THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.15149 OF 2008 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioners alleged that they are the owners of different extents of land, totaling to Acs.9-64 cents in Sy.Nos.45/3, 54/1, 55/2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 58/1 of Mooduthallapaadu village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District. Their case is that their lands are surrounded by fresh water fish tanks and hence they could not cultivation due to wet soil conditions in the neighboring lands. Therefore, from the year 2002-03, they were paid an amount of Rs.750/- per acre towards crop insurance. As the said income is meager, the petitioners along with the neighboring land owners, applied to the respondent on 21.4.2008 for conversion of Acs.34-64 cents into fish tanks, along with demand draft for Rs.2,000/-. Their case is that G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department dated 12.9.2007 permitted to undertake freshwater aquaculture and as per G.O.Ms.No.18 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department dated 26.3.2008 District Collector has to decided and issue orders accordingly within two months for construction of new aquaculture ponds and if no such permission is granted within two months, it is deemed that the applicants can go ahead with construction of new pond and the license is deemed to be issued. In the present case, though the application is filed on 21.4.2008, the respondents failed to grant the license within the stipulated time and hence as per the G.O.Ms.No.83, it is deemed that license is issued and, therefore, the petitioners under representation dated 8.7.2008, intimated the same to the respondent no.1 and commenced the conversion work by digging the land on 11.7.2008. But the 1st respondent has forcibly stopped the work on 12.7.2008 by sending the police and the 1st respondent has issued press statement stating that the conversion of the agricultural lands for fish tanks is stalled. Therefore, as the action of the respondents is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.83, the present writ petition is filed. 3. This court while admitting the writ petition on 23.7.2008 passed the following interim order in WPMP.No.19610/2008: “Pending further orders, there shall be a direction to the first respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of Sy.Nos.45/3, 54/1, 55/2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 58/1 to an extent of Acs.9-64 cents of Mooduthallpadu village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District without following due process of law and particularly not to take any steps contrary to G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 26.3.2008.” 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the counter, the interference by the 1st respondent with the possession and enjoyment in respect of the petitioner schedule land is denied. It is further stated that the 7th petitioner is not an applicant for conversion of his land in R.S.No.55/3B in an extent of Ac.0-47 cents of Muduthallapadu village, into fish tank and hence in the absence of his application, he should not have been included in the writ petition. Since the conversion of the fish tank in the petitioner schedule land was objected by the owners of the agricultural lands abutting the petition schedule land on the south, for conversion, the 1st respondent informed the same to the writ petitioners through an endorsement in RCA 252/06 dated 8.5.2008. The petitioners ought to have waited till a decision is taken at Mandal, Divisional and District Level Committees. It is further stated that though it is a fact that on 19.5.2006, the objectors and the writ petitioners covering in an extent of As.34-64 cents, have applied for conversion of their lands into a consolidated fish tank, the applications could not been processed for want of individual applications and also for documentary proof of their ownership. With these averments inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner. 6. From the material on record, the case of the petitioner is that they are the owners of the land in question and the admitted facts are that they made application on 27.2.2008 for conversion of their lands into fish tank. In the counter it is stated that the 7th petitioner has not filed any application in respect of his land in RS.No.55/3B in an extent of Ac.0-47 cents of Mudutallapadu village into the fish tank. The case of the respondents is that the farmers of the abutting lands to the land of the petitioners, objected for such conversion and further the petitioners also did not produce any proof with regard to ownership over the land in question. In the counter it is stated that the petitioners ought to have waited till the decision is taken at Mandal, Divisional and District Level Committees. In the counter it is specifically denied that the 1st respondent interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in question. 7. There is no dispute that under G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 12.9.2007, permission to undertake freshwater aquaculture is granted and G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 26.3.2008 contemplates for granting of permission within two months. The respondents are not disputing this factor and are only stating that because of objections raised by the abutting land owners, their application could not be processed. Further as per the endorsement of the 1st respondent – Tahsildar, he has submitted report in R.C.A.No.252/2008 dated 8.5.2008 to the District Collector, Krishna and Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada. In the counter it is stated that the petitioners also could not produce any documentary proof, evidencing ownership, hence their applications could not be proceed. 8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: “The 7th petitioner may file an application as per the above referred G.Os. and all petitioners may also submit all the relevant documents including the documents showing their ownership of the property, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the respondents shall consider the applications of all the petitioners in the light of G.O.Ms.Nos.83 and 18 and the endorsement of the 1st respondent – Tahsildar dated 8.5.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four thereafter. Until then the interim order of this court shall continue.” 9. No order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------ 17—06—2010