THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P. No. 1195 of 2008 Date:25-01-2008 Between: Thota Vara Prasada Rao and another .. PETITIONERS AND The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary (Rev.Dept.), Hyderabad and two others …RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent Government to grant immediate compensation to them for the loss sustained by them consequent to the demolition of their fish tanks and also to grant relief measures through the 3rd respondent bank as promised, pending disposal of the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they own land an extent of Ac.55.75 cents in various survey numbers situated at Pedakapavaram village, Akividu mandal, West Godavari District and after obtaining the permission, they have been doing pisciculture with the help of financial institutions raising huge amount of loan of Rs.40 lakhs from the 3rd respondent bank. While so, it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken unilateral and surreptitious decision to demolish the fish tanks which are situated within 5 kms. belt area of Kolleru lake where the lands of the petitioners were situated in spite of their protests and lamentations of the general public. It is stated that in the month of May, 2006 the fish tanks have been blasted and demolished and therefore, the petitioners have suffered a heavy loss. It is stated that for recovery of the loans, the 3rd respondent bank filed O.A.No.62 of 2007 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam and the said recovery proceedings are pending. I am of the opinion that the said questions raised in the writ petition cannot be decided in this writ petition as it is for the petitioners to establish the ownership of their lands, demolition of fish tanks and the losses sustained by them in a civil suit, as it is for the civil Court to record the evidence and appreciate the contentions of the parties for determination of compensation, if any. Insofar as the recovery proceedings by the 3rd respondent bank are concerned, the bank has nothing to do with the said action said to have been taken by the Government. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to contest the suit pending before the civil Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:25.01.2008 CCM