IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15250 of 2005 Between: 1 Boppana Prabhakara Rao, s/o Subbaiah, r/o H.No.21- 339-23, Bhaskarapuram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Gogineni Annapurna, w/o Vajreswara Rao, r/o Behind Eenadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Gogineni Sugnana Madhavilatha, w/o Bala Koteswara Rao, r/o APHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, s/o Sriramulu, r/o Gundupalem Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Nimmagadda Bhagyalakshmi, w/o Venkata Krishna Rao, r/o Gundupalem Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15250 of 2005 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare memo dated 07.07.2005 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Perused the record. The dispute pertains to the petitioners carrying on prawn culture in their patta lands in R.S.Nos.1111 and 1139 of Mallavolu Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. On an earlier occasion, respondents 3 and 4 ﬁled Writ Petition No.23417 of 2004 with a grievance that respondents 1 and 2 have not been taking appropriate action against petitioner No.1 for carrying on the prawn culture over the land admeasuring R.S.No.1111 of Mallavolu Village. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court having taken note of the settled legal position by the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Jagannath v. Union of India[1] and in terms of order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.22726 of 2004. In the said order, the Division Bench directed that respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate decision within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order whether to permit the petitioners therein to carry on the activity of prawn culture in their patta lands. Thereafter, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 to petitioner No.1 in respect of R.S.No.1111 admeasuring Acs.7.00. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by him, respondent No.2 stated that in pursuance of the said notice, petitioner No.1 attended his oﬃce on 05.03.2005 and gave a statement that he got only Ac.1.30 cents in R.S.No.1111 of Mallavolu Village and that he is carrying on agricultural operations only in the said land and he never converted the said land into ﬁsh/prawn tank. He further stated that petitioner No.1 stated before him that he and his brothers converted some other lands for ﬁsh/prawn culture since the year 1991. That on the directions given by the District Collector in his letter dated 05.07.2005, respondent No.2 issued memo dated 07.07.2005 to the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gudur, to demolish the ponds in R.S.No.1139 and to report compliance and that the petitioners themselves volunteered to drain out water from ﬁsh tanks by breaching the existing bunds and removed the ﬁsh ponds on 07.07.2005 and that petitioner No.1 gave a statement on the said day assuring that he would level the land for agricultural purpose in future. It was reported to the District Collector, Krishna, on 08.07.2005. Respondent No.2 alleged that contrary to the said assurance, petitioners ﬁled the present Writ Petition and obtained interim stay on 14.07.2005 by which time, the tanks were already demolished. That on the strength of the interim order, they again started ﬁshing/prawn activity in the lands in survey Nos.1139/2A, 2B and 2C. The fact that no person can carry on ﬁsh/prawn activity even in their patta lands without permission is well settled by the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in S.Jagannath v. Union of India (1 supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.22726 of 2004. The Division Bench of this Court followed the said judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, without speciﬁc permission of the competent authority, the petitioners are not entitled to carry on the ﬁsh/prawn activity in their patta lands. Inasmuch as this Court granted interim stay on 14.07.2005, on the strength of which the petitioners are carrying on the pisce/prawn culture in their patta lands in Survey No.1139, and the further fact that the petitioners have failed to substantiate their plea that on earlier occasion, the District Collector, Krishna, granted them permission, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms. (a) Within two {2} weeks from today, the petitioners shall approach the competent authority for granting necessary permissions to carry on the ﬁsh/prawn activities over their patta lands; (b) Within four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of such applications, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same on merits; and (c) If the permission is either declined or the petitioners do not apply for any such permission, respondents 1 and 2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioners, if they continue to carry on the above mentioned activities without any permission. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th August 2008 RRB [1] AIR 1997 SC 811 = 1997 AIR SCW 635