Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8015/2025 of INDUKURI VENKATA RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 8015/2025 Between: 1. INDUKURI VENKATA RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O VENKTA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAJU AGED 56 YEARS, OCC
APHC010155932025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 8015/2025
Between:
1. INDUKURI VENKATA RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O VENKTA
LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAJU AGED 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O 3-37, JANAKIRAMARAJU PURAM. NEAR RAMALAYAM, CHINAKAPAVARAM, AKIVEEDU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST.,
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECREATARY, FISHARIES DEPARTMENT, SECREATARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUTNUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF AP., AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR / DISTRICT LEVEL IMPLIMENTATION
COMMITTEE DLIC, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DIST.,
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, WEST GODAVARI, AT
BHIMAVARAM.
5. THE
REVEUNE
DIVISIONAL
OFFICER,
BHIMAVARAM,
W.G.DISTRICT.
6. THE
FISHARIES
DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER,
AKIVEEDU,
W.G.DISTRICT.
7. THE
THAHSILDHAR,
AKIVEEDU
MANDAL,
AKIVEEDU,
W.G.DISTRICT.
8. PATHAPATI SRAVANTHI, W/0 RAMARAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE,
CHINAKAPAVARAM
VILLAGE,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, AKIVEEDU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
9. MUPPANENI BHARATH, S/O JANARDHANARAO, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 104, GRK VIRIAY CLASSIC, DR.NO. 7-34/1, CHINAMIRDM, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT.
10. MUPPANENI KISHORE, S/O JANARDHANARAO, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 104, GRK VINAY CLASSIC, DR.NO. 7-34/1, CHINAMIRAM, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ,Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents
allowing the un-official respondents to dig the fish ponds in lands in Sy.Nos., 284-2b, 285-1A-2, 285-2A-2, 314-8b-2, 315-2, 314-8a, 314-8b-3, 284-2A, 285-1 A-1, 285-2A-1, 314-8b-1, 315-1 total extent of Ac. 4.00 cents, adjesent to the lands of the petitioners without prior permissions and without following the procedure established any under G.O.M.S.no. 7 Animal Husbandary, Dairy Development Fisheries (Fish) Department, Dated 16-03-2013, without leaving the boundaries as spicified in the G.O is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional violative of principles of natural justice Consequently to direct the respondents to stop the digging the fish ponds in the in Sy.nos., 284-2b, 285-1A-2, 285-2A-2, 314-8b-2, 315-2, 314-8a, 314-8b-3, 284-2A, 285-1A-1
285- 2A-1, 314-8b-1, 315-1 total extent of Ac. 4.00 cents, adjesent to the lands of the petitioners and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to dig the fish ponds in the in Sy.nos., 284-2b, 285-1A-2, 285-2A-2, 314-8b-2, 315-2, 314-8a, 314-8b-3, 284-2A, 285-1A-1, 285-2A-1, 314-8b-1, 315-1 total extent of Ac. 4.00 cents, adjesent to the lands of the petitioners pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 27.03.2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JAMI MADHAVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR FISHERIES
3. K V L NARASIMHA RAO
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.8015 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the unofficial respondents in restraining respondent Nos.8 to 10 from bringing agricultural lands under cultivation and converting the same into fish ponds in Sy.Nos.284-2B, 285-1A-2, 285-2A-2, 314-8B-2, 315-2, 314-8A, 314-8B-3, 284-2A, 285-1A-1, 285-2A-1, 314-8B-1 & 315-1.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 to 10 submits that the competent authority has granted the requisite licence on 15.06.2025 for a new freshwater aquaculture farm. It is submitted that the competent authority has granted the requisite permission for aquaculture cultivation over an extent of three acres of land. The licence granted has also been placed before this Court for reference.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said licence granted in favour of respondent Nos.8 to 10 is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
4. Be that as it may, in view of the licence issued in favour of respondent Nos.8 to 10, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate further steps in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 17.09.2026 KGM
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned ☑ Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
WRIT PETITION No.8015 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2026
KGM