Dismissed

Kommineni Ramaiah v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023WP/16391/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition where landowners challenged the prospective inclusion of their private patta land in the operational area of a proposed fishermen cooperative society. The court held the petition premature as no fishing rights had been granted under the relevant government guidelines, noting the entity was not yet operational.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. I.A. No. 1 of 2014 (W.P.M.P. No. 13329 of 2014) for impleadment dismissed.

Kommineni Ramaiah Vs The Government of A.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

,l I

[³³⁰³ I

{

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

¶6

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

{

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS^RAO

¶10

wRlT PETITION NO: 16391 OF 2013 AND

¶11

r.A.NO.1 oF 2014

¶12

WPMP.NO.l3329 0F 2014

¶13

Between:

¶14

Kommineni Ramaiah, S/o Subbaiah, Aged^{77 years, Occ: Agriculture;}

¶15

Kommineni Tirupathaiah, S/o.Late^{Narsaiah,Aged 55 yearsocc: Agriculture}

¶16

Tondapu Peda Kotaiah,^{S/o Veeraiah,Aged 65 years occ: Agriculture;}

¶17

T. Nagendar Rao, S/o Narayana,^{Aged 55 years occ:Agriculture}

¶18

Kommineni Veerabhadra^{Rao, S/o Subbaiah, age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture;}

¶19

T. Tulasaiah, S/o Late China^{Kotaiah,Aged52 years, Occ:Agriculture;} R/o.Vengannapeta^{(V) (Guduru)Tallada (M),Khammam District.}

¶20

...PETITIONERS

¶21

AND

¶22

The Government of A.P.,^{Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary,Fisheries} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶23

2 The Assistant Director of^{Fisheries, Khammam}

¶24

The Fisheries Development^{Officer,Wyra,Khammam District.}

¶25

{

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition Under Atticle 226^{of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue writ or direction^preferably writ^{of Mandamusdeclaring the} action of the respondent^{nos.2 and 3 in taking stepsto include the land of the} petitioners in Sy. No 77 situated at^{Vengannapeta(v)(Guduru) Tallada(M)of} khammam District into the^{area of operation of the proposed fishermen} cooperative society of^{Vengannapeta(v)(Guduru) Tallada(M) of Khammam} Distnct, as illegal, srbitrary,^{without authority andviolative of principles of natural} justice and coisequently direct the respondents^{not to include the patta lands of} ihe petitroners into the^{area of operation of said society.}

¶28

¶29

¶30

l.A.NO:1 OF 201 :i V^'PtVlP. NO: 19859 O^{F 2013)}

¶31

Pet ttor UIor r Sectton 151 CPC^{praying that in 'he ciraumslancesstated} in the a{frdav i frled tn support of the^{petition, the High Sourt m;ly be pleasedto} direct the responde.ttr; not to^{include patta lands of the peliticnilrs n Sy No 77} srtuated at vengan raceta(v)^{(Guduru) Tallada(M) of Khamm;tn' Districtinto the} area of operi.ro r of the^{proposed fishermencooperaive societyof} Vengannapeta(v) Grduru)^{Tallada(M)ofKhammamDi3t'ict inview of} represer.rtatioIs^(lt : 5.5-2013^{and 28-5-2013 pending the dlspcsal cf writpetition} rn the interest of us trce.

¶32

r.A.NO 1 OF 2014^{(</sup> VPMP. NO 13329 0F²⁰¹⁴⁾}

¶33

{

¶34

Between:

¶35

1 Akkrrala V€)nl ateswarlu, S/o.Late^Peda Veeraiah,^{aged 48 y()ars.}

¶36

Palakurthi Da;u, S/o.Late Venkataratnam,^{aged 42 yearc.}

¶37

3 Gandamala^l: aq, S/o.Late^{Pethru, aged 50 years}

¶38

4 Vemu Balasvl arry. S/o.Late Peda^{Gopaiah, aged4li years.} 5 Ekkirala Bha< raiah, S/o.Late^{Pottr Appaiah, aged 55 years.} (All are Madi( a S.C. Hrndu. Occ . Fisheries, R/o. Ve ngann apeta^(Guduru Village) Talle la Mandal, Khammam^District)

¶39

....PETITIONERS/PROP REI}PONDENTS^{4 to 8}

¶40

AND

¶41

1 Kommrneni Rarla al^, Sio Subbaiah,^{Aged77 years, Occ.Agricltllure,}

¶42

2.Kommrneni Tirupa.haiah, S/o.Late^{Narsaiah,Aged 55 yearsoc) ,\griculture}

¶43

3.Tondapu Peda Ko aiah S/o Veeraiah, Aged^{65 years occ. Agri';u ture:;}

¶44

4.T. Nagendar Rao S/o Narayana. Aged^{55 years occ. Agricultute}

¶45

5 Komn"rneni ra rhadra Rao S/o Subbarah, age 48^{years, Occ: Agriculture;} "/ee

¶46

6.T. Tulasaiah, S, r Late China Kotaiah,^Aged 52^{years 3cc:Agriculture;} All are R/o Verganr tpeta^{(V) (Guduru)} Tallada^(M), Khammam^{[) strict.}

¶47

......RESPONDENTS/I'/RIT F'ETITIONERS

¶48

7.The Govern.nent r f r.P., Rep. by its^Principal Secretary,^{Fishe-ie:Drlpartment,} 5s6rgfsriat. Hyderal ad.

¶49

{

¶50

8.The Assistarrt ftire ctr:r of Fisheries,^Khammam.

¶51

9.The Frsheries t)e\ 3lopment Officer,^{Wyra, Khammam District}

¶52

...RESPONDEN'TS/RESPONDENTS

{

{

',!i {

'{i

Petition Under Section^{151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support ot ftre peiition,[f'" HigL Court may be pleased..t0} implead the^{petitionersut} fropot"d^{Respondents-4 to 8 in the aboveWrit} Petition as well as^WPIvlPs.

¶59

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI.KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR}

¶60

Counsel for the^{Respondents: GP FOR FISHERIES}

¶61

The Court made^{the followingORDER}

¶62

l,/

¶63

HON'BLI) SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS; R.A,O WRIT PETITION No.16391of 2013 and I.A.No.L of 2Ol4 (W.tr.M.P.No. 13329 of 2OL4l

¶64

COMMON ORE ER:

¶65

W.P.No.1639 1 of 2013

¶66

The petitiorLer s have hied this rvrit petition rluest oning the action of respondent lrlor .21 and 3 in taking steps to includr: r.he land of the petitioners tn S y.No.77 situated at Vengannap:t.l(V) (Guduru) Tallada(M) oi X.hr Lnrmam District into the area of cl,erzltion of the proposed Fisherm:rL Cooperative Society of Venganne1tr:ta v) (Guduru) Tallada(M) of Kkra: nrnam District as illegal, arbitrarl., rvirhout authority and violative of p^-inciples of natural justice and corrs,:qtLentlv direct the respondentsi l oi, to include the patta lands of tht: ltet.tioners into the area of operat; crr of said society.

¶67

I.A.No.1 of 2OL4 SI.P.M.P. No.13329 of 2Ol4

¶68

The petiticnr r:;/proposed respondent Nos.4 -o B hled this application sei:k n1; permission to implead thern. as proposed respondents Nos., to B in W.P.No.16391 of 20 13. Lere ,r."red counsel for the applicants vio rll submit that applicants have marler an application on 25.03.20 13 1r the respondent authorities for registration of

¶69

¶70

¶71

Fishermen Co-operative Society in Vengannapeta (Guduru) Vil1age, Thallada Mandal, to obtain necessary permission to do frshing rights in respect of Guduru cheruvu situated in Vengannapeta village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District. He further submits that due to the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents are not considering the application submitted by the petitioners.

¶72

Heard Sri K. Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri P.V. Krishnama chary, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in I.A.No. 1 of 2014(W.P.M.P.No. 13329 of 2OI4l.

¶73

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the subject land is private shikarn patta land arrd the respondent-authorities are not having any rights to allot the fishing rights in favour of third parties including in favour of applicants in IA.No. I of 2014.

¶74

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 submits that as per G.O.Rt.No.268 (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (GP-FIN) Department, dated 23.07.2027, tl:.e petitioners

¶75

I I

¶76

have to make n:c:ssary application to the concerrrecl D strict Fisheries Ofhcer, for grar t of hshing rights, whenever their lands were submerged and I a:;ing on the said applications, th,: tut.horities will consider the sam r trfter following due procedure presclibed under the above said^(].C)., ancl petitioners are not entitled t: seek the relief sought in the prer ent writ petition.

¶77

¶78

I have consic erecl the rival submissions made b1. tbe respective parties and perl;el the records. Admittedly, the lirtvernment had issued G.O.R.T.N,,.!168 dated 23.07.2021 framing gu:cl:lires for grant of hshing rights er c,, to the eligible persons/ societies ru:,C t.re said G.O" is still in forr:e.^''hcugh the petitioners are claiming fishing rights in subject propert\r, hey have to make an application for ,3rant of fishing rights whenever t hr:ir lands were submerged and the per_itioners are not entitled to see k wdt of mandamus not to inc:lude tl..e land covered in Survey No.77 in the area of operation of Fisherm:n Corporative Society of Ver-rgeLn rapeta Village.

¶79

The ar.ermenl 3 made b1. respective parties and rer:teria,l evidence on record revea.s that, as on date, the lands co./ered irL S:rvev No.77 of Vengannapetil^'/il1age, \4'ere not included in the irr.e zr of cperation of

¶80

¶81

Fishermen Cooperative Society, Venga,napeta, and the writ petition frled by the petitioners is premature one. In the event, if the respondents have issued any proceedings to that effect, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the same.

¶82

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, the implead application I.A.No. I of 2OI4 (W.P.M.P. No. 13329 of 2Ol4l is also dismissed. No costs.

¶83

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶84

SD/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// q SECTION OFFICER To 1. Two CCs to GP FOR^{FISHERIES, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT] 2. Ohe cc to SRl.KowruRU^{PAVAN KUMAR,Advocate} [oPUC] 3 Two CD Copies

SA BS J

{

l] I

{

HIGH COUR-'

DATED:0610,112023

<br>\ :,,I\ ?-$?3
{

ORDER

WP.No.1639l of 2013

AND

|.A.NO.1 0F 2014

WPMP.NO.1lit29 0F 2014

¶98

{

¶99

DISMTSSING THE W.P AND ALSO^WPMF'

¶100

WITHOUT C f,STS.

¶101

b
,\A
\t?
r(,t

Kommineni Ramaiah v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kommineni Ramaiah v. The Government of A.P.

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

Juttika Venkateshwararao Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

G.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Enti Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Telangana

A.P.State Schedule Tribes, Hyderabad. Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt.,S.W.,Hyd.,and 9 Otrs.

Boggam Rajulu Vs The Governement of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Tirumala Saw Mill Vs State of Telangana,and 5 others