IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 2999 of 2008 Between: Alluri Satyanarayana Raju S/o. Venkata RAghava Raju R/o. Potumarru Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam 2 The REvenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam Division at Machilipatnam 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District. .....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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to dispose of the application of the petitioner for regularization of the existing fish tanks in respect of the lands in R.S.Nos.419/1 to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents, 419/2 to an extent of Ac.1.31 cents, 422/1 to an extent of Ac.1.23 cents, 422/2 to an extent of Ac.1.06 cents, 422/3 to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents, 422/4A to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents, 421/1 to an extent of Ac.1.20 cents, 424/2 to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents, 425/2 to an extent of Ac.2.64 cents, 426/2 to an extent of Ac.1.80 cents, 427/2 to an extent of Ac.1.22 cents, 434/1 to an extent of Ac.1.07 cents, 434/3 to an extent of Ac.1.37 cents, 434/3 to an extent of Ac.1.37 cents, 434/4A to an extent of Ac.1.15 cents, 430/1 to an extent of Ac.3.07 cents, 431/1 to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents, 432/1 to an extent of Ac.2.29 cents, 433/1 to an extent of Ac.4.88 cents and 432 to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents totaling Ac.35.00 cents of Manjuluru Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District, and direct the respondents not to interfere with the operation of the existing fish tanks of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to dispose of his application for regularization of the existing fish tanks in respect of the lands in R.S.Nos.419/1 to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents, 419/2 to an extent of Ac.1.31 cents, 422/1 to an extent of Ac.1.23 cents, 422/2 to an extent of Ac.1.06 cents, 422/3 to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents, 422/4A to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents, 425/2 to an extent of Ac.2.64 cents, 426/2 to an extent of Ac.1.80 cents, 427/2 to an extent of Ac.1.22 cents, 434/1 to an extent of Ac.1.07 cents, 434/3 to an extent of Ac.1.37 cents, 434/3 to an extent of Ac.1.37 cents, 434/4A to an extent of Ac.1.15 cents, 430/1 to an extent of Ac.3.07 cents, 431/1 to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents, 432/1 to an extent of Ac.2.29 cents, 433/1 to an extent of Ac.4.88 cents, and 432 to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents totaling Ac.35.00 cents of Munjuluru village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the operation of the existing fish tanks of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.35.00 cents in various survey numbers situated at Munjuluru village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District and the said lands are agricultural lands. In the said village most of the agricultural lands have been converted into fish tanks and the neighbouring land owners have also converted their lands into fish tanks. Therefore, the petitioner also converted an extent of Ac.21.26 cents as fish tanks way back in the year 1990 and subsequently the remaining extent of Ac.13.74 cents have also been converted into fish tanks in the year 1996. It is stated that due to heavy rains, the tank bund got affected and the fish have been thrown out of the tank in November, 2007 and thereafter the tank is without any water and fish. It is stated that the bund has not been repaired so far and the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to carrying out the operations of repair. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.83 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007, constituting the District Level Committee for regularization of existing fresh water aquaculture and also accord permission for setting up of new aquaculture units in fresh water lands. For such District Level fresh Committee, the District Collector is the Chairman, Joint Collector, Executive Engineer, Major Irrigation Department, Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Joint Director of Agriculture, District Forest Officer/District Territorial Officer, Wild Life are the Members and the District Fisheries Officer is Member-Convener, to process such applications as per the guidelines 1 to 4 annexed to the said G.O. by the Committee for according permission for construction of new/for regularization of existing fresh water aquaculture ponds. It is stated that the petitioner made an application before the Member-Convener i.e. District Fisheries Officer who is the Assistant Director of Fisheries enclosing the requisite demand draft for a sum of Rs.7,000/- on 30.01.2008 to regularize his fish tanks in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.35.00 cents by filing an application in the prescribed form on 04.02.2008. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the fish tanks are in existing and pending regularization of the same, the petitioner may be permitted to repair the bund which was damaged in November, 2007. I am not inclined to issue any such direction to the respondents not to interfere with the repair work to the bund. As per the said G.O. unless the petitioner gets regularization of his existing fish tanks, he cannot be allowed to get the repairs to the damaged bund. In case of new applicants, the question of permitting them to form fish tanks or rear fish does not arise. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the repairs to the said bund and admittedly the petitioner is not rearing any fish after the alleged damage to the bund in November, 2007. That being so, unless the petitioner gets permission/regularization, I am of the opinion that such a direction cannot be given directing the respondents not to interfere with the repair work to the bund. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to process the application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and place the same before the District Level Committee to consider and dispose of the said application in accordance with law and the aforesaid entire process shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:22.02.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}