IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.949 of 2011 Between: Smt. Annu Anuradha. ..... Petitioner AND The Deputy Director for Fisheries, Eluru, West Godavari District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Srinivas Emani Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Fisheries The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.949 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.Nos.706, 707/3 and 709 and another piece of land in Sy.No.587 of Chataparru Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, filed the present Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in carrying on fishing operations over their patta lands in R.S.Nos.707/1, 708/2. According to the petitioner, the said activity affects her interest, as her agricultural land will be seriously affected by such operations. It is her pleaded case that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not obtained any permission for carrying on the said activity. At the hearing, Sri Srivinas Emani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after filing of the Writ Petition, respondent No.3 has issued directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Deputy Director of Fisheries and the Tahsildar, Eluru, with copy marked to his client to take necessary action and send report within one week. The learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, on instructions, submitted that while respondent No.8 was granted permission for carrying on fish culture, no such permission was granted to respondent No.7. He further submitted that on the report received by respondent No.3 from the above-named officials, he will take appropriate action in accordance with law. From the fact that respondent No.3 has responded to the petitioner’s legal notice and called for a report for taking further action it is evident that he has evinced interest on the complaint made by the petitioner and therefore I have no reason to doubt that respondent No.3 will take appropriate action on receipt of the report called for by him. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in the event respondent No.3 does not take action in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.1166 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.02.2011 ES