HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9867 of 2011 Date : 29-9-2011 Between: Madhyapatla Chakravarthy .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Ms. M. Vidyavathi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: -- Counsel for respondent No.3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the tank in Sy.No.114 of Pedda Korukondi village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner averred that he is the owner of Ac.7-02 guntas in Sy.No.114; that the said land is covered with water in the name of a tank, namely, Bandikunta Cheruvu (for short “the tank”) and that he has reared fish in the said tank. The petitioner further averred that he came to learn that respondent No.4-Society approached the Fisheries Development Officer, Khammam, who in turn contacted respondent No.2 and that the latter has informed that the land in Sy.No.114 to an extent of Ac.7-02 guntas is in the name of M. Jagannadha Rao, M. Prasada Rao and M. Lakshmi Narayana Rao. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the said land is exclusively the patta land in respect of which the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4-Society which has no right over the tank is claiming that the same is in its area of operation and the petitioner apprehends that respondent Nos.2 and 3 will issue an order in favour of respondent No.4-Society in respect of the said tank. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries representing respondent No.3, on instructions, submitted that the said respondent is not proposing to confer any rights on respondent No.4- Society in respect of the tank in question. Inasmuch as the petitioner claims that respondent No.2 himself has certified the land in question as private land, his apprehension that the former may interfere has no reasonable basis. As respondent No.3 has come out with the specific stand that there is no proposal of granting fishery rights to respondent No.4-Society over the tank, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against respondent No.3 also. If respondent No.4 seeks to interfere with the petitioner’s rights over the tank, he can approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief to prevent such interference by respondent No.4-Society. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order dated 13-4-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.12189/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-9-2011 AM