IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 516 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/03/2009 in WP NO : 26287 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Madasu Venkateswara Rao S/o.Krishna Murthy R/o.Penduru Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Maruboyina Balakrishna S/o.Venkateswararao R/o.Penduru Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Irrigation, represented by its Dy. Engineer, Gudlavalleru Division, Gudlavalleru, Krishna District. 3 The Asst. Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gudlavalleru, Krishna District. 4 District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 5 Gram Panchayat, Represented by its Secretary, Penduru, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MRP.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2009 made in W.P. No.26287 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this court disposing of the writ petition with certain directions, the writ petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. There was a vie in between the Gram Panchayath and Water Users Association in respect of granting of lease of fishing rights in the drain that runs through RS No. 126, Pendurru village of Bantumilli Mandal, Krishan District. While the appellant herein was granted lease by the Water Users Association the first respondent herein was granted lease by the Gram Panchayath. The grievance of the first respondent herein is that the respondents 2 to 5 are interfering with his fishing operations. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has left it open to first respondent herein to approach the District Collector, Krishna, within a period of six weeks, with a representation, who in turn was directed to decide the matter duly ascertaining the views of the Irrigation and Panchayath Raj Departments. In the meanwhile, the fishery operations by the first respondent herein were directed to be undertaken under the supervision of the authorities of the Irrigation Department and to deposit the sale proceeds to the credit of Gram Panchayath, which shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of two months and the manner in which the money should be distributed shall depend upon the nature of decision that may be taken by the District Collector. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner preferred the present Writ Appeal. As can be seen from the order impugned, the learned Single Judge observed that while enacting the A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, the Legislature did not anticipate the Andhra Pradesh Farmers’ Management of Irrigation Systems Act and, as such, the Act is silent about vesting of drains, whereas Sec. 19 of the Water Users Associations Act deals with various categories of water works including drains. Therefore, having regard to the conflict as to the vesting of drains or right to grant lease of fishery rights over the same, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the District Collector, Krishna, can address the issue by ascertaining the view of the Departments of Panchayath Raj and Irrigation, inasmuch as the issue would have its own impact on large number of cases. The grant of lease to the appellant and the first respondents by the Water Users Association and Gram Panchayath, Pendurru village respectively, is not in dispute and, therefore, both of them are similarly placed having been granted lease. When there is conflict as regards the vesting of drains or right to grant lease of fishery rights over the same, the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar April 18, 2009 MAS