THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.856 of 2010 Dated:24.09.2010 Between: Bhogireddy Venugopal. ….Petitioner And Ch.Rangaiah, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.856 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner along with another filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.5126 of 2010, alleging that he is the owner of the land in survey No.1076/1 admeasuring Acs.2.05 cents and that the second respondent herein is digging fish tank without obtaining permission under the Central Aqua Cultural Authority Act, 2005. At the stage of admission itself, this Court disposed of the writ petition following Madireddy Padma Rambabu v District Forest Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District[1] observing that the revenue Officials may not permit the conversion of agricultural land into fish tank unless the second respondent herein obtains necessary permission. In this contempt case it is alleged that disobeying the same, the second respondent herein is digging the fish tank. The first respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as under. …The averments made in this Para are not correct and true. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent herein is having Ac.1.00 cts and cultivating paddy during sarva (Kharif) season and Prawn culture during Dalva (Rabi) season for the last 15 years and attempted to convert her prawn tank into fish tank in an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.1064/1 of Gutlapadu (v), Bhimavaram by raising bunds and applied for permission for the same but he neighbouring ryot Smt.Dirisala Annapurnamma raised objection for conversion of Prawn tank into Fish tank on 17.02.2010. The Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer, Gutlapadu recorded a statement from Smt.Sandhi Chandra Kanthamma before the Village Elders that she will not convert her Prawn tank into Fish tank even already raised bunds… In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is not having any land at Gutlapadu Village, that he has nothing to do with the land in R.S.No.1064/1 admeasuring Ac.1.00, and that the second respondent is not converting the land into fish tank. The counter affidavit was served on the Counsel on 27th July 2010 and no reply affidavit is filed. Counsel for the second respondent challenges the locus standi of the petitioner who filed the writ petition. He contends that the land in R.S.No.1076/1 belongs to one Karra Yesudas, and that the petitioner is not the owner of the land. This is a question which cannot be gone into. As the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself, it is always open to the second respondent to seek review of the said order. The Contempt Case with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.09.2010 vs [1] 2002 (1) ALD 728 (DB)