IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.4909 of 2010 Between: 1.Lokam Krishnarjuna Rao and another. ..... Petitioner AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P.Durga Prasad Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Fisheries Counsel for Respondent No.5: ---- Order: The petitioners, who are granted permission by respondent No.2- District Collector for digging and maintaining aquaculture ponds on their lands admeasuring Ac.2.90 cents in Survey Nos.247/2C, 2A, 2B and Ac.0.91 cents in Survey No.247 of Bethapudi Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, for a period of five years, filed this Writ Petition anticipating that in pursuance of notice, dated 31-12-2009, issued by respondent No.3, their permission may be cancelled. The averments contained in the affidavit and the material filed in support thereof, show that respondent No.5, who is the neighbouring land owner, filed objections. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3- Deputy Director issued notices, dated 30-10-2009, to the petitioners, whereby, they were called upon to see that the lands of neighbouring landowners are not affected by seepage of water from their fish ponds and to settle the dispute between them and the neighbouring landowners within a week, failing which, he will take steps to get the permissions granted by respondent No.2- District Collector cancelled. In reply to the said notices, the petitioners informed respondent No.3- Deputy Director that the land of respondent No.5 is situated 256 feet away from the existing fish ponds and that immediately after the fish ponds, there is a bodhi (drainage) of a width of 6 feet and adjacent thereto, there is a bund of 156 feet. The petitioners therefore denied the allegation that the seepage water from their fish ponds may affect the land of respondent No.5. However, by notice, dated 31- 12-2009, respondent No.3 informed respondent No.5 that action is being taken for holding enquiry into her objections. The above-mentioned facts show that so far no action has been taken by the official respondents for cancellation of the permissions granted in favour of the petitioners. From the notice, issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.5 referred to above, the petitioners apprehend that the official respondents may cancel their permission. But the contents of the said notice only indicate that respondent No.3 will hold enquiry into the objections raised by respondent No.5. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that in the enquiry that may be initiated by respondent No.3, he will take into consideration, the objections raised by respondent No.5 and also the explanation submitted by the petitioners in an objective and dispassionate manner and may drop action, if the petitioners are able to satisfy that they have not violated any of the conditions, subject to which permissions were granted in their favour. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6324 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th March, 2010 lur