IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10748 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Soma Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 P. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. Soma Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 I. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. Pattabhi Rama Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 P. Viswanadha Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 N. Durga Bhavani, W/o. Lakshmi Durga Prasada Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 I. Ramavathi, W/o. Satayanarayana Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 7 Vegesna Sai Sujatha, W/o. Vijaya Rama Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 8 P. Rukmini, W/o. Vijaya Rama Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 9 P. Sireesha, W/o. Viswanadha Raju, R/o. Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kalla Mandal, Kalla, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the rights of the petitioners to use their land admeasuring Ac.19.48 cents in Survey Nos.303/2B, 304/2A, 2B, 3 and 305/1 and 2 and 350/1 of Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District for rearing fish, as illegal. At the hearing, Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are carrying on the activity of fish culture in their patta lands for a long time and that the respondents, without any notice and opportunity of hearing, are seeking to interfere with the said right. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since the petitioners do not have permission from the competent authority, they cannot be permitted to carry on the fish culture. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu v. District Forest Officer, Kakinada. Since the limited grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that no opportunity is given by the respondents before seeking to take action against them, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Instead, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms: i. The respondents shall give notices to the petitioners and an opportunity of personal hearing, if they intend to take action to prevent the petitioners from carrying on fish culture; ii. Within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notices, the petitioners shall file their explanations, and iii. After receiving the explanations, if any from the petitioners and hearing them in person, respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till passing of such orders, the respondents shall not interfere with the activity of fish culture being carried on by the petitioners in their patta lands. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.14035 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th MAY, 2008 kvni