IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7263 of 2009 Between: Rajulapati Srinivasa Rao S/o. Sri Sambaiah R/o. Kowtaram Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Krishna at Machilipatnam. 3 Divisional Panchayat Officer Gudivada Krishna District. 4 Mamidikolla Gram Panchayat Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary Mamidikolla, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd & 4th Respondents in proposing to conduct auction for the years 2008-09 & 2009-10 relating to Voora Cheruvu, Pesaramilli Village, Mamidikolla Gram Panchayat, Krishna Dist., vide impugned Proceedings No.263/09-D, dt. 16-3-2009 issued by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and contrary to Sec.246 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner till the end of June 2009. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he participated in the open auction for the tank belonging to the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat situated in Pesaramilli village for the year 2006-07 and 2007-2008 and he was declared the highest bidder. While so, the 4th respondent requested the petitioner to take out the fish so that he would strengthen the bunds of the tank in question, and accordingly, he emptied the tank and took over the fish and handed over the tank for repairs. Thereafter, the 4th respondent passed a Resolution No.36, dated 18.10.2007 indicating that the petitioner should be compensated for the loss of one year he sustained i.e. 2007-08 due to repairs of the tank, by way of extending the lease by one more year. After repair works were carried out, the petitioner took over the possession of the tank, and now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 3rd respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer, contrary to the Resolution No.36, passed by the 4th respondent, issued Proceedings dated 16.3.2009 proposing to conduct auction of fishing rights of the tank in question for the years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 and the 4th respondent is not allowing the petitioner to catch fish in the months of April/May, 2009. The 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat filed counter affidavit stating that the 3rd respondent fixed the upset price for the fishing rights of the tank vide proceedings dated 29.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,49,500/-. On obtaining the upset price, the fishing rights for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-08 were put to public auction on 28.10.2006. In the said auction, the petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.1,54,000/- and accordingly by confirming his bid, the tank was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner paid the entire bid amount and enjoyed the fishing rights for the year 2006-07. However, in the month of June, 2007 i.e. after the petitioner took out the fish, repairs to the tank were effected by the Gram Panchayat and completed by 15.7.2007. As the lease of the petitioner is existing, his fishing rights were not put to public auction for the year 2007-2008, but no promise was made by the Panchayat to the petitioner to the effect that the lease of the petitioner would be extended by one more year in view of the repair works taken up. The lease of the petitioner subsists till June, 2008 and therefore, the fishing rights from June, 2007 to June, 2008 were not put to public action. By June, 2008, the Gram Panchayat with an intention to put the fishing rights of the tank for public auction for the years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 passed a Resolution dated 4.2.2009 requesting the Division Panchayat Officer to fix the upset price, and he fixed the upset price as Rs.1,92,000/- and under any circumstances, the petitioner cannot be granted leasehold rights for the years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. Since the stand taken by the Gram Panchayat in its counter is contrary to the stand taken by the Gram Panchayat in its Resolution dated 18.10.2007, which was signed by the Sarpanch as well as Panchayat Secretary of the village, who filed the counter affidavit, this Court directed the 4th respondent to appear before this Court. Today, after hearing both the counsel, they have agreed that Resolution No.36 passed by the Gram Panchayat is correct and according to that the petitioner is entitled to grow fish upto June, 2009 and it is also admitted that already he has released seed and the fish is available, and expressed no objection to the petitioner to take out the fish, which he has put, and thereafter, handover the tank to the Gram Panchayat, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. Under the circumstances, respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to take out the fish, and thereafter, they are at liberty to conduct auction for leasing out the fishing rights in the said tank in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 24th June, 2009 bcj