Aquaculture - shrimp ponds are converted by the CRZ Notification and are prohibited activities. Direction to demolish ponds within prescribed time.
Shrimp culture industry/the shrimp culture industries are covered by the prohibition contained in para2 (1) of the CRZ notification. No shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation Zone as defined in the CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional and improved traditional types of technologies as defined in Alagarswami report which are practiced in the coastal low lying areas .The farmers who are operating traditional and improved traditional systems of acquaculture may adopt improved technology for increased production, productivity and return with prior approval of the "authority" constituted. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used/converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds.
An industry dependent on the seawater cannot by itself is an industry "directly related to water front" or "directly needing foreshore facilities". For shrimp industry what is required is brackish water which can be drawn from nay source including sea and carried to any distance by pipes. The purpose of CRZ notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal areas and to safe guard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the seacoast. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms on the sea coast and construction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The Supreme Court therefore held that the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities". The setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ notification cannot be permitted. [S.Jagannath vs Union of India . Judgments Today 1997(1) SC 160=(1997)2 SCC 87= 1997(1) KLT SN.32.Page 24 = 1977 AIRSW 635. Kuldip Singh and S.Sagir Ahmad(JJ).] [Re-affirmed in Gopi Aqua Farms and others vs Union of India . AIR 1977 SC 3519]
Aquaculture – Directions issued applicable to all prawn culture and shrimp culture .The direction issued by the Supreme Court of India applies to all types of aqua culture like prawn culture, shrimp culture. The direction of the Supreme Court is not confined to shrimp culture or prawn culture in brackish/saline water within Coastal Regulation Zone but applicable to aquaculture and prawn culture in fresh water. [Madereddy Padma Rambabu vs. District Forest Officer. AIR 2002 AP 256 : 2002 (3) AndhLT 57. ]
Aquaculture – Earlier PIL has been given wide publicity – Large number of persons appeared – Few persons cannot say that they were unaware of the proceedings and so should be heard all over again.In public interest litigation Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C does not apply. A large number of persons appeared. Few farmers cannot come and say that they were not made parties . Such practice has been depreciated in Makhanlal Waza vs State of J & K. AIR 1971 SC 2206. [Gopi Aqua Farms and others vs. Tamil Nadu Aqua culturists Federation. AIR 1997 SC 3519. (1997)6 SCC 577 .]
Aquaculture farms -Construction affecting the nearby tank - Discharging organic effluents - Authorities can take action Aquaculture farms within the tank bed of a tank - They cannot be permitted to destroy the very irrigation system with a view to see that their lands do not get submerged in the tank . Petitioners cannot be permitted to raise bunds damaging the very irrigation system. Tank bed land is meant for public purpose [ K.K.Krishnaiah v. Mandal Executive Magistrate. AIR 2001 A.P. 190. ]