HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 03-02-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 48 OF 2010 Between: Sri Venkateswara Fishermen Co-operative Society, rep., by its President Vadlapati Chinna, S/o. Chinnaiah, aged about 42 years, r/o. Peddapuram (M), East Godavari District ... APPELLANT AND Rayabhupalapatnam Rajaka Sangam, Rayabhupalapatnam, Peddapuram (M), East Godavari District, rep., by its President V.V. Satyanarayana and three others ... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 48 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 08-09-2009 in Writ Petition No. 18060 of 2009. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 with an innocuous direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of respondent No.1 for grant of leasehold rights over Acs.3.00 forming part of Raghavamma tank, Rayabhupalapatnam, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. This writ appeal is filed against the said order with the leave of this Court. The appellant which is a fishermen cooperative society claimed that it is holding the leasehold rights over the entire tank in question and that by proceedings dated 25-10-2008, respondent No.2 granted leasehold rights in its favour from 01-07-2008 to 30-06-2013. The appellant therefore contended that as lease has already been granted in its favour, the learned single Judge should not have granted the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of respondent No.1 for granting leasehold rights over a part of the tank in question. At the hearing, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that proceedings dated 25-10-2008 do not cover Acs.3.00 of tank which is separately set apart for washing purposes for respondent No.1 by the Gram Panchayat. A prima facie perusal of the said proceedings does not indicate that the lease was granted in favour of the appellant only in respect of a part of the land. However, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, we modify the order of the learned single Judge as under: If proceedings dated 25-10-2008 under which leasehold rights have been granted in favour of the appellant cover the entire Raghavamma tank including the portion of the tank which was earmarked for washing purposes of respondent No.1 – Sangam, respondent No.1 is not entitled to grant of any leasehold rights. If on the other hand, the said proceedings do not cover the extent of the tank earmarked for washing purposes in favour of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 may exercise his discretion and pass appropriate orders on the request of respondent No.1 for granting of leasehold rights for fishing over that part of the tank which is in occupation of respondent No.1 for washing purposes. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP No. 130 of 2010, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03-02-2010 ks