THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.9364 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the residents of Atchutapuram Village, Borravaripalem Gram Panchayat, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District, by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to stop the aqua culture by respondent Nos.8 to 35 near to their lands in Pragnam Village of Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District. It is contended by the petitioners that respondent Nos.8 to 35 were the owners of the land covered by survey numbers as detailed in para 3 of the affidavit, and they converted the agricultural lands into aquaculture ponds and due to the chemicals utilised for growing the aquaculture, their adjacent lands became saline, as a result, they are not able to do any agricultural process in the lands belonging to them. Though earlier they also did the aquaculture till 2002, on the instructions of respondent Nos.4 to 6, they have closed the aquaculture ponds. The land in possession of the unofficial respondents is a drainage poramboke and in the same, they are doing aquaculture, creating soil and air pollution. It is further contended that due to the same, for the past 8 years, the petitioners are not able to cultivate their lands and it also affected their livelihood. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to official respondents to stop the aquaculture done by respondent Nos.8 to 35 near to the fields of the petitioners. Respondent No.4-District Collector, Guntur District, filed counter-affidavit denying that respondents 4 to 7 have not taken any action to close the aquaculture done by the unofficial respondents. It is also stated that for the past ten years, certain farmers including the petitioners have been doing aquaculture in their lands, but after 2008, most of the aqua farmers have voluntarily converted the aquaculture ponds into paddy fields as aquaculture proved uneconomical and unfavourable conditions prevailed. Remaining aqua farmers have also agreed to convert the aquaculture ponds into paddy fields by the end of July, 2010. Even the unofficial respondents herein i.e., respondent Nos.8 to 35 also agreed to close up the aquaculture after the season i.e., by the end of July, 2010. Respondent No.9 filed counter-affidavit stating that the entire land in Pragnam Village is Government poramboke land and is occupied by villagers and several people are in possession of lands ranging from 0.50 cs to Ac.1-00 cs; that respondent Nos.8 to 25 and 28 are mostly in occupation of land below Ac.1-00 cs, except for some persons who are in possession of less than Ac.2-00 cs; that the present writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation is filed as a counter-blast to the suit- O.S.No.104 of 2010 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repelle, filed for the relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule lands; that the wife of petitioner No.10, husband of petitioner No.6, brother of petitioner No.8, husband of petitioner No.9 are parties to the said suit; that the petitioners’ lands are nearly at a distance of 500 meters away from the lands of the unofficial respondents; that the present writ petition is filed only to settle their personal scores under the guise of Public Interest Litigation; that the petitioners started aqua culture way back in the year 1993, i.e., much prior to the respondents started the aqua culture ponds; that as the petitioners sustained losses after some years, they closed down the aquaculture business on their own and started cultivation in the said lands for the last two years; that respondent Nos.8 to 25 and 28 continued the aquaculture ponds as they belong to fishermen community and have adopted traditional methods by catching the fish; that respondent Nos.8 to 25 and 28 are members of Nageti revu Fishermen Co-Operative Society and they caught fish from nearby canals and grow them in the small ponds in their lands and started making some profits from the last two to three years. It is further stated that the land in an extent of Ac.0.70 cents belonging to the wife of petitioner No.10 yielded 25 bags of paddy last year, which itself shows that there is no pollution on account of aquaculture done by the unofficial respondents and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. A reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.9, reiterating their stand in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.8 to 25 and 28, who have occupied the Government poramboke have converted the same into aquaculture ponds and doing aqua culture in it. The counter-affidavits filed by both respondent Nos.4 and 9 is conspicuously silent with regard to the permission obtained by respondent Nos.8 to 25 and 28 to convert the Government poramboke lands into fish ponds for conducting the aquaculture business. This Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu and others V. The District Forest Officer East Godavari District[1], issued necessary instructions with regard to the aquaculture and conversion of the agricultural lands into non-agricultural purposes, directing the authorities namely the revenue officials not to allow any person to carry on the activities of shrimp culture or prawn culture or any type of aquaculture without obtaining the prior permission from the competent authority, as referred to in the said judgment. After the said judgment of this Court, the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’) has been enacted by the Parliament. The said Act regulates only the aquaculture done in coastal areas notified under the Act. As per the notification, dated 23.01.2006, issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, the Central Government defined the coastal area, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, as under: “Area of land within a distance of two kilometres from the High Tide Line (HTL) of seas, rivers, creeks and backwaters.” Admittedly, the lands which are the subject matter in the present writ petition do not come within the said definition of the coastal area. As such, the said Act has no application to the lands in question. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu (supra) continues to govern such aquaculture business. In view of the same, respondents 3 to 6 are under obligation to implement the directions issued by this Court in the said judgment. That apart, since, in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the unofficial respondents have agreed to convert the aquaculture ponds into agricultural lands by the end of July, 2010 but did not adhere to the same, the official respondents are under obligation to see that the unofficial respondents do not make the adjacent lands saline and pollute the soil and water, causing hardship to the neighbouring farmers, by doing aquaculture in their lands. Therefore, the official respondents are hereby directed to consider the representation made by the petitioners for closure of the aquaculture done by respondent Nos.8 to 35 in the lands in question, after due enquiry, in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu (supra) and see that the same is implemented in its true spirit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 20th September 2010 dr [1] AIR 2002 AP 256