THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.14549 and 16216 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.14549 of 2011 is filed by three petitioners aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in not restraining respondent No.6 from digging and converting his agricultural wet lands, situated in Sy.Nos.497/1 and 497/2 in R.S.No.495, 498 and 499 of West Vipparru Village Panchayat, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari into fish/prawn tanks, as illegal and arbitrary. The sixth respondent in W.P.No.14549 of 2011 filed W.P.No.16216 of 2011 to declare the action of respondents, in interfering with his activities of setting up fresh aquaculture ponds in Sy.No.497/1 without passing any orders on his application dated 11.05.2010, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008. Since both the Writ Petitions are integrally connected with one another, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. This Court, by order in WPMP.No.17522 of 2011 in W.P.No.14549 of 2011 dated 31.05.2011, directed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained for a period of four weeks. The said order of status quo has subsequently been extended from time to time. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.14549 of 2011. The case of respondent No.6 is that he had submitted an application to the competent authority on 11.05.2010 seeking permission to convert his agricultural lands into fresh water aquaculture ponds and, despite his application being pending and contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court i n Pulavarthy Ankaraju v. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries, Hyderabad (W.A.No.550 of 2010 and batch dated 29.04.2011), the official respondents were preventing him from converting his agricultural lands into fresh water aquaculture ponds. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that since they are neighbouring land owners, conversion by respondent No.6 of his agricultural lands into fresh water aquaculture ponds would result in their agricultural lands being destroyed in the process. The other factual aspects, referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the respective Writ Petitions both by the petitioners and respondent No.6, need not be referred to in as much as it is not in dispute that the petitioners’ application is pending consideration before the District Level Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 12.09.2007 read with G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 09.04.2010. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries would submit that the District Collector, (fifth respondent), who is the Chairperson of the District Level Committee, would process the application of respondent No.6 at the earliest, and take a decision, whether or not to accord permission, within a period of two months. In the light of the submission made by the Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, I consider it appropriate to dispose of both the Writ Petitions directing the District Collector, who is respondent No.5 in W.P.No.14549 of 2011 and respondent No.2 in W.P.No.16216 of 2011, to consider the application of respondent No.6 dated 11.05.2010 in accordance with law, including the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Pulavarthy Ankaraju (W.A.No.550 of 2010 and batch dated 29.04.2011), take a decision whether or not to accord permission, and communicate a copy of the order both to the petitioners and respondent No.6 in W.P.No.14549 of 2011, within a period of two months from today. Pending final decision being taken by the District Level Committee, of which the District Collector is the Chairperson, the order of status quo passed by this Court on 31.05.2011 shall continue to remain in force. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:12.10.2011 usd