) District

¶12

The District Panchayat Officer, Warangal (Rural) District

¶13

The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Warangal (Rural) Division, Warangal (Rural) District

¶14

The [/PDO Rayaparthy [t/andal, Warangal (Rural) District

¶15

The District Fisheries Officer, Warangal (Rural) District

¶16

The Commissioner of Police Warangal, Commissionerate at Warangal B. The Station House Officer, Rayaparthy Station, Warangal (Rural) District. 9. The Kothur Gramapanchayat, rep by it's Panchayat Secretary, Rayaparthy Mandal, Warangal (Rural) District.

¶17

Sri Kandikatla Swamy, S/o. Komaraiah, Age. Major, Occ. Grama Surpanch, Kothur (V), Rayaparthy Mandal, Warangal (Rural) District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDA[/US by declaring the inaction of the Respondents mainly the respondents No.7 and B who do not providing police protection to the petitioner society from the 9th and 1Orh respondents for fishing the Banjeru kunta pond of Kothur Village of Rayaparthy Mandal basing on the complaint Dated. 111512020 vide LR.NO. 36tW glt2Q2O lodged by the 6th respondent infavour of the petitioner society by following the law, is as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice CONSEOUENTLY direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to issue orders to the 9th respondent to oblige the law and GO Rt. No. 546 Dated. 25-03-1999, in this regard of banjeraukunta pond of Kothur Village of Rayaparthy Mandal of Warangal (Rural) District, FURTHER Direct the respondents No.7 to B to provide the^police protection

¶20

to the petitioner society from the respondent No. I and 10 for fishing and harvesting the fishes in Banjerukunta pond Kothur Vilalge of Rayaparthi Mandal forthwith, basing on the complaint vide LR.NO. 36lWgll2020 Dated. 111512020 lodged by the 6lh respondent.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 No.7 to B to provide the^{police protection} to the^petitioner society from the respondent No. 9 & 10 for fishing and harvesting the fishes in Banjeru kunta pond of Kothur Vilalge of Rayaparthi lt4andal, basing on the complaint vide LR.NO. 36tW91t2O2O Dated. 11l5l2O2O lodged by the 6th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶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 respondents No.9 & 10 to grant the fishing rights to the petitioner society as per the GORt. No. 546 Dated. 25-03-1 999, for harvesting and f ishing in Banjerukunta pond Kothur Village of Rayaparthi lt4andal forthwith.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. SRIDEVI SEEDA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 7 and 8: GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 9: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, S.C. FOR ZPPIGPPIMPP

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI JOGARAM TEJAVATH, LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR FISHERIES

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.10:^--

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

¶34

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO.12715 of 2O2O

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard.

¶38

Petitioner is a Fishermen Co-operative Society of Kothuru Village, Rayaparthy Mandal. According to petitioner, the Society has been carrying out fishing activity in the village tank known as Banjeru Kunta and the members of the Society are eking out their Iivelihood by catching fish and by selling the fish. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Kothur Gram Panchayat-gth respondent and its Sarpanch, arrayed as 1Otr respondent, are not allowing the members of the Society to harvest the fish in the village tank and the said action is illegal.

¶39

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of 10e respondent in preventing the petitioner- society from growing and harvesting the fish is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the orders of the Government on the procedure to award fishing rights in the village tanks. According to learned counsel, whenever there is a Fishermen Society in the village, fishing rights have to be granted to the fishermen society based on the upset price determined, in accordance with the Government order in G.O.Rt.No.546 of 1999 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS-lV) Department, dated 2s.03.1999.

¶40

It is not necessary to go into the inter se controversy in view of the decision made by the Committee constituted in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.499 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development

¶41

¶42

(Panchayats A.IV) Dept., dated 25.1 1.1998 determining the upset price for awarding of lease for harvesting of fish in the village tank.

¶43

On 24.O7.2O2O, the Committee comprising of Divisional Panchayat Officer as Chairman, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, as the Sarpanch and Fisheries Development Officer as members reviewed the upset price of village tanks located in various Gram Panchayats and fixed the upset price in their decision dated 24.07.2020. In so far as the village tank in issue, the upset price is decided as Rs.12,000/- .

¶44

Though learned Standing counsel lor Gram Panchayat do not dispute the decision made by the Committee in which the Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat is also a member, he would submit that the village tank generates more revenue than the upset price decided by the Committee and Gram Panchayat may be given liberty to seek revision of lease amount.

¶45

There can be no quarrel with this suggestion of learned Standing counsel as ultimately the revenue generated from the village tank is used for over all development activity of the village.

¶46

B. The only concern of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Petitioner-Society is not allowed to harvest and if the Gram Panchayat is now given liberty to raise objections, the Gram Panchayat may not pursue the issue and there will be further delay in awarding lease of fishing rights to the petitioner and any delay would cause great hardship and suffering to the members of petitioner- Society. He also submits that petitioner-Society is willing

¶47

-4

¶48

to pay the iease amount as decided by the Committee and seeks direction to forthwith award lease to the petitioner- Society.

¶49

9 . Duly taking note of the submissions of learned Standing counsel and the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶50

i. The 9th respondent-Gram Panchayat is directed to award lease to the petitioner-Society for the year 2O2O-21 . To this extent, communication be given to the petitioner-Society directing it to pay Rs.12,000/- as lease amount for the lease period. On payment of such amount, the petitioner-Society shall be permitted to harvest the fish in the village tank;

¶51

ii. However, it is open to the^gti, respondent to apply to the District Panchayat Officer to review the lease amount determined by the Committee and if the District Panchayat Officer agrees to revise the amount or refers to the Committee to re-look at the lease amount determined and on such reference, the Committee agrees to revise the lease amount or the District Panchayat Officer agrees to revise the lease amount, as the case may be, upwards, the Gram Panchayat is entitled to demand from the petitioner to pay the difference of the lease amount;

¶52

iii. If the lease amount is enhanced exorbitantly and it is not acceptable to the petitioner- Society, it is open to the Society to inform the Gram Panchayat that they are not willing to carry on their fishing activity;

¶53

iv. If such reply is furnished by the petitioner-Society, it is open to the Gram Panchayat to conduct auction to award lease to the prospective lease holders;

¶54

¶55

v. From the date of such intimation, the petitionerSociety is not entitled to harvest the fish in the village tank;

¶56

vi. After such intimation is given, the Gram Panchayat shall refund the lease amount after adjusting the lease amount for the period petitioner was enjoying fishing rights;

¶57

vii. The 9th respondent-Gram Panchayat is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to seek revision of lease amount by submitting application to the District Panchayat Officer and if such application is filed within the time prescribed above, the District Panchayat Officer shall take consequential steps as directed above, within further period of two weeks.

¶58

viii. If no such application is fi1ed, for the present lease period the amount decided by the Commmittee stands;

¶59

ix. The District Panchayat Officer is also directed to ensure that the lease holder is entitled to grow the fish and to harvest during the lease period.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/.K.SAI L SHI ASSISTANT^REG RAR i/TRUE^COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶62

to'', . ,n" Prl. Secretary (Home Department)' State of Telangana'^Secretariat' Hvderabad , it; D'tt;.t^{Collector' Waranqal (Rural)Disirict} ' 3 The District^{prncnavlib?t[e?'vtaransiat (Rural)District} 4. The Divisionar^{pancnayatofficer, warangar tnuiaJj3iviion,warangal(Rural)} t 6 7 N 4 a n d a 8I i1i sgnt,qq,s,^{g'iw$ffi$r;l#,} #,,rry, 1 . tsfJ'8E,.'J^{frY l1'l ?o'"t'11'3 o a, Ad vo cat e tP P 9 cl} 1 i.io cc.^{to GP ror no."l"#Eh'c"o;;i;; ih" tt't" 9lt"?'?:gXtSrllulEurr} I 1 e. +ws 33:^i% "3J?:^S:m:11''i,i:H ['s t ]:i 3:: ;ril ; ;i'"HI ij h i;' rt'ror t h e 1 1liri"sti":"slFffi^{{,.Ei,Ji:rs.3'd3"',.,;ip,.'"?fl5y?5i?5,u"?]ro,'r} 16.Two CD^CoPies N/P (J

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010912020

ORDER

WP.No.12715 of 2020

1 H E s 14
C-.i
e
c 15 SEP2020
*
r)
t

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

M/s. Mathsya Parisramika Sahakara Sangam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Mathsya Parisramika Sahakara Sangam v. The State of Telangana

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

Doreti Swapna Vs The State of Telengana

K Rajesh Reddy Vs the State of Tg

Chava Suresh Babu Vs the State of Ts

Ragula Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Madhvi C Chandaranna (Noynah) Vs The State of Telangana

Naini Rajender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and Another