Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns and possesses agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.67/1 of I. Polavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. The said land was purchased by the petitioner's father and kept the same in the petitioner's name on 12.12.2000 and since then the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner made a complaint to the respondent authorities against the illegal cultivation of shrimp and prawn culture taken up by the 6th respondent, who is her western neighbor in the land extent Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.66-3 of I. Polavaram Mandal. Because of illegal digging of the fish pond by the 6th 2 MGR, J respondent in his land and cultivating shrimp and prawn culture illegally and due to release and seepage of saline water from the fish pond of the 6th respondent, the petitioner's land is damaged over a period of time and the paddy crop is withered and dried away and in support of her contention, she filed photographs at Page Nos.49, 50 and 51 along with writ petition. The photographs clearly shows that due to seepage of water from the 6th respondent fish pond, the paddy crop raised by the petitioner is withered away and became pale and yellow. It could be held that due to seepage of saline water from the 6th respondent's fish pond over a period, the petitioner's land has become saline and not fit for raising any crop.

2. The 6th respondent in his counter averred that he obtained permission for doing culture of Penaeus Monodn species from the 1st respondent coastal aquaculture authority on 09.2.2009 and the petitioner was permitted to culture the above species not exceeding sock density of 1,00,000 per hector and 2 crops per year under the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made therein.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 and Coastal 3 MGR, J Aquaculture Authority Rules, 2005 have no application to the petitioner's land as the lands are outside the coastal area. The petitioner at present obtained license/registration on 16.6.2021 from the 3rd respondent for doing fresh water aquaculture in his lands under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to "APSADA Act"), 2020 and the rules made thereunder. The 6th respondent's land is a fresh water area without any influence of saline water through many water ways and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. However, the registration was given to the 6th respondent as per the recommendation of the District Level Committee of East Godavari District, the same was expired on 08.2.2019 and thereafter it was not renewed. The Coastal Aquaculture Authority received a complaint dated 20.3.2021 against the 6th respondent to take action against the shrimp farming by the 6th respondent vide CAA Registration No.AP-II-2008(3745) in Sy.No.66/3 at Pedamamidi village and the said shrimp farm is surrounded by agricultural lands of the petitioner. The said shrimp farm is reportedly causing soil degradation and salinization of the surrounding agricultural lands due to improper drainage for silt and waste water management in the farm. The complaint was forwarded by 4 MGR, J Coastal Aquaculture Authority to the District Collector cum Chairman, District Level Committee, East Godavari District on 28.4.2021 and 24.6.2021 with a copy to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada and to visit the site and submit report to the Coastal Aquaculture Authority.

5. The petitioner by way of reply states that on 02.8.2021 she submitted an appeal in the shape of representation to the Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh who in turn vide Memo dated 03.08.2021 directed the Joint Director of Fisheries, East Godavari District to conduct detailed enquiry and take action and submit report to the Commissioner of Fisheries. So far no action is taken with regard to illegal cultivation of the shrimp and prawn culture by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent has dug bore well unauthorizedly contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act and using the same to draw saline water 6 MGR, J to rear shrimp and prawn culture in the aqua ponds for which the 4th respondent Tahsildar has not taken any action.

10 MGR, J

9. In view of the above discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the 6th respondent having obtained permission from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority in the year 2009 even though the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder do not apply to the 6th respondent's aqua farm and the same is outside the aqua culture zone, the same was got renewed and later expired on 08.2.2019. Since 2009 it appears that the 6th respondent has resorted for illegal shrimp and prawn culture by drawing saline water from the bore well, contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act. The freshwater aquaculture permission could be granted where the lands are submersible, inundated, due to stagnation of water not fit for paddy culture or agricultural purpose. Hence, the question of digging the bore well for fresh water aquaculture does not arise. Under the guise of the drawing saline water from the bore wells, aqua culture farmists are resorting to shrimp and prawn culture by using saline water drawn from the bore wells dug illegally contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act and thereby, due to seepage of waste water from the aquaculture farms, surrounding agricultural lands have become saline and not fit for any agricultural purpose and the crop is 11 MGR, J withered and dried away and thereby, damage is caused to neighboring land owners and in turn, the waste water discharged into the fresh water areas and into agricultural lands will certainly cause environmental damage in the area, de hors to all the provisions of law enumerated under the APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder and also under Air and Water Pollution Act and environmental laws and contrary to the provisions of APSADA Act and the rules made thereunder. Most of the aquaculture farms are outside the aquaculture zone. In the present case, the 6th respondent's aquaculture farms are situated outside the aquaculture zone and illegally obtained permission under the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder and continued shrimp and prawn culture by drawing saline water from the bore wells and due to seepage of waste water/saline water from the 6th respondent aqua farms, the neighbouring lands, including the petitioner's land got damaged and paddy crop is withered away and the crop has become pale and yellow as seen from the photographs and it can be presumed that what amount of damage is caused to the land and environment due to the illegal aquaculture under taken by the 6th respondent.