IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10995 of 2008 Between: Mudundi Venkata Subbaraju S/o.Perraju, D.No.1-111/2 Saraswathi Bhavan Rayalam Bhimavaram(M) W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Kalla,Kalla(M) W.G Dist 2 The District Collector W.G District at Eluru 3 Mudundi Venkata Ganesh Raju, S/o.Venkata Subba Raju, R/o.27-15-11 Nehrpeta, Bhimavaram,W. G Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 1 in not taking any action against the respondent No. 3 who is digging atank for fish/aqua Culture, in the Prohibited CRZ area near the lands of the Petitioner in RS. No. 296/1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 at Kallakuru Village/Panchayat, Kalla Mandal West Godavari District, Without any permission from any Authority Concerned, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the law declared by the Apex Court and this Honourable Court in the case of Madireddy Padma Rambabu and others Vs. DFO, Kakinada 2002(3) ALT 57 DB= 2002 (1) ALD 728 DB and it is further consequentially prayed that this Honourable Court maybe pleased to direct the respondent NO.1 and 2 to forthwith take steps for discontinuation of the digging up of the said tank by the 3rd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10995 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by alleged digging up of a fish tank in land admeasuring Acs.3.77 in survey Nos.296/1 to 7 (petition schedule land) situated at Kallakuru Village, Kalla Mandal, Akiveedu, West Godavari District. The complaint is against third respondent, who is none other than only son of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that petition schedule land was purchased by him under various sale deeds and that if third respondent is allowed to proceed with digging up of fish tank, his land in survey No.294/2 would be rendered useless. Therefore, placing reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu v District Forest Officer[1] instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take steps for aborting the efforts of third respondent to dig fishpond. Third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. The allegation that the petitioner is owner of petition schedule land is denied. It is stated that third respondent and his sister - children of petitioner, are owners of petition schedule land having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 24.02.1993. It is also stated that fish tank was dug several years back and that the petitioner has no land abutting or adjacent to third respondent’s petition schedule land. It is further stated that the petitioner filed O.S.No.366 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, for cancellation of sale deeds which stand in the name of third respondent and his sister and that he (petitioner) suppressed the same from this Court. The allegation that third respondent’s fish tank falls within CRZ is denied. It is no doubt that when a land is meant for agriculture, the same cannot be converted for use/purpose other than agriculture unless appropriate permission is obtained. This was so held in Madireddy Padma Rambabu (supra). However, the fact of the matter in this writ petition is altogether different. The petitioner has already approached civil Court for cancellation of sale deeds that stood in the name of third respondent. In spite of the same, suppressing this fact from this Court claimed that petition schedule land is belonging to him. Unless and until the petitioner succeeds in civil Court, he cannot do so. Secondly the categorical averment made in the counter-affidavit that fish tank was dug several years back remained unrebutted and that the petitioner did not file any reply affidavit. In this situation even though the petitioner made a representation on 06.05.2008 (this writ petition was filed on 11.05.2008) to first respondent, no direction can be given to first respondent to consider said representation. If the petitioner has any grievance, he has to make appropriate application before civil Court. Further more, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed applying the principle of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Kalla,Kalla(M) W.G Dist 2 The District Collector W.G District at Eluru 3 2CCs to GP for Revenue 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] 2002 (3) ALT 57 (D.B.)