Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Justice Elipe Dharma Rao Retd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
APHC010036142018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-29
[3483]
AT AMARAVATI
WP(PIL) NO: 8 of 2018
Justice Elipe Dharma Rao (retd) ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate for Petitioner: Letter
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Fisheries
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 17th September 2025
PC:
The present public interest litigation pertains to the illegal conversion of fertile lands into fish/shrimp ponds in the Konseema area, which is otherwise considered to be rice bowl of Andhra Pradesh, in the East Godavari District as also in the coastal areas of West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Nellore Districts.
The conversion of fertile lands into fish and shrimp ponds, it was alleged, would seriously affect the agricultural operations but also to the 2 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL)_8_2018 ecology, flora and fauna in the entire area, which would make the lands unsuitable for any agricultural operations.
2. The stand of the respondents in this regard is that with a view to check and regulate this activity, the Government conducted series of meetings and heard the grievances of aqua farmers and took suggestions with a view to streamline the implementation of the guidelines and considered cases for regularization of existing unregistered freshwater aquaculture farms and also for registering new fresh aquaculture farms. The guidelines were formulated by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.7, AH,DD & Fisheries (Fish-UII) Dept, dated 16.03.2013, with a view to ensuring that freshwater aquaculture should not in any case cause detriment to the ecology and environment and that the activities were regulated to protect the livelihood of various sections of people.
3. According to the stand of the Government, District Level Committees were also setup to implement the guidelines from time to time. Some of the guidelines specifically dealt with fertile agricultural lands not to be permitted for conversion into freshwater aquaculture ponds except in cases where agricultural lands were less productive, fallow, low lying, prone to water logging etc.
4. The stand of the respondents is that the area between highest high tide lands (HTL) to up to 2.00 KM area of sea, rivers and backwaters come under Brackish water aquaculture (which comes under the area of Coastal 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL)_8_2018 Aquaculture Authority (CAA)), while rest of the areas come under freshwater aquaculture. It is also stated that the CAA has constituted committees at State level under the chairmanship of Secretary-in-charge of Fisheries and at District level under the Chairmanship of the District Collector to regulate those farms which are located outside CRZ and the land between the Highest High Tide Line (HTL) to up to 2.00 KM area.
5. Another G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 25.05.2015, came to be issued by virtue of which a Committee was constituted for undertaking survey and identification of areas for declaration of aquaculture zones with the objective of preventing the conversion of fertile agricultural fields into fish ponds and to take up fish culture in the low lying, prone to water lying and agriculturally unproductive lands. The criteria that was followed for conducting the survey was to identify the lands which were prone to inundation, low lying besides creeks, canals, drains.
Another Committee was constituted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.8, dated 23.02.2018, with a view to study the various issues like criteria for declaration of zones, obtain expert opinion and recommend appropriate course of action to the Government.
6. All this has been reflected with a view to show the concern of the Government that it was taking every possible step to sustain and regulate aqua-farming in the State by following the guidelines prescribed as per 4 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL)_8_2018 G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013, apart from the regulation of Brackish water aquaculture as per the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, Rules and Guidelines framed thereunder with a view to ensure that the aquaculture did not cause any detriment to the ecology, environment, customary agricultural activities, public health and above all, livelihood of different sections of people.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that there is now in force the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 (APSADA Act), which now governs the aquaculture activity in the State and that the provisions of the said Act were being religiously and effectively implemented by the authorities.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the respondents, we feel that no further directions are required to be issued in view of the fact that there is in place now a comprehensive mechanism to regulate the aquaculture activity in the State. The proceedings are, accordingly, closed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 5 102 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL)_8_2018 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition (PIL) No: 8 of 2018 DATE : 17.09.2025 AKN