*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + W. P.Nos. 17576 of 2006, 1973 of 2007 & 11612 OF 2008 % 30th September 2008 # M. Venkaiah and others …Petitioners And $ The District Collector, Guntur District & others. …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. N. Subba Rao, Mr. J. Sreenath Reddy and Mr. Indra Reddy ^ Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Fisheries and Mr.Ravi Shankar Jandhyala < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: -Nil- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W. P.Nos. 17576 of 2006, 1973 of 2007 & 11612 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: In these three writ petitions, the validity of the order dated 29.10.2001, passed by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Guntur, arises for consideration, directly in some and indirectly in others. The extent of ayacut of an irrigation tank would become relevant, in the context of identifying the authority that would be competent to grant ﬁshery rights in such tanks. The A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, contained provisions to the eﬀect that subject to the limits that may be prescribed by the government, the Grampanchayat shall have the right to grant leases of diﬀerent kinds over the irrigation sources or works within its territorial limits. G.O.Ms.No.343, Panchayat Raj Department, dated 10.4.1978, was issued stipulating the limits of ayacut. According to this, irrigation sources with ayacut below 100 acres in coastal areas, and below 200 acres in other areas, shall vest in the Grampanchayats, in the context of auctioning the ﬁshing rights. Serious disputes arose, as to the extent of ayacut of Kakani Tank, in Guntur District. While according to the Grampanchayat, Rajaka Seva Sangam and Harijana Fisheries Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited of that village, the ayacut is 79 acres; the Fishermen Cooperative Society contended that it is 230 acres. Series of proceedings ensued, on this controversy. In view of this serious dispute, a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.4631 and 14920 of 1999, passed an order dated 17.11.1999, directing the District Collector, Guntur, to hold an enquiry and pass an order, as to whether the ayacut of the tank is 79 acres or 230 acres, and whether the Grampanchayat was justiﬁed in earmarking the tank for washing purposes. Certain subsidiary questions were also directed to be dealt with. The District Collector, in turn, passed an order, dated 19.10.2001. This was challenged in W.P.No.21160 of 2000, by the Harijana Fisheries Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, Kakani, complaining that it was not put on notice. The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 19.10.2001 was set aside. The District Collector was directed to issue notice to all the concerned. After issuing notices to all the concerned and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the District Collector passed the order dated 29.10.2001, holding that the ayacut of the tank is 230 acres, and that the Grampanchayat was not justiﬁed, in earmarking the tank for washing purposes. Another question referred to it, viz; whether the Grampanchayat was justiﬁed in blacklisting the Fisheries Cooperative Society, was also answered in the negative. Petitioners in W.P.No.17576 of 2006 are ayacutdars of the tank. They state that their lands were part of the ayacut, on the Nagarjunasagar, and substantial extent of ayacut under the project was included to that of the tank, contrary to law and in deviation of the procedure. It is stated that none of the farmers have made any request for transfer of the ayacut from one resource to another. They assert that even after the alleged inclusion, the owners of the land are treated a members of the Water Users Association of the concerned branch canal of Nagarjunasagar, and not that of the tank. They also complain that they were not given opportunity of being heard, before their lands were transferred to the ayacut of the tank. The President of the Water Users Association of Kakani minor irrigation tank got himself impleaded as respondent No.5, in that writ petition. He ﬁled a detailed counter aﬃdavit, stating inter alia that the petitioners do not have any locus standi, or severe grievance, to question the order passed by the District Collector. He states that the impugned order was challenged by the Harijan Fisheries Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd., by ﬁling W.P.No.25124 of 2001, and that the impugned order was upheld. It is also stated that Writ Appeal No.54 of 2002, ﬁled against it, was dismissed. W.P.No.1973 of 2007 is ﬁled by Kakani Grama Rajaka Seva Sangam, assailing the action of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Guntur, in granting ﬁshery rights in the tank, in favour of Kakani Fishermen Cooperative Society, vide proceedings dated 18.8.2006. It is stated that despite interim order dated 29.9.2006 passed in W.P.No.17567 of 2006, suspending the impugned order dated 29.10.2001, the Assistant Director granted ﬁshery rights. Reference is also made to the procedure in relation to grant of fishery rights. The Assistant Director of Fisheries ﬁled counter aﬃdavit, stating inter alia that there is absolutely no basis for the claim of the Rajaka Seva Sangam, once it has been conclusively proved that the ayacut of the tank is more than 200 acres. W.P.No.11612 of 2008 is ﬁled by the Fishermen Cooperative Society, for a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the oﬃcial respondents, in not preventing the Rajaka Seva Sangam from catching the ﬁsh in the tank. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for Rajaka Seva Sangam, which ﬁgured as petitioner in W.P.No.1973 of 2007, and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.11612 of 2008, advanced extensive arguments, assailing the impugned order. Sri J. Sreenath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.17576 of 2006, adopted the said arguments. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.17576 of 2006, and Sri Indra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11612 of 2008, had opposed the challenge to the impugned order and tried to defend it. It is indeed amazing that a small matter, as to the classiﬁcation of the tank, had given rise to so many proceedings over the past several years. The respective societies may certainly feel aggrieved by outcome of an enquiry that was ordered by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.4631 and 14920 of 1999. However, the litigation must stop at a pinpoint, and the issue cannot be reopened at every stage. On ﬁnding that the dispute between the Grampanchayat, Rajaka Seva Sangam and Harijana Fisheries Society, on the one hand, and the Fisheries Cooperative Society, on the other hand, would depend upon the extent of ayacut of the tank, a Division Bench of this court in its order dated 17.11.1999, in W.P.No.4631 and 14920 of 1999, framed the following questions, and directed the District Collector, Guntur, to record his findings after due enquiry. i) Whether the ayacut of Kakani tank is Ac.79-00 or Ac.230-00 and if it is Ac.230-00 whether the Gram Panchayat has any right whatsoever? ii) Whether the Gram Panchayat is justiﬁed in setting apart Kakani tank for washing purposes and consequently leasing out the ﬁshery rights in favour of Rajaka Sangam or Harijan Mutually Aided Cooperative Society? iii) Whether the Gram Panchayat has any power to black list the Fishermen Cooperative Society and if it has power had it been done in accordance with the established procedure and the principles of natural justice? It appears that initially an order not supported by much reasoning was passed by the District Collector on 19.10.2001. W.P.No.21160 of 2000 was ﬁled by the Harijana Fisheries Society, challenging the said order. On the basis of the directions issued by this Court, in that writ petition, a detailed enquiry was held and the District Collector recorded speciﬁc ﬁndings on the three questions, in the impugned order dated 29.10.2001. He found that the ayacut of the tank is 230 acres. Consequently, the other two questions were answered against the Grampanchayat and the other societies, which insisted otherwise. The Harijana Fisheries Society ﬁled W.P.No.25124 of 2001, challenging this very order dated 29.10.2001, but unsuccessfully. Therefore, certain other agencies were pressed into service, to keep the dispute alive. W.P.No.17576 of 2006 is not maintainable, for more reasons than one. The petitioners therein are the farmers, and they did not mention as to how they feel aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector. The entire exercise undertaken by the District Collector was only, in the context of granting fishery rights. It hardly makes any diﬀerence for an ayacutdar, whether the Grampanchayat, or the Assistant Director of Fisheries, grant ﬁshing rights in the irrigation source. Secondly, even assuming that their lands are transferred from the ayacut of Nagarjunasagar to that of the tank, it is not mentioned as to how they suﬀered any detriment. It is not even complained that the supply of water to their lands was aﬀected in any manner. At any rate, the alleged transfer of ayacut took place, few decades ago. Therefore, the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed. W.P.No.1973 of 2007 ﬁled opposed by the Rajaka Seva Sangam. Left to itself, it did not assail the order, dated 29.10.2001. Its challenge was only to grant ﬁshery rights to the Fishermen Cooperative Society. The basis thereof is an interim order passed by this court in W.P.No.17576 of 2006. Though an attempt is made to demonstrate that the Grampanchayat continues to be the agency to grant ﬁshery rights, in respect of the tanks having ayacut of more than 200 acres also, this court is not impressed by the same. It is not out of place to mention that the Rajaka Seva Sangam is the petitioner in W.P.No.14920 of 1999 and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.4631 of 1999, and it was in obedience of the directions given therein, that the impugned order was passed by the District Collector. Once it did not choose to challenge the said order, and in fact, it could not have, it cannot complain of the exercise of power of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, in the matter of granting ﬁshery rights. Another aspect is that Harijana Fisheries Society, which was sailing with the Rajaka Seva Sangam and Grampanchayat, ﬁled W.P.No.25124 of 2001, challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.2001, and it was dismissed on 10.12.2001. W.A.No.54 of 2002 ﬁled by them was also dismissed on 23.6.2004. Therefore, the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.11612 of 2008 is no doubt genuine, but the inability of the oﬃcial respondents therein, to prevent the Rajaka Seva Sangam and Harijana Fisheries Society, which ﬁgured as respondents 3 and 4 therein, from carrying on the ﬁshing operation in the tank, was only on account of interim orders passed in the other two writ petitions. Though Mr.Subba Rao, learned counsel, had relied upon certain precedents, this court does not feel the necessity to deal with the same in detail, in view of the fact that the issue relating to the validity of the G.O. already reached finality. For the foregoing reasons, W.P.Nos.17576 of 2006 and 1973 of 2007 are dismissed. W.P.No.11612 of 2008 is disposed of, directing that the Assistant Director of Fisheries shall take immediate step to put the ﬁshery rights in the tank to auction, and take further steps, in accordance with law. It is represented that the Rajaka Seva Sangam had invested certain amount towards ﬁsh seed, etc. If that be so, it shall be open to the said society, to make appropriate representation for compensation to the concerned authorities. There shall be no order as to cost. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt: 30th September 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN