IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7735 of 2009 Between: Ankala Bhogeswara Rao S/o.Late Lakshmana Swamy R/o.Narasimhapuram, H/o. Santoshapuram Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Chilukuri Ranga Rao S/o.Late Yenkanna 1-94, Narasimhapuram, H/o. Santoshpuram Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take necessary action against petitioner complaint/ representation dated 03.03.2009 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KATAKAMSUNEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed on the grievance that the respondents 2 and 3 have not acted on the petitioner’s representation dt. 3.3.2009 complaining that the 4th respondent continues with illegal prawn culture. The petitioner is the owner of 0.50 cents in R.S.No. 300 of Kondangi revenue village. The 4th respondent owns 0.80 cents of land adjacent to the petitioner’s land, in R.S.No. 301 to the immediate east of the petitioner’s land. The petitioner is now cultivating paddy in his land, while the 4th respondent is said to have ‘recently’ taken to unauthorized prawn culture by digging a tank in his land and on account of which, the petitioner’s land is becoming water logged and the toxic effluents of the 4th respondent’s fish/prawn culture are percolating into petitioner’s land. This is the substantive grievance herein. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 20815 of 2008 for a similar relief i.e. to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take action against the 4th respondent. By an order dt. 19.11.2008, the writ petition was disposed of directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner’s application complaining of the unauthorized conduct of the 4th respondent in the matter of converting his land for aqua culture. Even thereafter, despite the petitioner’s repeated representations to the respondents 2 and 3, they have not acted is the grievance that brings the petitioner to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent is pursuing aqua culture without obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and that the respondents 2 and 3 have acquiesced in this illegal pursuit of the 4th respondent. It is also alleged that the 3rd respondent has permitted the 4th respondent to increase the depth of the pond and to drain out excess water into an irrigation channel. Even this order of the 3rd respondent was not complied with by the 4th respondent (to close the drain), as a consequence, the water from the 4th respondent’s land is inundating the field of the petitioner, is also the complaint. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the lands in R.S.Nos. 300, 301 and 302 were converted into prawn culture even earlier to 1995 and later an extent of 0.50 cents was converted from prawn tank to paddy cultivation by the petitioner in which the petitioner has also a small pond of an extent of 0.02 cents which the petitioner claims to be a drinking water tank, which the petitioner alleges being polluted by the seepage from the prawn tank of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent’s counter asserts that even the petitioner had pursued aqua culture in 1405 Fasli i.e. in 1995 AD and refers to an Adangal for the Fasli 1405 in respect of R.S.No. 300 of Kondangi village, in support of this assertion. The counter further asserts that the District Collector, Krishna District/the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dt. 30.8.2008 had granted permission and regularized the tank of the 4th respondent in R.S.No. 301 in an extent of 0.80 cents, owned by the 4th respondent. Rebutting the petitioner’s claim of damage to his drinking water tank by seepage from the 4th respondent’s fish tank, the 3rd respondent counter states that the petitioner has a Panchayat drinking water connection and is not dependant on the water from the tank situated in an extent of 0.02 cents in R.S.No. 301 for drinking purposes. In substance, the 3rd respondent states that there is no violation of any public law duty by the 4th respondent’s aqua culture in view of the fact that the tank of the 4th respondent was permitted and regularized by the order of the District Collector, Krishna District dt. 30.8.2008 vide proceedings No. 1884/C/2007. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the District Collector’s order dt. 30.8.2008 granting permission or regularizing the fish tank of the 4th respondent is irregular and contrary to the petitioner’s interest. In the absence of any challenge to the 2nd respondent’s order dt. 30.8.2008 that issue cannot be examined in this writ petition. In any event, it requires to be noticed that merely because the 2nd respondent has permitted the 4th respondent to establish a fish tank in his land, that would not legitimize any damage that the petitioner suffers on account of an injurious course of conduct pursued by the 4th respondent; conduct which is likely to diminute the value of the land of the petitioner. If the 4th respondent’s conduct is calculated to cause a civil or a tortuous injury, it is for the petitioner to assert and establish the same before appropriate court of competent jurisdiction and claim damages or injunction. A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of such private non-public law domain claims is not appropriate. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies as advised against any grievance subsisting as to the conduct of the 4th respondent. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 29.7.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 7735 of 2009 Dated: 29.7.2009.