APHC010656012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1067 of 2026 [3584] Datla Srinivasa Raju and another ...Appellant(s) Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 28th September, 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: SRI O.MANOHAR REDDY, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR.V V L N SARMA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR REVENUE, GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FISHERIES *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present appeal is directed against order, dated 15.10.2025, passed in W.P.No.321 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 2. Appellants/writ petitioners filed writ petition questioning the inaction of respondents therein in taking action against unofficial respondents in pursuance to their representations, dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A. No.1067 of 2026 Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 (for short, “AP SADA Act”). 3. Appellants claim to be owning agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.49 cents and Ac.0.50 cents in Survey Nos.311-2A and 312-1C respectively of Undi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. The unofficial respondents made application for digging fish tank on 25.10.2024, the same was acceded to, and 6th respondent granted license on 28.10.2024, permitting development of fish tank in an extent of Ac.13.52 cents in Survey Nos. 310, 312, 318, and 319 of Undi village. The irrigation source for lands of both appellants as well as unofficial respondents is stated to be connected to Puligumma Canal at Pipe No.16, and that the lands of unofficial respondents are at head point, whereas the one belonging to appellants are downstream, thus, on account of developing fish tank, appellants were deprived and denied irrigation source, therefore, they have made complaints vide letters, dated 14.11.2024 and 16.12.2024, requesting 4th respondent to take appropriate action. As complaints were not looked into, appellants preferred writ petition. 4. During pendency of writ petition, direction was issued to official respondents to consider the representations of appellants/writ petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A. No.1067 of 2026 5. In compliance thereof, by order dated 27.01.2025, District Fisheries Officer/Member Secretary, DLIC, Bhimavaram, passed speaking order, dated 27.01.2025, disposing representations of appellants. 6. Both official and unofficial respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the writ petition. It was pleaded that appellants had purchased agricultural lands after the area was notified as Aqua Zone vide notification, dated 06.02.2020, and that as of now, no agricultural activity ever been undertaken by appellants. Further, unofficial respondents have already provided an alternate ryotwari bode to irrigate the lands of appellants. Further, the license granted in favour of unofficial respondents was strictly in accordance with Rule 12(6) of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Rules, 2020 (for short, “the Rules”), therefore, there is no illegality committed in issuance of license. The official respondents also pleaded that, as against the grant of license as well as the speaking orders, appellants have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35 of the AP SADA Act, thus, the writ petition has lived its purpose. 7. Learned Single Judge, having considered aforesaid submissions, dismissed writ petition. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A. No.1067 of 2026 8. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for appellants; and learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Agriculture appearing for official respondents; and learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants contended that fish cultivation activity undertaken by unofficial respondents has been hampering and disturbing the existing irrigation facilities of neighbouring ryots, including appellants, the natural irrigation channels have been disturbed. Further, it is also contended that 6th respondent, even without verification of ground realities and disturbance caused to irrigation sources, in a mechanical way granted license in favour of unofficial respondents, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Learned Government Pleaders appearing for official respondents, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, contended that when the entire area has already been notified as Aqua Zone, appellants have taken calculated risk in purchasing lands with an intention to undertake agricultural activity. Further, that once the area is notified as Aqua Zone, grant of licenses to prospective fish pond cultivators is governed by Rule 12 of the Rules, which in the present case has been followed without any deviation, thus, appellants cannot have any grievance at all. The scheme of Rules does 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A. No.1067 of 2026 not envisage issuance of notice to neighbouring landowners. The very purpose and purport of making a legislation regulating aqua cultivation was to ensure fish cultivation is undertaken in a designated area without hindrance to other neighbouring landowners. 11. Learned counsel for unofficial respondents contended that even though appellants have not been cultivating the lands since acquisition, nevertheless, alternate source of water channel was created and provided, thus, appellants cannot have any grievance on that count, therefore, it was urged to dismiss the appeal. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to submissions made above and perused the record. 13. Admittedly, appellants have purchased subject lands in the year 2021, only after the area was notified as Aqua Zone vide notification dated 06.02.2020. The unofficial respondents, though at first instance were refused license, later, after the Rules being notified on 05.02.2021 vide G.O.Rt. No. 28, in consonance with the applicable Rules, license was granted for undertaking fish cultivation in an extent of Ac.13.52 cents. The initial grievance of appellants was that despite objections being raised by way of representations, dated 04.11.2024 and 16.12.2024, the same were not considered by 4th respondent. The Writ 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A. No.1067 of 2026 Court directed consideration of the said representations, and by order dated 27.01.2025, the objections came to be disposed. In a way, the grievance of appellants stood redressed. The order disposing objections admittedly is not under challenge in the writ petition, nor any appeal is preferred later. 14. Be that as it may, District Fisheries Officer/Member Secretary, DLIC, Bhimavaram, who passed orders, dated 27.01.2025, has categorically observed that appellants have been provided alternate source for cultivating their lands by setting up a Ryotwari Bode on the northern side boundary of unofficial respondents. It was also observed that except for appellants, none of the other neighbouring landowners raised any objections, inasmuch as all these lands were located in Aqua Zone. 15. The learned Single Judge, having taken note of the observations made above, came to conclusion that appellants did have water facility, and nonetheless, they were not undertaking any agricultural activity so far. Further, it was also noted that appellants had the remedy of preferring appeal under Section 35 of the AP SADA Act, which was not availed. The findings of learned Single Judge, in our considered view, are sound, reasoned, and justified, and do not call for any interference exercising our appellate jurisdiction. 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A. No.1067 of 2026 16. We, therefore, find no merit in writ appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs