THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18520 OF 2006 07.9.2006 Between: UNGARALA Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Late Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner AND The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18520 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Bhimavaram. He statedly owns land admeasuring Acs.2.69 cents in R.S.Nos.66/1 and 66/2 situated at Kalakuru Village of Kalla Mandal in West Godavari District. The respondents 4, 5 and 6, it is alleged, who own the lands adjacent to the petitioner’s land, converted them into aquaculture tanks without obtaining permission from Central Coastal Aquaculture Authority. This is affecting the agricultural operations of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the respondent No.4 was convicted by the Court of II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, in C.C.No.50 of 1994 on 04.9.1997 under Sections 430 and 277 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appeal and revision filed by the fourth respondent were also dismissed. The petitioner appears to have been made representations to the first respondent and others, in vain. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu v District Forest Officer, Kakinada[1], the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action against unauthorized conversion of agricultural lands for aquaculture operations. A Division Bench of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu (supra) considered the question whether it is permissible for the owner of agricultural land to convert the agricultural land into fish culture/prawn culture/shrimp culture, without obtaining permission from revenue authorities or other competent authorities. After referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in S.Jagannath v Union of India[2], the Division Bench laid down as under. A person who holds land for agricultural purpose may, therefore, subject to any reasonable restriction that may be made by the State may have the right to use water for irrigational purposes and for the said purpose he may also excavate a tank. But under no circumstances, he can be permitted to restrict flow of water to the neighbouring lands or discharge the effluents in such a manner so as to affect the right of his neighbour to use water for his own purposes. On the same analogy he does not have any right to contaminate the water to cause damages to the holders of the neighbouring agricultural fields. Large scale defoulment in the quality of water so as to make it unusable by others or as a result whereof the water is contaminated and becomes unpotable would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the provisions of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 (the Act, for brevity), which has come into force with effect from 23.6.2005. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under 13. Registration for Coastal Aquaculture.- (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a person engaged in coastal aquaculture, immediately before the appointed day, may continue to carry on such activity without such registration for a period of three months from that day and if he makes an application for such registration under sub-section (4) within the said period of three months, till the communication to him of the disposing of such application by the Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 did not make any application to the Coastal Aquaculture Authority established under Section 4(1) of the Act and, therefore, they are not entitled to carry on aquaculture/prawn culture operations. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. The third respondent may inspect the lands and if it is found that the respondents 4 and 5 are still carrying on aquaculture/prawn culture/pisi culture in their agricultural lands in survey No.66/3, the third respondent may take appropriate action for removing/demolishing aquaculture/prawn culture/pisi culture tanks immediately, after issuing notice to respondents 4 and 5. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of, at the admission stage. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) September 07, 2006. YS [1] 2002(1) ALD 728 (DB) [2] AIR 1997 SC 811