No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
APHC010249542020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 16411/2020
Between:
B. Venugopal Rao,
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
2.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
4.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
1
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 16411/2020
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3233]
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S)
APHC010129092020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HONOURABLE
WRIT PETITION NO: 7736/2020
Between:
K. Murali Mohan Reddy,
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
2.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
2
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3233]
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 7736/2020
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
wp_16411_2020 & batch
[3233]
SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S)
APHC010249552020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 16410/2020
Between:
P. Viswanatha Reddy
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 16410/2020
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3233]
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S)
APHC010265762020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 17541/2020
Between:
K Murali Mohan Reddy
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
The Court made the following:
C O M M O N O R D E R
In the years 1992, 1993 and 2001, the SRBC [
Canal]
authorities have acquired the lands
located in Banganapalle, Bhanumukkala, Bathulurupadu Villages of
Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District vide Award No.4/92
Cents), Award No.6/91-92 (Ac.23.48 Cents), Award No.14/91
4
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 17541/2020
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Respondent(S):
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
The Court made the following: C O M M O N O R D E R
In the years 1992, 1993 and 2001, the SRBC [
Srisailam Right Branch
have acquired the lands belonging to the private persons
located in Banganapalle, Bhanumukkala, Bathulurupadu Villages of
Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District vide Award No.4/92 -93 (Ac.79.71
92 (Ac.23.48 Cents), Award No.14/91-92 (
wp_16411_2020 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3233]
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S)
Srisailam Right Branch
belonging to the private persons
located in Banganapalle, Bhanumukkala, Bathulurupadu Villages of
93 (Ac.79.71
92 (Ac.29.73
5
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Cents), Award No.18/92-93 (Ac.31.37 Cents), and Award No.34 (Ac. 49.30
Cents) for the following purposes:
a) For Srisailam Right Bank Canal;
b) For Approach and Trial Channel of Mutchatla Vagu aqueduct for
package No.9 of SRBC;
c) For excavation of Additional Quarry for C.N.S. Soils to Block No. X of
Srisailam Right Bank Canal.
On 30.12.2019, the Government issued the G.O.Ms.No.510,
(Revenue)-lands Department authorizing the District Collectors of the
respective Districts to resume the unutilized Government Lands on the
grounds of violation of conditions or non utilization of the allotted land
which was earlier alienated in favour of private individuals/private
organizations/Government Organizations/Government Departments/Public
Sector Undertakings/State Government Corporations/Urban Development
Authorities & Urban Local Bodies on the ground of violation of conditions or
non-utilization of the alienated lands in terms of G.O.Ms.No.57, Revenue
(Assn. I) Department, dated 16.02.2015 and they are further authorised to
utilise the lands acquired by various Government departments/
Organizations for any public purpose but not put into use for the same
purpose. These lands shall be utilized for providing House sites to eligible
beneficiaries under the flagship programme of "Navaratnalu Pedalandariki
Illu”.
The District Collectors shall furnish details of such lands utilized for
house sites purpose to the Government. The District Collectors are further
instructed not to propose any lands belonging to Endowments, Educational
6
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Institutions, Wakf or any other religious related lands, environmentally
sensitive and fragile areas such as tank beds, river beds, other water bodies
and hillocks with afforestation etc., for house site purpose.
By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.510 dated 30.12.2019, the District Collector,
Kurnool has issued the impugned orders in Rc.E1/494/2020,
Rc.E1/495/2020, Rc.E1/496/2020 dated 04.03.2020 to utilize the lands
acquired by various departments for any public purpose but not put into
use for the same purpose for issuance of house sites under the programme
“Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu”. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal
reported that the lands belonging to the Water Resource Department –
SRBC were not utilized for the purpose for which they were acquired and the
same was kept unutilized for 32 years. As the said lands are fit for house
sites, the Collector directed the Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal to takeover
the possession of the lands in the below mentioned survey numbers for
provision of house sites to the eligible beneficiaries under “Navaratnalu–
Pedalandariki Illu”.
Banaganapalle Village Lands (Total to an extent of Ac. 46.00 cents)
1
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1.
55/5B1
Ac.10.50
cents
2.
61/2A2
Ac.2.80
cents
3.
62/1B1
Ac.3.00
cents
1
Rc.E1/494/2020
7
wp_16411_2020 & batch
4.
67/1
Ac.2.00
cents
5.
68/1
Ac.1.68
cents
6.
69/1A
Ac.6.11
cents
7.
70/1A
Ac.7.33
cents
8.
72/1
Ac.1.48
cents
9.
133/1
Ac.3.00
cents
10.
132/2B
Ac.3.40
cents
11.
134/1
Ac.3.00
cents
12.
146/1B1
Ac.1.70
cents
Bathulurupadu Village Lands (Total to an extent of Ac. 5.53 cents)
2
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1.
2/1B1
Ac.2.48
cents
2.
2/1B3
Ac3.05
cents
Bhanumukkala Village Lands (Total to an extent of Ac. 65.11 cents)
3
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1.
311/2C/1A
Ac.9.14
cents
2. 311/2C2
Ac.1.58
cents
3.
312/3
Ac.6.00
cents
2
Rc.E1/495/2020
3
Rc.E1/496/2020
8
wp_16411_2020 & batch
4.
312/2A2
Ac.9.52
cents
5.
314/2
Ac.5.09
cents
6.
316/1
Ac.9.99
cents
7.
317/1A
Ac.9.57
cents
8.
318
Ac.6.00
cents
9.
319
Ac.8.22
cents
The said impugned orders of the District Collector is challenged in the
present four Writ Petitions (i.e., W.P.No.16410/2020, W.P.No.16411/2020,
W.P.No.7736/2020, W.P.No.17541/2020) as illegal, arbitrary, colourable
exercise of power and consequently sought to set aside the aforesaid
impugned orders of the 2
nd
respondent (District Collector) by passing such
other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
1. Petitioners herein are the natives of Banaganapalle
(W.P.No.16411/2020), Bhanumukkala (W.P.No.7736/2020,
W.P.No.17451/2020), Bathulurupadu and Yanakandla villages
(W.P.No.16410/2020) of Banaganapalli Mandal having lands and house
properties. A big canal named as “SRBC CANAL” was dug and the same is
administered by the Respondent Government Water Resource Department.
The Canal has the capacity of 2500 cusecs and it flows from Gorakallu
reservoir to Owk and Kadapa.
9
wp_16411_2020 & batch
2. A canal margin/buffer zone is created on either side of the canal to
avert destruction of property and life in times of natural calamities such as
floods, breach of canal etc. In the recent times, the Canal got breaches for 5
to 6 times and the neighbouring colonies of Banaganapalle town got
inundated and the same was reported in the news dailies also.
The aforesaid SRBC Canal also flows through the petitioners’ villages and
there also buffer zone exists on either side of the Canal.
3. The 1
st
respondent Government in the year 2019 has come up with a
flagship project of “Navaratnalu” to provide house site pattas to poor and
needy eligible beneficiaries in the State and issued G.O.Ms.No.510 dated
30.12.2019 authorizing the District Collectors of the respective Districts to
resume the unutilized Government Lands on the grounds of violation of
conditions or non-utilization of the allotted land which was earlier alienated
in their favour. It also categorically stated in paragraph 8 of the said G.O.
that “not to propose any lands belongs to Endowments, Educational Institutions,
Wakf or any other religious related lands, environmentally sensitive and fragile areas
such as tank beds, river beds, other water bodies and hillocks with afforestation etc.,
for house site purposes.”
4. But by circumventing the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.510, dated
30.12.2019, the 2
nd respondent (District Collector) has issued the impugned
order in Rc.E1/494/2020, Rc.E1/495/2020, Rc.E1/496/2020 dated.04-03-
2020 directing the Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal to take over the
possession of the lands in the below mentioned survey numbers of
Banaganapalle (W.P.No.16411/2020), Banumukkala (W.P.No.7736/ 2020,
10
wp_16411_2020 & batch
W.P.No.17451/2020), Bathulurupadu and Yanakandla villages
(W.P.No.16410/2020) of Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District belonging
to the Water Resource Department on the ground of non-utilization of the
land for the purpose to which they were acquired.
A. W.P.No.16411/2020 (Banaganapalle Village)
SURVEY NO EXTENT
55/5B1 Ac.10.50 Cents
61/2A2 Ac.2.80 Cents
62/1B1 Ac.3.00 Cents
67/1 Ac.2. 00Cents
68/1 Ac.1.68 Cents
69/1A Ac.6.11 Cents
70/1A Ac.7.33 Cents
72/1 Ac.1.48 Cents
132/2B Ac.3.40 Cents
133/1 Ac.3.00 Cents
134/1 Ac.3.00 Cents
146/1B1 Ac.1.70 Cents
Total to an extent of Ac. 46.00 Cents
11
wp_16411_2020 & batch
B. W.P.No.16410/2020 (Bathulurupadu and Yanakandla villages)
SURVEY NO EXTENT
2/1B1 Ac.2.48 Cents
2/1B3 Ac.3.05 Cents
Total to an extent of Ac.5.53
C. W.P.No.7736/2020 (Bhanumukkala Village)
SURVEY NO EXTENT
312 Ac.6.00 Cents
319 Ac.8.22 Cents
D. W.P.No.17451/2020 (Banumukkala Village)
SURVEY NO EXTENT
311/2C/1A Ac.9.14 Cents
Sy.No.311/2C2 Ac.1.58 Cents
Sy.No.312/3 Ac.6.00 cents
Sy.No.312/2A2 Ac.9.52 cents
Sy.No.314/2 Ac. 5.09 cents
316/1 Ac.9.99 cents
12
wp_16411_2020 & batch
317/1A Ac.9.57 cents
318 Ac.6.00 cents
319 Ac.8.22 cents
Total to an extent of Ac. 65.11 cents
5. The said land in the aforesaid survey numbers is being used as canal
margins/buffer zone for both the sides of the canal meant for safeguarding
against the huge flow of water. The statement of the 2
nd respondent (District
Collector) that it is an unutilized land shocks the ordinary prudence and
amounts to non application of mind on the part of 2
nd
respondent.
6. The respondent has issued the impugned orders in Rc.E1/494/2020,
Rc.E1/495/2020 and Rc.E1/496/2020 dated.04.03.2020 without correctly
appreciating the G.O.Ms.No.510 dated. 30-12-2019 and in utter violation of
Para 8 of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.510 and has put thousands of lives at
stake including the petitioners and their family members and also if the said
construction of houses takes place on either side of the canal, it will also
result in huge loss of lives in the event of any unfortunate unforeseeable
event as stated supra.
7. If the construction of houses takes place in the open vacant land of
water resource department and human habitation takes place in view of the
pucca houses to be constructed as proposed by the government then it will
become impossible for the authorities to swiftly and readily respond,
13
wp_16411_2020 & batch
in the case of breach of canal or floods which is a common occurrence in the
State. In that event, there will be loss of life and property and if the houses
are also constructed, then huge machinery which would be required to be
present at the spot of the canal to mitigate the damage of breach of canal or
floods cannot be brought into narrow lanes of human habitation which may
result in not only loss of human lives and also complete destruction of
house sites formed under the flagship project of Navaratnalu and noble
cause of providing houses to the poor and needy will result in tragedy.
8. The respondent in utter violation of G.O.Ms.No.510 has proposed to
take away the vacant land of water resource department citing the reason of
non-utilization of lands lacks bona fides and has grossly misunderstood the
said G.O. In the present case it can be said that the proper utilization of the
above said proposed lands is by actually keeping them vacant to meet the
future emergencies and it amounts to proper utilization of the same.
But just because the said land is vacant, it cannot be construed as
non-utilization of the above said land and this non appreciation of facts by
the respondent would render the petitioners and other villagers vulnerable
to natural calamities and make them shelter less.
9. In the similar circumstances, this Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in W.P.No.7736 of 2020 by order dated 19.03.2020 has declared
the action of respondents who proposed to allot the SRBC Canal/Buffer
Zone lands for the purpose of “Navartnalu Pedalandariki Illu” scheme as
illegal by relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Intellectual
14
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Forum, Tirupati vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
4. The present subject matter is
squarely covered by the order dated.19-03-2020 passed in W.P.No.7736 of
2020.
PRAYER:
10. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue
any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Mandamus, declaring that the impugned orders of 2
nd
respondent in
Rc.E1/494/2020, Rc.E1/495/2020, Rc.E1/496/2020 dated.04-03-2020
and taking over the SRBC canal/Buffer Zone lands in
1. Sy.No.55/5B1 to an extent of Ac.10.50 cents, Sy.No.61/2A2 to an extent
of Ac.2.80 Cents, Sy.No.62/1B1 to an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents,
Sy.No.67/1 to an extent of Ac.6.11 Cents, Sy.No.68/1 to an extent of
Ac.1.68 Cents, Sy.No.69/1A to an extent of Ac.6.11 Cents, Sy.No.70/1A
to an extent of Ac.7.33 Cents, Sy.No.72/1 to an extent of Ac.1.48 Cents,
Sy.No.132/2B to an extent of Ac.3.40 Cents, Sy.No.133/1 to an extent of
Ac.3.00 Cents, Sy.No.134/1 to an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents,
Sy.No.146/1B1 to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents (Total to an extent of Ac.
46.00 cents) of Banaganapalle Village and Mandal;
2. Sy.No.2/1B1 to an extent of Ac.2.48 cents, Sy.No.2/1B3 to an extent of
Ac.3.05 Cents (Total to an extent of Ac. 5.53 cents) in Bathulurupadu
and Yanakandla village of Banaganapalle Mandal;
3. Sy.No. 312 & 319 to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents and Ac.8.22 cents
respectively in Banumukala Village, Banganapalle Mandal;
4
AIR 2006 SC 1350
15
wp_16411_2020 & batch
4. Sy.No.311/2C/1A to an extent of Ac.9.14 cents, Sy.No.311/2C2 to an
extent of Ac.1.58 cents, Sy.No.312/3 to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents,
Sy.No.312/2A2 to an extent of Ac.9.52 cents, Sy.No.314/2 to an extent of
Ac.5.09 cents, Sy.No.316/1 to an extent of Ac.9.99 cents, Sy.No.317/1A
to an extent of Ac.9.57 cents, Sy.No.318 to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents
and Sy.No.319 to an extent of Ac.8.22 cents (Total to an extent of
Ac.65.11 cents) of Banumukkala Village, Banaganapalle Mandal;
for the purpose of the house sites under “Navaratnalu” scheme though the
aforesaid lands are prohibited from using for any other purpose as illegal,
arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and consequently set aside the
aforesaid impugned orders of the 2
nd respondent and pass such other order
or orders as are deemed fit and proper.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 [THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR]:
1. In view of restructuring of Districts and Divisions in the State of Andhra
Pradesh, Dhone Revenue Division has been formed with effect from 04-
04-2022 within the new District of Nandyal with the following Revenue
Mandals as territorial jurisdiction of Dhone Revenue Division vide
G.O.Ms.No.192 Revenue (Lands-IV) dated. 02-04-2022:
1.Dhone 2.Peapully 3.Bethamcherla 4. Banaganapalli
5.Koilakuntla 6.Owk Banaganapalli Mandal which was earlier in the
territorial jurisdiction of Nandyal Revenue Division of Kurnool District,
now falls in the territorial jurisdiction of Dhone Revenue Division of
Nandyal District.
16
wp_16411_2020 & batch
2. The petitioners have no locus standi over the lands mentioned in the writ
petitions. The petitioners should have filed a PIL (Public Interest
Litigation). But the petitioners have filed these writ petitions instead of
filing the PIL (Public Interest Litigation).
3. With respect to the issue of Canal breach, as seen from the news clipping
regarding damages to the canal it is clearly mentioned that the breaches
have occurred only because of not taking up repairs to the canal bunds
which was constructed twenty years back. Thus it has no relevance with
the construction of the houses.
4. With respect to the allegation of taking over of SRBC lands for providing
house sites violating the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.510, dated
30.12.2019, it is submitted that the petitioners are not well acquainted
with the facts of the case and they do not have detailed technical
knowledge about the facts of SRBC canal and actual status on the
ground regarding the present vacant land fit for house site purposes. The
Petitioners does not have knowledge about existing canal area and buffer
zone area which is not proposed for the house sites. Thus the Petitioners
have furnished false information to this Hon’ble Court stating that they
are acquainted with the facts of the case.
5. In fact the Government acquired the land for various purposes like
construction of canals, aqueducts to prevent damage to canals by
allowing free flow of natural course of water streams or to divert their
natural course, extraction of certain soils for strengthening of bunds or
beds or lining of canals, taking gravel from barrow for residential
17
wp_16411_2020 & batch
quarters etc., With the SRBC water available in aplenty for irrigation
purposes, the cultivation extent has largely increased and some of the
lands have outlived their purposes completely or partially and thus they
kept waste as on this date and are being encroached by private
individuals by way of cultivation. Some lands acquired for excavation of
barrow area required for the strengthening of the bund, bed or lining of
the canals have outlived their purposes and are kept waste with some
excavation here and there and those lands are lying far away from the
canal. Likewise some of the lands acquired for aqueducts in order to
prevent damage to the canal and to allow free flow of natural streams like
vanka, vagu are being encroached by the private individuals or those
pattadars who parted with their lands to the government after receiving
compensation.
The details of lands covered in these Writ Petitions are submitted for
better understanding of the case and for kind consideration.
Banaganapalli Village Lands
Land Details furnished in the Writ
Petition
Lands
acquired
for SRBC
vide
Award No.
and Date
Extent
proposed
for House
Sites
Distance
from the
Canal in
Meters
Remarks
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1.
55/5B 17.20
18/92
dt. 20-03-
93
10.50 200
18
wp_16411_2020 & batch
2.
61/2A 7.23
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
2.80 52
3.
62/1B 7.66
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
3.00 52
4.
67 5.06
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
2.00 52
5.
68 7.20
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
1.68 52
6.
69/1A 6.11
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
6.11 52
7.
70/1A 7.33
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
7.33 52
8.
72/1 1.48
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
1.48 52
9.
133/1 5.57
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
3.00 52
10.
132/2B 5.11
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
3.40 52
11.
134/1 7.42
4/92 dt.
15-10-92
3.00 52
12.
146/1B 1.70 1.70
Bathulrupadu Village Lands
Land Details furnished in the Writ
Petition
Lands
acquired for
SRBC vide
Award No.
and Date
Extent
proposed for
House Sites
Distance from
the Canal in
Meters
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1. 2-1B1 2.48
14/91-92
dt. 31-03-92
2.48 52
2. 2-1B3 3.05
14/91-92 dt.
31-03-92
3.05 52
19
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Bhanumukkala Village Lands
Land Details furnished in the Writ
Petition
Lands
acquired
for SRBC
vide
Award No.
and Date
Extent
proposed
for House
Sites
Distance
from the
Canal in
Meters
Remarks
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1. 311-2C1A 9.14 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
9.14 52
2. 312-3 6.00 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
6.00 82-92
3. 312-2A2 9.52 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
9.52 82-92
4. 314-2 5.09 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
9.52 102-110
5. 316-1 9.09 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
9.09 82-92
6. 317-1A 9.57 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
9.57 82-92
7. 318 14.50 6/91-92
dt. 29-02-
92
14.50 132-142
8. 319 8.22 6/91-92
dt. 29-02-
92
8.22 192-202
9. 311-2C2 1.58 Not proposed for House sites
20
wp_16411_2020 & batch
The proposed lands are neither related to canal nor related to canal bund
nor Buffer zone nor canal margins.
6. With respect to Bhanumukkala Village Lands, the lands from S.No.1 to 6
above were acquired for excavation of Quarry for C.N.N.S Soils to Block
No.X of Srisailam Right Bank Canal and also for keeping large number of
vehicles (open area) used by Irrigation Department. Sy.No.311/2C2 is not
proposed for House Site and the lands in Sy.No.318 and 319 were
acquired for staff quarters and the staff quarters still exist on the ground
in a dilapidated condition.
7. In the Joint Inspection report of the Executive Engineer, SRBC
Division-2, Nandyal; the Executive Engineer, Housing, Nandyal and the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, it was reported that the un utilized
Lands by SRBC are fit for providing house sites to the eligible
beneficiaries of Banaganapalli and Bhanumukkala Villages of
Banaganapalli Mandal under “Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu”. The
Sketches prepared by the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Banaganapalli
Mandal with 30 meters buffer zone along with proposed layout of SRBC
Borrowing area with Google Maps (Latitude and Longitude) are enclosed
for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.
8. As the above said lands are unutilized by the SRBC authorities and as
per the G.O.Ms.No.510 (Revenue)-lands Department, dated.30-12-2019,
the District Collector, Kurnool has issued orders in Rc.E1/494/2020,
21
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Rc.E1/495/2020, Rc.E1/496/2020 dated.04-03-2020 directing the
Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal to take over the possession of the above
mentioned lands in Banganapalle, Bhanumukkala, Bathulurupadu
Villages of Banaganapalle Mandal to utilize the same for provision of
House sites to the eligible beneficiaries under the flagship programme of
“Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu”.
9. The District Collector (the 2
nd
respondent) has not circumvented any
guidelines of the above said G.O. which authorized him to resume those
lands acquired by several departments that are unutilized and are kept
waste and not served the purpose for which they are acquired. Sufficient
distances from the canal as per the mandatory instructions have been
maintained taking into account the safety and security of the lives and
that of the canal and the resumption of unutilized government lands for
grant house sites to the weaker sections is the policy of the government.
The respondents have not violated Para.No.8 of GOMs.No.510 dated.30-
12-2019. The District Collector i.e., the respondent No.2 has taken a
decision to resume the lands and to propose the lands for house sites as
the lands proposed for house sites are neither related to canal, related to
canal bund, Buffer zone nor Canal margin. The subject lands do not
come under the category of lands mentioned in Para 8 of G.O.Ms.No.510,
Revenue (Lands-1) Department, dated. 30-12-2019. They come under the
category of unutilized Government lands for which the District Collector
is the competent authority to resume the lands and to utilize the same
for providing house sites to eligible beneficiaries under the flagship
22
wp_16411_2020 & batch
programme “NAVARATNALU-PEDALANDARIKI ILLU”. Hence the above
said lands were proposed for provision of house sites to the poor people.
Already housing layouts were developed by forming internal roads and
also stones were planted for individual plots. Allotment of individual plots
to the beneficiaries was also completed.
10. The petitioners have furnished incorrect information stating that the
canal/Buffer Zone/Bund is existing in the lands proposed for house site
though there is no canal on the ground or those lands are not close by to
the canal as per the records. The description of the canal along with the
map is very clear on this aspect.
11. In fact while proposing these lands, wherever a canal exists, canal
area and buffer zone were included and maintained as per the
instructions of Irrigation authorities and excluded from the house site
proposals. Hence there will not be any problem for the canal. Moreover,
the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H) Department
under Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division)
Rules 2017 issued the G.O.Ms.No.275 dated.18-07-2017 which states
that the distance from the building or layouts to the Railways or religious
structures or Water Bodies has been prescribed differently so as to avoid
disasters due to accidents or floods or otherwise.
23
wp_16411_2020 & batch
According to Rule 11 (b), the water bodies and courses shall be
maintained as Recreational /Green Buffer zone and no building
activity/Land Development shall be carried out within:
(iv) 9m from the defined boundary of Canal, Vagu, Nala, Storm Water
Drain of width more than 10m.
(v) 2m from the defined boundary of Canal, Vagu, Nala, Storm Water
Drain of width up to 10m.
The width of the canal on the ground as per records is more than 10
Meters. Thus the building activity shall not be carried out within 9 Meter
from the canal boundary. But in the instant case, there is 8 Meters path
way for Inspection of the canal and 14 Meters back side slope is provided
along the canal. Moreover, after the above said measurements, a 30
Meters buffer zone is also provided along the canal which is more than
the prescribed width as per the Andhra Pradesh Land Development
(Layout and Sub-Division) Rules 2017. Thus the contention of the
petitioners is beyond the law governing the lay out formation and
precautionary measures prescribed under the law in force. Hence the
contentions of the petitioners are baseless and without the support of the
relevant law in force.
12. The allegation of the petitioners that the destruction of the houses and
result of tragedy are only based on assumptions and presumptions. The
petitioners have no knowledge about the flow of the canal water and
effect of the breaches of canals. The petitioners have not produced any
expert opinion or report in support of their averments.
24
wp_16411_2020 & batch
All the measures required for prevention of damages have been taken by
the Irrigation authorities as submitted here after as reported in the joint
inspection report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal,
The Executive Engineer SRBC, Banaganapalli and the Executive
Engineer Housing Nandyal.
The Joint Inspection Report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal,
Executive Engineer, SRBC, Banaganapalli and Executive Engineer,
Housing, Nandyal dated. 28-02-2020 reads as follows.
“The Officers have inspected the following lands of Banganapalli and
Banumukkala Village of Banganapalli Mandal. On 28-02-2020 which are
already acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, LA, SRBC,
Banaganapalli and Nandyal and kept unutilized by the SRBC
Department since a long time and now proposed for providing house sites
to the eligible beneficiaries of Banaganapalli & Banumukkala Villages of
Banaganapalli Mandal under Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu
Programme in the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 55/5B1 - Ac 10.50: 61/2A2-
2.80: 62/1B1-3.00: 67/1-2.00: 68/1-1.68: 69/1A-6.11: 70/1A-7.33 72-
1- 1.48: 132-2B-3.40: 133-1-3.00: 134-1-3.00 & 146-1B1-1.70 to a total
extent of Ac 46.00 of Banaganapalli Village and lands bearing Sy.Nos.
311-2C-1A - AC.9.14: 311/2C2 - 1.58, 312/3 - 6.00: 312/2A2 - 9.52:
314/2 - 5.09: 316/1 - 9.99: 317/1A - 9.57: 318 - 6.00: 319 - 8.22 to a
25
wp_16411_2020 & batch
total extent of Ac.65.11 Bhanumukkala Village of Banaganapalli Mandal,
Kurnool District.
The lands are classified as Government land as per Column No.6 of
Adangal and the then Special Deputy Collector, LA, SRBC, Banaganapalli
and Nandyal had acquired for formation of SRBC canal, SRBC quarters,
as borrow area for Soils and also for keeping /movement of large number
of vehicles.
Due to excavation of large quantities of soils in the borrow areas, at the
time of formation of the canal there were large pits in the borrow areas.
These pits have to be levelled by the Revenue authorities and to keep fit
for providing House sites.
During the field inspection, it is noticed that the SRBC Department dug
pits from the borrow area of the acquired lands which are to be levelled
for providing house sites. The buffer zone wherever canal exists on either
side of the SRBC canal for a distance of 30 Mts from the banks of the
canal is to be left to safeguard the canal. Hence the area proposed for
house sites are fit for providing house sites to the beneficiaries as the
canal area and buffer zone were left and maintained as per the
instructions of the Water Resources authorities and excluded from house
site proposals. The discharge capacity of the canal in this SRBC reach is
about 1800 Cusecs and the entire canal is lined. Even if any breaches
occur, there is an emergency bed level escape at Km 89.442 of the SRBC
26
wp_16411_2020 & batch
main canal with a discharge capacity of 400 Cusecs to decrease the flow
of water in the canal. It was noticed by the Executive Engineer, SRBC
Division No. 2 Banaganapalli and the Revenue authorities that about
17.39 Acres of lands in Sy.Nos.51/5A, 55/1B, 55/2B, 57/1B1, 57/1C1,
70/2A1, 66/2A1B, 70/1B2, 69/1B, 60/2A2A, 72/1, 73/1A & 67 are left
out and not proposed for house sites. So the soils that are available in
these lands can be utilized, whenever necessity arises for SRBC
purposes.
The Executive Engineer, Housing, Nandyal also stated that if the jungle /
pits existing in the land are cleaned and levelled, the above lands are
feasible for housing purposes.
In view of the above, the above team of officers has concluded that as
there is a maintenance of 30 Mts of buffer zone on either side of the canal
while preparing the house site layouts wherever canal exists in the above
mentioned lands, there will not be any problem for the canal banks. For
the remaining lands, where the SRBC canal does not exist which were
taken as borrow area at the time of excavation of the canal, there is no
objection for preparation of house site layouts and fit for providing house
sites to the eligible beneficiaries of Banaganapalli & Banumukkala
Villages of Banaganapalli Mandal.”
13. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions and W.P.NO.10901/2020 have
filed these Writ Petitions with a mala fide intention to grab the
27
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Government Lands in question. In order to vindicate the version of
respondent No.2, order of the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh dated.28-12-2011 in W.P.No.19560/2011 is submitted where
the Hon’ble Court has dismissed the Writ Petition in a similar Case in
respect of the lands in Sy.No.55-5B to an extent of Ac.17.20 and the
order of the same is narrated hereunder.
“This Writ Petition is filed by some of the owners of the lands, which
were acquired for construction of tail channel of SRBC, as far back as
the year 1990 with the grievance that a part of the said acquired land is
now sought to be used for construction of houses for weaker sections.
The admitted position is that the petitioners’ lands were
acquired in the year 1990 for construction of a tail channel under SRBC.
The petitioners alleged that, instead of utilizing the said land for the
purpose for which it was acquired, the respondents are intending to use
a part of the said acquired land for house sites. They apprehend that, if
the acquired property is used for housing purpose, there is every
possibility of their remaining property being inundated as free flow of
water will be obstructed by construction of houses.
A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3
wherein it is inter alia averred that an extent of Ac.17-20 cents in Survey
No.55/5B of Banaganapalle Village was acquired, for construction of
aqueduct of Muchatla Vagu for changing the direction of the course of
Vagu due to formation of SRBC main canal, vide award, dated.20-03-
1993 and; that the compensation amount was paid to the land owners.
It is further averred that the Joint Collector has inspected the said land
on 15-06-2011 and noticed that the same is fit for provision of house
sites and instructed to prepare a layout in consultation with the Project
Director, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Kurnool. It
is further stated that construction of houses for weaker sections over the
said land will not affect the free flow of water from the aqueduct of
Muchatla Vagu and that there is no threat of submergence of the
petitioners’ lands. It is further stated that even though the land was
acquired, the petitioners have been unauthorisedly cultivating the same
28
wp_16411_2020 & batch
and that they have filed the present Writ Petition with a mala fide
intention to prevent use of the said land for public purpose so that they
can continue with unauthorized cultivation.
Except expressing an apprehension that there is a likelihood of
floods in the event of construction of houses over part of the acquired
land, the petitioners have not supported their plea by filling any material
such as expert's opinion. Once the property is acquired after paying
compensation, the land absolutely vests in the Government under
Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners, who received compensation, have
lost their title and interest over the acquired land. The State is, therefore,
entitled to use the property for any public purpose. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that, in the absence of any proof of the petitioners’ apprehension
that construction of houses over a part of the acquired land may lead to
inundation of their remaining lands, the respondents cannot be
prevented from using the said acquired land for construction of houses
for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly is a public purpose.
For the above mentioned reasons the Writ Petition is merit less
and hence, the same is dismissed. ”
14. The efforts of the government to utilize the said lands for the purpose
of house sites have been thwarted by the vested interests since a long
time when the Joint Collector, Kurnool on 15-06-2011 inspected the land
and gave a green signal but as on date it is not materialized. In this
connection it is to be seen that the present Writ Petitions attract the
provisions of res judicata under section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code
1908.
15. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions and WP.NO.10901/2020 have
filed these Writ Petitions with a malafide intention to grab the
Government Lands in question. It appears that the petitioners in this
Batch of cases and in W.P.NO.10901/2020 were provoked or influenced
29
wp_16411_2020 & batch
by the Petitioners in W.P.NO.19560/2011. Moreover some of the
Petitioners in W.P.NO.19560/2011 are one and the same or family
members or relatives to the present Petitioners.
16. With respect to the order of this High Court in WP.No.7736/2020 in
favour of the petitioners, it is to be seen that in WA.No.256/2021,
the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the order dated 19-03-2020 passed
in W.P.No.7736/2020 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal by the
learned single Judge. Hence there is no relevancy of the averment made
by the petitioners in their affidavit at this juncture.
It is to be seen that the ruling in the judgment of the Apex Court between
the Intellectual Forum, Tirupati’s case (supra) relates to the alleged
proposal of assignment of tank bed land which has no relevancy to this
case. The schedule land in question was acquired by the department of
SRBC for various purposes like construction of canals, aqueducts to
prevent damage to canals by allowing free flow of natural course of water
streams or to divert their natural course, extraction of certain soils for
strengthening of bunds or beds or lining of canals, for residential
quarters etc. The land in question is already government land belonging
to the Water Resources Department (SRBC) and the Collector is the
competent authority for transfer of land from one category to another
category as per Para No. 15 of BSO and the resumption orders have been
passed by the District Collector. The Writ Petitioners filed the present
petitions in the Hon’ble High Court seeking quashing of the said
30
wp_16411_2020 & batch
resumption orders, only to prevent well measured public purpose.
17. These writ petitions are not maintainable since writ petitioners are
estopping the public cause and interest and they are neither aggrieved
party nor affected by the decision of Government.
18. There are no sufficient grounds on the part of the Writ Petitioners for
setting aside the orders of the government in G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue
(Lands-1) Department dated. 30-12-2019 and the resumption orders
issued therein by the District Collector. Hence they are liable to be
dismissed with costs.
REPLY AFFIDAVIT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE COUNTER FILED BY
THE 2
ND RESPONDENT:
1. The Government vide Memo No. 24698/LA.II/A1/2012-3
5, dated.16-02-
2013 rejected earlier proposals for using the SRBC Lands for house sites
and as such the 2
nd respondent can’t pass the impugned orders contrary
to the Government orders.
2. The concerned irrigation department after taking in to consideration of all
the aspects specifically acquired the land for the purpose of aqueducts
and now the same cannot be used for house sites in most clandestine
and whimsical manner by putting the human life in danger.
3. Now the 2
nd
respondent simply says 30 meters of buffer zone is enough
to safeguard the SRBC canal by forgetting the fundamental fact that it is
not a small canal, whereas it is one of the biggest canals in the state with
31
wp_16411_2020 & batch
2500 cusecs flow of water and there were breaches for about eighteen
times whereby huge water escaped from the canal not only inundating
the canal margin area but also surrounding colonies of Banaganapalle
town and abetting villages thereon.
4. It is not the case of the respondents that this land is excess land or
unutilized land, on the other hand this land was acquired specifically for
the purpose of digging SRBC canal along with margins and soil borrow
areas (to take the soil and fill the breaches whenever they occur on
emergency basis it takes more time to get soil from far of places). As
stated supra when the land was acquired for the specific purpose now
the capricious action of the respondents in trying to use the SRBC canal
margin land for house sites speaks volumes about the colorable exercise
of power of the respondents.
5. A joint inspection report of the 3
rd respondent, Executive Engineer, SRBC
Division-2 and the Executive Engineer, Housing, Nandyal stated that
leaving buffer zone of 30 meters, the available lands can be utilized for
house sites. The Executive Engineer, SRBC, Division-2, Banganapalle is
not competent to say so when there is no other material to show that
there was a change or modification of the Government
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO.4 (THE TAHSILDAR,
BANAGANAPALLI, KURNOOL DISTRICT):
1. The District Collector, Kurnool in Rc.E1/494/2020, Rc.E1/495/2020,
Rc.E1/496/2020 dated 04-03-2020 issued orders for resumption of the
non utilized lands belonging to SRBC Authorities in the below mentioned
32
wp_16411_2020 & batch
survey numbers for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker
sections. The purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections is
necessitated by the policy of the Government and the Government in
their orders in G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (lands-I) Department dated.30-
12-2019 authorized the District Collectors to resume those lands that are
alienated or acquired by various departments of government for any
public purpose but are not put into use for the same.
Banaganapalli Village Lands
Village
Sy. No Acquired
ext Ac. C
Award
No. &
Date
Purpose of
Acquisition
Present
Status
Extent
for HS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55/5B 17.20 18/92
dt. 20-03-
93
Aqueduct Cultivation 10.50
61/2A 7.23 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 2.80
62/1B 7.66 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 3.00
67 5.06 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 2.00
68 7.20 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 1.68
69/1A 6.11 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 6.11
70/1A 7.33 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 7.33
72/1 1.48 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct To be
Deleted
1.48
33
wp_16411_2020 & batch
133/1 5.57 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 3.00
132/2B 5.11 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 3.40
134/1 7.42 4/92 dt.
15-10-92
Aqueduct Cultivation 3.00
146/1B 1.70 Canal 1.70
79.07 46.00
Bathulrupadu Village Lands
Land Details furnished in the Writ Petition
Lands
acquired for
SRBC vide
Award No.
and Date
Extent
proposed for
House Sites
Distance from the
Canal in
Meters
S.No.
Sy.No.
Extent
1. 2-1B1 2.48
14/91-92
dt. 31-03-92
2.48 52
2. 2-1B3 3.05
14/91-92 dt.
31-03-92
3.05 52
Bhanumukkala village lands statement
6
As per the WP filed As per the Revenue Authority Report
Village
Name
Sy.No. Extent
in Acres
Land
acquired
for SRBC
Vide
Award No.
& Date
Acquired lands for
SRBS
Extent
propose
d for
House
Sites
Whet-
her
SRBC
Canal
existi-
ng in
this
Remarks
6
The lands where canal exists only are mentioned.
34
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Sy.No. Extent
Ac. C
Sy.No
or not
Bhanu-
mukkala
311/2C
/1A
9.14 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
311/2C
/1A
9.14 9.14 No No canal is
existing in this
lands of 9.14
acres
Bhanu-
mukkala
314/2 5.09 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
314/2 5.09 5.09 No No canal is
existing in this
lands of 5.09
acres
Bhanu-
mukkala
316/1 9.09 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
316/1 9.99 9.99 No No canal is
existing in this
lands of 9.99
acres
Bhanu-
mukkala
317/1A 9.57 34
dt. 26-11-
2001
317/1A 9.57 9.57 No No canal is
existing in this
lands of 9.57
acres.
Bhanu-
mukkala
246 17.95 Not
Acquired
Nil Nil Not
propose
d
No Nil
Bhanumukkala village lands
S.No. Sy.No. Extent
Lands acquired for SRBC
vide Award No. and Date
Exten
t
propo
sed
for
House
Sites
Distance
from the
Canal in
Meters
Remarks
1.
312/3 6.00 34 dt. 26-11-2001
6.00 82-92
2.
312/2A2 9.52 34 dt. 26-11-2002
9.52 82-92
3.
319 8.22 6/91-92 dt. 29-02-92
14.50
132-142
2. A big canal by name “Srisailam Right Branch Canal (SRBC)” exists and it
is built for the purpose of flowing of water from Gorakallu to Owk
Reservoir for irrigation purpose and it has been passing through the
35
wp_16411_2020 & batch
margins of north and west of Banaganapalli town. It has breached but
not to the extent of inundation of Banaganapalli town.
3. It is true that the lands belonging to the SRBC in the above mentioned
survey numbers have been proposed for distribution of house sites to the
weaker sections under the government flagship programme of
Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu. Those lands are private patta lands
acquired by SRBC for the purpose of construction of Muchatla Vagu
across the SRBC Channel in order to divert the flow of that vagu and in
order to protect the ryots/ pattadars existing downstream. Those lands
are not categorized as belonging to endowments, educational institutions,
wakf or any religious institutions, environmentally sensitive like tank
bed, river bed, hillocks with afforestation etc.
4. The District Collector/2
nd
respondent in this case has not circumvented
any guidelines of the G.O.Ms.No.510 and the G.O. itself authorized him
to resume those lands acquired by several departments that are
unutilized and are kept waste and not served the purpose for which they
were acquired. It is the policy of the government to resume unutilized
government lands for granting house sites to the weaker sections.
Sufficient distances from the canal related lands as per the mandatory
instructions have been maintained taking into account the safety and
security of the lives and that of the canal.
The orders of the District Collector, Kurnool vide Rc.E1/494/2020,
Rc.E1/495/2020, Rc.E1/496/2020 dated.04-03-2020 are issued in
36
wp_16411_2020 & batch
accordance with the powers vested in him by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.510 dated 30-12-2019. There is no violation of instructions in
Para 8 of the said G.O. as those lands are not categorized as belonging to
endowments, educational institutions, wakf or any religious institutions,
environmentally sensitive like tank bed, river bed, hillocks with
afforestation etc.
5. The breaching of canals is not a common occurrence but it is a rare event
which cannot be avoided when it is there for irrigation and drinking
water. The margins are being encroached in general but if the
government takes up the matter it would systematically prevent harmful
encroachments by constructing houses at a mandatory distance from the
canal.
6. The department of SRBC has acquired the land for various purposes like
construction of canals, aqueducts to prevent damage to canals by
allowing free flows of natural course of water streams or to divert their
natural course, extraction of certain soils for strengthening of bunds or
beds or lining of canals, for residential quarters etc. With the SRBC water
available in plenty for irrigation purposes, the cultivation extent has
largely been increased and some of the lands have outlived their
purposes completely or partially and thus they are kept waste as on this
date and are being encroached by private individuals by way of
cultivation or construction of residential or other structures. Moreover
the vast areas acquired literally near the water flowing canal are being
37
wp_16411_2020 & batch
encroached upon indiscriminately by the public for the residential huts
or houses and other purposes without any civic sense.
Hence keeping in view of the guidelines enumerated in the G.O.Ms.510,
certain surplus lands near the water flowing canals along with lands
acquired for other purposes excluding those lands that were meant for
construction of canals have been proposed for issue of house sites. The
encroachers of certain structures or residential huts or katcha houses
are coming forward on their own to remove their encroachments to
enroll themselves as beneficiaries with the hope that the government
would construct new houses in the areas encroached by them.
Accordingly the layouts are also being proposed keeping in view the
minimum mandatory distance from the base of the bund of the water
flowing canal’s buffer zone. Some of the lands acquired for excavation of
certain soils required for strengthening the bund, bed or lining of the
canals have outlived their purposes and are kept waste with some
excavation here and there. And the lands acquired for aqueducts in order
to prevent damage to the canal and to allow free flow for the natural
streams like vanka, vagu are being encroached by the private individuals
or those pattadars who parted with their lands to the government after
receiving compensation. Some of the lands acquired for construction of
official or residential quarters are partly kept vacant.
38
wp_16411_2020 & batch
7. The SRBC authorities have acquired lands in the above mentioned survey
numbers for the purpose of diverting the natural flood flow water of
existing Mutchatla vagu by constructing an aqueduct across the SRBC
Channel in order to prevent damage to canal and to protect the
agricultural lands of those pattadars/ryots existing downstream due to
the said diversion of flood water of the Mutchatla Vagu. But now with the
increase in area of cultivation of lands upwards in the catchment area
and the construction of GNSS canal, a flood flow channel just at a
distance to the west of SRBC on parallel lines, the volume of water and
the strength of its currents of Mutchatla Vagu stream reduced to a
minimum. Some of the vested interests have gone to the extent of laying
plots in the said lands and are selling them unauthorizedly and some
temporary and permanent constructions have started to come. Thus the
acquired land is being wasted and has become a venture for real estate
and peaceful cultivation. Those lands are located very near to the
Banaganapalle town and located besides the Banaganapalle road towards
its east and west.
In order to vindicate the version of Respondent No. 4, a copy of the
Judgment in WP.No.19560/2011
7
dated. 28-12-2011 delivered by the
7
The Writ Petition is filed by the owners of the lands whose lands were acquired for the
purpose of constructing tail channel of SRBC in the year 1990. The grievance of the
petitioners is that, instead of utilising the said land for the purpose for which it was
acquired, the respondents are intending to use a part of the said acquired land for house
sites. They apprehend that, if the acquired property is used for housing purpose, there is
every possibility of their remaining property being inundated as free flow of water will be
obstructed by construction of houses.
The then Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “Except expressing an
apprehension that there is a likelihood of floods in the event of construction of houses over
part of the acquired land, the petitioners have not supported their plea by filing any
material such as expert’s opinion. Once the property is acquired after paying compensation,
the land absolutely vests in the Government under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners,
39
wp_16411_2020 & batch
erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is relied. The efforts of
the government to utilize the said lands for the purpose of house sites
have been thwarted by the vested interests since a long time when the
Joint Collector, Kurnool on 15-06-2011 inspected the land and gave a
green signal but as on date it was not materialized.
Some of those pattadars who have already parted with their lands to the
government (SRBC) after receiving the LA amount, Enhanced amount
from the lower and Higher court from the time of its Award in the year
1993, have gone to the extent of filing a SLP in the Supreme Court for
enhancement of compensation.
8. The Hon'ble High Court may, in the interest of justice and security and
safety of the public in general be pleased to pass strict guidelines to
maintain the distance of the buffer area from the foot of the canal bund
to the proposed site in the event of passing of canal in that particular
survey number.
9. The Hon’ble court may be pleased to take a pleasant view in respect of
the lands in other survey numbers which are nothing to do with the
passing of canal and which are acquired for other purposes as stated
above and also in respect of some lands for the excavation of certain
who received compensation, have lost their title and interest over the acquired land. The
State is, therefore, entitled to use the property for any public purpose.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that, in the absence of any proof of the petitioners’
apprehension that construction of houses over a part of the acquired land may lead to
inundation of their remaining lands, the respondents cannot be prevented from using the
said acquired land for construction of houses for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly, is a
public purpose.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is merit less and hence, the same is
dismissed.”
40
wp_16411_2020 & batch
minerals required for strengthening the bund or bed or lining of the canal
as has happened in Bhanumukkala village of this same gram panchayat
of Banaganapalli town and Mandal and the Writ petitions filed by some
persons with vested interest and who have an axe to grind may be put to
strict scrutiny and may be dismissed.
10. The petitioner has filed the W.P. on the basis of Memo
No.24698/LA.II/A1/2012-3
8, dated.16-02-2013 issued by the Principal
Secretary to Govt., Irrigation & CAD (PW.LA.II) Department for the
Sy.No:62/1B to 147/2A of SRBC Lands in Banaganapalli Village &
Mandal. But the Sy.No.55/5B to an extent Ac.10.50 cents and Sy.No
61/2A2 to an extent of Ac.2.80 cents of Banaganapalli Village of
Banaganapalli Mandal are not covered by the Memo.
In addition to that, the Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation & CAD
(PW.LA.II) Department has issued only Memo but not Orders, because it
is to avoid the misuse of the Govt. lands by the then MLA. But now the
Government took decision in Cabinet Meeting by passing Orders and the
Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (Lands-I) Department,
dated. 30-12-2019, for use of unutilized Government Lands for which the
District Collector is the competent authority to resume the lands and to
8
The Chief Engineer (Projects), Irrigation, Kurnool was requested to accord necessary
permission for sparing SRBC land for house site pattas to poor of Banaganapalli (V) from
Km.91.00 to Km.92.650 on the request of Hon’ble MLA Banaganapalli Constituency.
The Chief Engineer (Projects,) Irrigation, Kurnool is informed that once human settlements
are allowed near the canal, there will be further encroachments along the canal, moving
space along the canal will be reduced. It is not advisable to allow the Quarry area for house
sites. Either the Government land or private land can be acquired for house sites. Hence,
this proposal is herewith rejected.
41
wp_16411_2020 & batch
utilize the same for providing house sites to eligible beneficiaries under
the flagship programme of “NAVARATNALU-PEDALANDARIKI ILLU”.
Hence the above said lands were proposed for provision of house sites to
the poor people.
11. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.19560/2011
held that once the property is acquired after paying compensation, the
land absolutely vests in the Government under Section 16 of the Act and
construction of houses over a part of the acquired land may lead to
inundation of their remaining lands, the respondents cannot be
prevented from using the said acquired land for construction of houses
for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly, is a public purpose.
12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition may be dismissed with
costs.
REPLY AFFIDAVIT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNTER FILED BY
THE 4
th RESPONDENT:
1. The 4
th
respondent who is the Tahsildar is neither competent nor
technically qualified to state about the reduction/currents of water flow
which is to be decided by the technically skilled Engineers keeping in
view of the safeguards for protection from floods, and on this ground
alone, the counter of the 4
th
respondent has to be rejected.
2. The subject land proposed for construction of house sites under
Navaratnalu Scheme is admittedly SRBC canal bund land acquired vide
Awards during the years 1992, 1993 and 2001 by the Irrigation
42
wp_16411_2020 & batch
department for the construction of aqueducts across the SRBC Canal in
order to prevent damage to the canal and to protect agricultural lands in
the downstream as admitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit.
Now it is shocking and surprising to note the averments in counter
affidavit that due to increase in the area of cultivation of lands upwards
in the catchment area and construction of GNSS flood flow channel has
reduced the volume of water, currents etc is totally untenable contention
without competence or knowledge as 4
th
respondent Tahsildar cannot
assess the volume of the water/currents flowing in the catchment areas.
3. When the subject land is acquired for the specific purpose of
construction of aqueducts to prevent the floods and the said requirement
is perennial and whenever there are unprecedented rains and heavy
floods, all the aforesaid imaginations and assumptions of 4
th respondent
without any competence or manner of right will not save the lives of the
people.
4. In this case, the subject land is acquired for construction of aqueducts
and to prevent the floods apart from safeguarding the SRBC canal from
damages and breaches and the said purpose of acquisition is permanent
and the 2
nd
respondent Collector has no power or authority to resume
such lands meant for specific purpose.
Board Standing Orders (15.4) prohibits even assignment of the lands in
the water courses, channel margins etc.
5. Earlier, proposals were sent to the Government for utilizing the subject
lands for house sites and such proposal was refused by the Government
vide Memo No. 24698/LA.II/A1/2012-3, dated. 16-02-2013 categorically
43
wp_16411_2020 & batch
stating that it is not at all safe to allow the human settlements near the
canal and either the Government lands or private lands can be acquired
for house sites. The said rejection orders of the Government have become
final and binding on the respondent no. 2 to 4 herein, whereas the 2
nd
respondent by brushing aside/ignoring the aforesaid orders of the
Government passed the impugned order for construction of houses in the
subject land is capricious.
6. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is to be allowed.
COMMON COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8
[Executive Engineer (FAC), SRBC Division No.2, Banaganapalli, Nandyal
District]:
1. The 8
th
respondent herein is also filing the counter affidavit on behalf of
the respondent no. 5 to 7 as he is authorized to do so. In
W.P.No.16410/2020, W.P.No.7736/2020, W.P.No.17541/2020 and
W.P.No.16411/2020 the respondents from 5 to 8 by an order dated
06.09.2023 were impleaded.
2. It is not correct to state that the SRBC canal discharges 2500 cusecs
where house sites are allotted to the poor people. The total capacity of the
canal water flow would accommodate a discharge of 1800 cusecs of
water. The petitioners also stated that there was a history of 18 times
breaches earlier inundating not only the proposed land but also
surrounding colonies of Banaganapalli town, which is not correct and
denied. The water flow of the canal is from Gorakallu Reservoir to Owk
reservoir. Since the construction of the canal till today only 800 to 1000
44
wp_16411_2020 & batch
cusecs of water was released from Gorakallu Reservoir to Owk reservoir,
that is during the months between August to March (only 9 months).
Remaining period there would not be any flow of water in the canal.
During the period when there is no flow of water, checking of the entire
canal will be conducted and if any breaches or pipings found are
immediately acted upon. In fact, the SRBC Canal was breached during
the year 2014 at Km 88.750 on Right side of the bank; and in the year
2017 at Km 91.500 on Left side of bank. The breaches and pipings
occurred were only meager which is only 10 cusecs of water in pipings
(leakages) & 20 to 25 cusecs of water was leaked in breaches.
Immediately the same was attended to closing the same on war footing
basis without any loss of property and human life.
3. With respect to the issue of Canal breach, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nandyal (3
rd Respondent) has requested the Executive Engineer, SRBC
Division No.2, Banaganapalli (8
th respondent) for inspecting the location
of the canal and proposed house site lands as some of the villagers had
made certain allegations by filing writ petitions before the Hon'ble High
Court. The joint inspection was done on 28-02-2020 and immediately a
report was drafted clarifying the allegations for the purpose of submitting
to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
During the joint inspection, the 8
th
respondent has requested the
Revenue authorities to maintain 30 m of buffer zone on either side of the
canal while preparing the house site layouts wherever canal exists, so
that there will not be any problem for canal banks and stated no
objection for house sites in the proposed place where SRBC canal does
45
wp_16411_2020 & batch
not exist. The Proposed lands were taken for the barrow area at the time
of formation of the canal.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Nandyal (3
rd respondent) has addressed a
letter to the 7
th respondent vide Letter No. Rc.B 274/2020 dated.07-07-
2020 requesting to offer the remarks for the averments made by the
Petitioner K.Venkateswar Reddy in W.P.No. 10934/2020. The remarks
were sought on following averments.
I. The adangal copies filed by the petitioner for the above survey numbers
clearly shows as canal.
II. The house sites proposed to distribute in the buffer zone/canal is not
only illegal but also endangers the human habitation not only on the
proposed banks, but also our other colonies as rescue operations for
repairing/filling the breaches occurring to the canal cannot be done on
war footing if the buffer zone is covered with dwelling houses which will
be an obstacle for moving men and machinery whereby causing loss to
our neighboring colonies also.
III. The canal breached five to six times in recent times whereby huge
quantity of water flown into the neighboring colonies of Banaganapalli
town which were in fact inundated.
Accordingly the 7
th
respondent endorsed the above mentioned letter to
the 8
th
respondent vide Endt No. 263 S dated.08-07-2020 to offer his
remarks and in turn the 8
th respondent replied to the 7
th respondent for
the averments vide Letter No. 160 SE dated.08-07-2020. Subsequently
the 7
th respondent has replied to the 3
rd respondent stating that there is
46
wp_16411_2020 & batch
no objection for preparation of house sites layout beyond the buffer zone
of 30 meters.
5. The Government in fact rejected the proposal submitted by the Chief
Engineer (Projects), Kurnool, vide Government Memo
No.24698/LA.II/A1/2012-03 dated 16-02-2013, for according permission
for giving the SRBC lands for house sites pattas for poor people of
Banaganapalli (V) located between Km 91.000 to Km 92.650 of SRBC
informing that once human settlements are allowed near the canal, there
will be further encroachments along the canal and moving space along
the canal will be reduced.
6. Subsequent to the above Memo dated.16-02-2013, the Government vide
Memo No.24698/LA.II/A1/2012-04 dated.06-05-2013 issued
clarification and the relevant portion is as below:
“3. On either side of canal at Km 91.000, i.e., 2A1 on right side of
canal and area between canal boundary and IB1/1B2 on the left side of
canal can be spared for giving house site pattas to poor people.
4. The Chief Engineer (P), Irrigation, Kurnool is requested to
inspect the said site to identify the portion of land suitable to spare for
the house sites duly marking on a site map. The land so identified shall
be away from the embankment/drainage arrangements etc, so that
there shall be no interference with the functions of the maintenance of
the canal. The land identified should be segregated piece of land so that
once land is allotted for house sites there should not be encroachments
on open land belonging to our department and land which is not
allotted should be fenced and used for tall tree plantations to prevent
encroachments.”
7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh subsequently issued the
G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (Lands-1) Department, dated.30-12-2019
47
wp_16411_2020 & batch
authorizing the District Collectors of the respective Districts to resume
the unutilized Government lands on the grounds of violation of
conditions or non-utilization of the allotted land which was earlier
alienated in favour of the private individuals/private organizations/
Government authorized to utilize the lands acquired by various
(Government) departments /organizations for any public purpose but not
put into use for the same purpose. These lands shall be utilized for
providing house sites to eligible beneficiaries under the flagship program
of “Navaratnalu-Pedalandarikilllu”.
8. The District Collector, Nandyal has issued proceedings vide
Rc.E1/494/2020 dated.04-03-2020, Rc.E1/495/2020 dated.04-03-
2020, Rc.E1/496/2020 dated.04-03-2020 and Rc.E1/418/2020
dated.05-03-2020 ordering to utilize the unutilized SRBC lands for
providing the house sites to the eligible beneficiaries under “Navaratnalu-
Pedalandarikilllu” in terms of G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (Lands-I)
Department, dated.30-12-2019. Based on the proceedings issued by the
District Collector, the Irrigation Authorities issued No Objection to the
Revenue Authorities for preparation of house site layouts by maintaining
30 Meters buffer Zone on either side of the canal.
9. It is submitted that as per the Andhra Pradesh Land Development
(Layout and Subdivision) Rules 2017 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.275
Municipal Administration and Urban development (H) Department
dated.18-07-2017, the distance from the building or layouts to the
Railways or religious structures or water bodies has been prescribed
48
wp_16411_2020 & batch
differently, so as to avoid disasters due to accidents or floods or
otherwise. According to Rule 11 (b), the water bodies and courses shall
be maintained as recreation/Green Buffer zone and no building activity
shall be carried out within
(iv) 9m from the defined boundary of Canal, Vagu Nala, Storm water
drain of width more than 10m
(v) 2m from the defined boundary of Canal, Vagu, Nala, Storm water
drain of width up to 10m.
10. The width of the canal varies from 7.50 meters to 10 meters, where
the house sites are now proposed. As per the above G.O, it is sufficient to
maintain the buffer zone of 9 meters. But the instant case there is 8
meters path way for inspection of the canal and additional 14 meters
back side slope is provided along the canal. More over after the above
said measurements, a 30 meters Buffer zone is also provided along the
canal which is more than the prescribed width as per the Andhra
Pradesh land development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules 2017. Hence,
there will not be any effect on proposed house sites and the canal.
11. As on today there is no flooding of water from the canal and no
overflow damaging any human life or properties or surrounding
agriculture crops. There is every chance of encroachment of these
proposed lands and sometimes there is a possibility of illegal lifting of soil
from the proposed lands. As the irrigation department is not utilizing this
proposed land, the same can be used for allotting the house sites to the
poor people in and around the Banaganaplli Mandal.
49
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Hence, it is therefore prayed to dismiss the above Writ petitions with costs.
REPLY TO THE COMMON COUNTER OF RESPONDENT NO. 8:
1. A joint inspection was conducted by the 8
th
respondent along with the
Executive Engineer, Housing, RDO, Nandyal and the report was given on
28-02-2020 without stating as to whether the 8
th respondent is
competent and authorized to give such report by giving no objection for
location of residential colonies beyond the 30 meters of buffer zone of the
SRBC canal. Buffer Zone is only to protect the canal but this will not give
license to the respondents to locate the residential colonies besides the
canal which is dangerously flowing 6 meters above the ground level and
its breach will wash away the habitation.
The SRBC authorities vide Award No.4 of 1992, dated.15-10-1992, had
acquired the lands required for the canal keeping in view all the
contingencies in mind as per the advice and drawings given by the
Drawings and Designs Wing of the Irrigation Department who actually
draws the technical drawings and required lands for that purpose.
The respondents lost sight of the fundamental aspect that SRBC canal is
running in full embankment (earth banks above the ground level on both
sides of canal) above the ground level and in fact canal is flowing 6
meters above the ground level and breach of canal will make the water to
escape in a very speedy manner as it is flowing above the ground level
and not only inundates surroundings but also nearby colonies of
Banganapalle town as it happened earlier due to the breach of canal for
18 times. The petitioner relied upon the map describing the typical cross
50
wp_16411_2020 & batch
section of the SRBC main canal. It is also further contended that there is
no escape channel for SRBC canal to divert flood water or water out of
breach of canal.
2. The 8
th respondent has no competence or jurisdiction to state that the
SRBC margin lands can be used for providing house sites.
3. The margin land to the SRBC canal beyond buffer zone is very much
essential for filling the breaches on emergency basis as bringing the soil
from faraway places will consume time resulting in more inundation and
damage. As per the joint inspection report there are pits in the aforesaid
margin lands which are formed due to excavation and filling of the
breaches. And now it is proposed to fill up the pits to give them for house
sites and if big pits are filled up with soil no houses can be constructed
in that loose soil.
4. The Government earlier rejected the proposals vide Memo dated
16.02.2013 clearly stating that it is not advisable, however issued
another memo dated 06.05.2013 and Para 4 reads as follows:
“Therefore, the Chief Engineer (P), Irrigation, Kurnool is requested
to inspect the said site to identify the portion of land suitable to spare for
the house sites duly marking on a site map. The land so identified shall be
away from the embankment/drainage arrangements etc. So that there
shall be no interference with the functions of the maintenance of the canal.
The land identified should be segregated piece of land so that once land is
allotted for house sites there should not be encroachments on open land
belonging to our department and land which is not allotted should be
fenced and used for tall tree plantations to prevent encroachments.”
Hence the aforesaid orders of the 1
st
respondent Government is very clear
that it is the Chief Engineer i.e., 6
th
respondent who is the competent
51
wp_16411_2020 & batch
authority to go and inspect the site to identify the land suitable to spare
for the house sites. Admittedly the 6
th respondent has not inspected the
site nor given any report, whereas the 8
th respondent in an unwarranted
manner gave the joint inspection report.
5. The impugned orders of the 2
nd
respondent District collector in directing
the revenue authorities to take SRBC margin lands for house sites is
without consulting and taking NOC from the irrigation department which
is apparent on the face of impugned orders. That apart they are relying
upon the 8
th
respondent counter.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition may be allowed.
CASES REFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS:
1. Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State Of A. P. & Ors
9
The present case relates to the preservation of and restoration of status quo
ante of two tanks i.e., Avilala Tank and Peruru Tank which are located in
the suburbs of Tirupati Town and were historical in nature, being in
existence since 1500 AD. The grievance of the appellants Society was in
respect of systemic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water
tanks in Tirupati town namely, Avilala and Peruru Tank and alienation of
Avilala tank bed land to the Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA)
and the A.P. Housing Board and Peruru Tank bed lands to Tirumala
Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) for housing purposes.
The following questions of law arise for consideration by this Court:-
1. Whether Urban Development could be given primacy over and above the
need to protect the environment and valuable freshwater resources?
9
AIR 2006 SC 1350
52
wp_16411_2020 & batch
2. Whether the action of the A.P. state in issuing the impugned G.Os could
be permitted in derogation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
as also the Directive Principles of State Policy and fundamental duties
enshrined in the Constitution of India?
3. Whether the need for sustainable development can be ignored, do away
with and cause harm to the environment in the name of urban
development?
4. Whether there are any competing public interests and if so how the
conflict is to be adjudicated/reconciled?
The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the sensitive issues raised in the
appeals by the appellants and countered by the respective respondents with
reference to the pleadings, the documents, annexures filed and judgment of
the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also carefully perused the
report submitted by the Expert Committee and also considered the rival
submissions made by the respective counsel.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the nature of the question in this
case is twofold.
Firstly, the jurisprudential issues. In the event of conflict between the
competing interests of protecting the environment and social development,
this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
10
, in paragraph 35 held as under:
“The issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle
between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers,
forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged
with administrative responsibility, who under the pressures of the
changing needs of an increasingly complex society find it necessary to
encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate
10
1997(1) SCC 388
53
wp_16411_2020 & batch
to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the
legislature and not for the Courts. If there is a law made by Parliament
or the State Legislatures, the Courts can serve as an instrument for
determining legislative intent in the exercise of powers of judicial review
under the Constitution. But, in the absence of any legislation, the
executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the
natural resources and convert them into private ownership or
commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural
resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be
permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless
the Courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public and in public
interest to encroach upon the said recourses.”
The responsibility of the state to protect the environment is now a well-
accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in international law,
gave rise to the principle of “state responsibility” for pollution emanating
within one's own territories [Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports (1949) 4]. This
responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 [ Stockholm Convention], to which
India is a party. The relevant Clause of this Declaration in the present
context is Paragraph 2, which states:
“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora
and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems,
must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations
through careful planning or management, as appropriate.”
Thus, there is no doubt about the fact that there is a responsibility bestowed
upon the Government to protect and preserve the tanks, which are an
important part of the environment of the area.
Sustainable Development
The respondents, however, have taken the plea that the actions taken by the
Government were in pursuance of urgent needs of development. The debate
54
wp_16411_2020 & batch
between the developmental and economic needs and that of the environment
is an enduring one, since if the environment is destroyed for any purpose
without a compelling developmental cause, it will most probably run foul of
the executive and judicial safeguards. However, this court has often faced
situations where the needs of environmental protection have been pitched
against the demands of economic development.
In response to this difficulty, policy makers and judicial bodies across the
world have produced the concept of “Sustainable Development”. This
concept, as defined in the 1987 report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development [ Brundtland Report] defines it as
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. Returning to the
Stockholm Convention, a support of such a notion can be found in
Paragraph 13, which states:
“In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus
to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated and
coordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that
development is compatible with the need to protect and improve the
environment for the benefit of their population.”
Subsequently the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, passed
during the Earth Summit at 1992, to which also India is a party, adopts the
notion of sustainable development. Principle 4 of the declaration states:
“In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection
shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot
be considered in isolation from it.”
This court in Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti
11, was pleased to expound on
this. Their Lordships held:
“This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and
social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the
other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed,
11
2004 (2) SCC 392, Para 27
55
wp_16411_2020 & batch
the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in population
together with the consequential demands to sustain the population has
resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, filling
up of lakes and the pollution of water resources and the very air that we
breathe. However there need not necessarily be a deadlock between
development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The
objective of all laws on the environment should be to create harmony
between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the
other.”
A similar view was taken by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India
12
, where their Lordships said:
“While economic development should not be allowed to take
place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environmental
destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve
ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments. Both development and environment should go hand in
hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of the
environment and vice versa, but there should be development while
taking due care and ensuring the protection of the environment.”
The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions
of this court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case)
13, State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products
14, and Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. Union of India
15.
In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely
asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction the
destruction of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a
principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the
12
1996 (5) SCC 281 Para 31
13
(1997) 2 SCC 653
14
(1995) 3 SCC 363
15
(2002) 10 SCC 664
56
wp_16411_2020 & batch
developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental
degradation, that the appellants allege.
Public Trust Doctrine
Another legal doctrine that is relevant to this matter is the Doctrine of Public
Trust. This doctrine, though in existence from Roman times, was enunciated
in its modern form by the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad
Company v. People of the State of Illinois
16
, where the Court held:
The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State in their
character as sovereign, in trust for public uses for which they are adapted.
The state holds the title to the bed of navigable waters upon a public trust,
and no alienation or disposition of such property by the State, which does
not recognize and is not in execution of this trust is permissible.
What this doctrine says therefore is that natural resources, which includes
lakes, are held by the State as a "trustee" of the public, and can be disposed
of only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust.
Though this doctrine existed in the Roman and English Law, it related to
specific types of resources. The US Courts have expanded and given the
doctrine its contemporary shape whereby it encompasses the entire
spectrum of the environment.
The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law
by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (supra) and also in M.I. Builders
v. Radhey Shyam Sahu
17. In M.C. Mehta, Kuldip Singh J., writing for the
majority held:
16
146 US 537 (1892)
17
(1999) 6 SCC 464
57
wp_16411_2020 & batch
[our legal system] includes the public trust doctrine as part of its
jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of all natural resources which are by
nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The state as a trustee is under
the legal duty to protect the natural resources. The Supreme Court of
California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country
18
,
also known as the Mono Lake case summed up the substance of the
doctrine. The Court said:
Thus the public trust is more than an affirmation of state power to use
public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the
State to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands
and tidelands, surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the
abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust. This
is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of
the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the
doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a
public trust. However, when the state holds a resource that is freely
available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial
scrutiny upon any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with
the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly
scrutinize such actions of the Government, the Courts must make a
distinction between the government's general obligation to act for the public
benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a
trustee of certain public resources, [Joseph L. Sax “The public Trust Doctrine
in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention”, Michigan Law
18
33 Cal.419
58
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Review, Vol.68 No.3 (Jan.1970) PP 471-566)]. According to Prof. Sax, whose
article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of
restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to imposed by the
public trust doctrine [ibid]:
1. The property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public
purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
2. The property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent
3. The property must be maintained for particular types of use. (i)Either
traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.
In the instant case, it seems, that the Government Orders, as they stand
now, are violative of principles 1 and 3, even if we overlook principle 2 on
the basis of the fact that the Government is itself developing it rather than
transferring it to a third party for value.
Therefore, our order should try to rectify these defects along with following
the principle of sustainable development as discussed above.
Inter-Generational Equity
Further the principle of “Inter-Generational Equity” has also been adopted
while determining cases involving environmental issues. This Court in the
case of A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors
19
in
paragraph 53 held as under:
“The principle of inter-generational equity is of recent origin. The 1972
Stockholm Declaration refers to it in principles 1 and 2. In this context,
the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for the survival of
the present and future generations.
19
(1999) 2 SCC 718
59
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Principle 1 - Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and
adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a
life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for the present and future
generations.
Principle 2 - The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water,
lands, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural
ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and
future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate.”
Several international conventions and treaties have recognized the above
principles and, in fact, several imaginative proposals have been
submitted including the locus standi of individuals or groups to take out
actions as representatives of future generations, or appointing an
ombudsman to take care of the rights of the future against the present
(proposals of Sands and Brown Weiss referred to by Dr. Sreenivas Rao
Permmaraju, Special Rapporteur, paras 97 and 98 of his report).
The principles mentioned above wholly apply for adjudicating matters
concerning environment and ecology. These principles must, therefore,
be applied in full force for protecting the natural resources of this
country.
Article 48-A of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the
forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A of the Constitution of India, enjoins that it shall be the duty
of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve the national
environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures.
These two Articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the
country but also it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles
60
wp_16411_2020 & batch
in making laws and further these two articles are to be kept in mind in
understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and also the various laws enacted by the
Parliament and the State Legislature.
On the other hand, we cannot also shut our eyes that shelter is one of
the basic human needs just next to food and clothing. Need for a
National Housing and Habitat Policy emerges from the growing
requirements of shelter and related infrastructure. These requirements
are growing in the context of rapid pace of urbanization, increasing
migration from rural to urban centers in search of livelihood, mis-match
between demand and supply of sites and services at affordable cost and
inability of most new and poorer urban settlers to access formal land
markets in urban areas due to high costs and their own lower incomes,
leading to a non-sustainable situation. This policy intends to promote
sustainable development of habitat in the country, with a view to ensure
equitable supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices.
The World has reached a level of growth in the 21
st Century as never
before envisaged. While the crisis of economic growth is still on, the key
question which often arises and the Courts are asked to adjudicate upon
is whether economic growth can supersede the concern for
environmental protection and whether sustainable development which
can be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and
conserving the natural resources for the benefit of the humanity and
future generations could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or
compelling human necessity. The growth and development process are
terms without any content, without an inkling as to the substance of
their end results. This inevitably leaves us to the conception of growth
and development which sustains from one generation to the next in
order to secure ‘our common future’. In pursuit of development, focus
has to be on sustainability of development and policies towards that end
have to be earnestly formulated and sincerely observed. As Prof. Weiss
puts it, “conservation, however, always takes a back seat in times of
economic stress.” It is now an accepted social principle that all human
61
wp_16411_2020 & batch
beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment,
commensurate with their well being, coupled with a corresponding duty
of ensuring that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way
that present as well as the future generations are aware of them equally.
The Parliament has considerably responded to the call of the Nations for
conservation of environment and natural resources and enacted suitable
laws.
The Judicial Wing of the country, more particularly, this Court has laid
down a plethora of decisions asserting the need for environmental
protection and conservation of natural resources. The environmental
protection and conservation of natural resources has been given a status
of a fundamental right and brought under Art. 21 of the Constitution of
India. This apart, the Directive Principles of State Policy as also the
fundamental duties enshrined in Part IV and Part IVA of the
Constitution of India respectively also stresses the need to protect and
improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
This Court in Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group and Ors.
Vs. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors
20 held that the
concerned Government should “consider the importance of public
projects for the betterment of the conditions of living people on one hand
and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balance and
avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere
and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual,
technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various
bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a balance
between the two conflicting objectives.”
However, some of the environmental activists, as noted in the
“The Environmental Activities Hand Book” authored by Gayatri Singh,
20
(1991) 2 SCC 539
62
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Kerban Ankleswaria and Colins Gonsalves, that the Judges are carried away
by the money spent on projects and that mega projects, that harm the
environment are not condemned. However, this criticism seems to be
baseless since in Virender Gaur & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors
21, , this
Court insisted on the demolition of structure which have been constructed
on the lands reserved for common purposes and that this Court did not
allow its decision to be frustrated by the actions of a party. This Court
followed the said decision in several cases issuing directions and ensuring
its enforcement by nothing short of demolition or restoration of status quo
ante. The fact that crores of rupees was spent already on development
projects did not convince this Court while being in a zeal to jealously
safeguarding the environment and in preventing the abuse of the
environment by a group of humans or the authorities under the State for
that matter.
The set of facts in the present case relates to the preservation of and
restoration of status quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in
existence since the time of Srikrishnadevaraya, The Great, 1500 A.D., where
the cry of socially spirited citizens calling for judicial remedy was not
considered in the right perspective by the Division bench of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh despite there being overwhelming evidence of the tanks
being in existence and were being put to use not only for irrigation purpose
but also as lakes which were furthering percolation to improve the
21
(1995) 2 SCC 577
63
wp_16411_2020 & batch
groundwater table, thus serving the needs of the people in and around these
tanks.
The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned order, has
given precedence to the economic growth by completely ignoring the
importance and primacy attached to the protection of environment and
protection of valuable and most cherished fresh water resources. No doubt,
the wishful thinking and the desire of the appellant- forum , that the Tanks
should be there, and the old glory of the tanks should be continued, is
laudable. But the ground realities are otherwise. We have already noticed
the ground realities as pointed out by the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
TUDA and TTD in their reply to the Civil appeals by furnishing details, datas
and particulars. Nowadays because of poverty and lack of employment
avenues, migration of people from rural areas to urban areas is a common
phenomenon. Because of the limited infrastructure of the towns, the towns
are becoming slums. We, therefore, cannot countenance the submissions
made by the appellant in regard to the complete restoration and revival of
two tanks in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We cannot,
at the same time, prevent the Government from proceeding with the proper
development of Tirupathi town. The two Government Orders which are
impugned have been issued long before and pursuant to the issuance of the
Government Orders, several other developments have taken place.
Constructions and improvements have been made in a vast measure.
Because of spending crores and crores of rupees by various authorities, the
only option now left to the appellant and the respondents is to see that the
64
wp_16411_2020 & batch
report submitted by the Expert Committee is implemented in its letter and
spirit and all the respondents shall cooperate in giving effect to the
Committee’s report.
It is true that the tank is a communal property and the State
authorities are trustees to hold and manage such properties for the benefits
of the community and they cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission
which will infringe the right of the Community and alienate the property to
any other person or body. Taking into account all these principles of law,
and after considering the competing claims of environment and the need for
housing, this Court holds the following as per the facts of this case.
The Respondents have claimed that the valuable right to shelter will
be violated if the impugned Government Orders are revoked. On the facts of
the present case, it seems that the respondents intend to build residential
blocks of flats for High and Middle income families, institutions as well as
infrastructure for the TTDS. If the proposed constructions are not carried
on, it seems unlikely that anyone will be left homeless or without their basic
need for shelter. Therefore, one feels that the right to shelter does not seem
to be so pressing under the present circumstances so as to outweigh all
environmental considerations.
Another plea repeatedly taken by the respondents corresponds to the
money already spent on developing the land. However, the decision of this
case cannot be based solely upon the investments committed by any party.
Since, otherwise, it would seem that once any party makes certain
investment in a project, it would be a fait accompli and this Court will not
have any option but to deem it legal. Therefore, under the present
65
wp_16411_2020 & batch
circumstances, the Court should do the most it can to safeguard the two
tanks in question. However, due to the persistent developmental activities
over a long time, much of the natural resources of the lakes has been lost,
and considered irreparable. This, though regrettable, is beyond the power of
this court to rectify.
One particular feature of this case was the competing nature of claims
by both the parties on the present state of the two tanks and the feasibility
of their revival. We thought that it would be best, therefore, if we place
reliance on the findings of the expert committee appointed by us which has
considered the factual situation and the feasibility of revival of the two
tanks. Thus in pursuance of a study of that committee, this Court passes
the following orders.
The appeals are disposed of with the following directions:
With regard to Peruru tank:
(i) No further constructions to be made.
(ii) The supply channel of Bodeddula Vanka needs to be cleared and
revitalized. A small check dam at Malapali to be removed to ensure the free
flow and supply to the tank.
(iii) Percolation tank to be constructed and artificial recharge to be done to
ensure the revival of the tank, keeping in mind its advantage at being
situated at the foothills.
(iv) The area allotted by Mandal Revenue Office for construction of the tank
to be increased to a minimum of 50 acres. Percolation tank with sufficient
number of recharge shafts to be developed to recharge the unsaturated
horizons up to 20 m. The design of the shafts etc. to be prepared in
consultation with the CGWB. The proposed percolation tank to be suitably
located along the bund keeping in view the inlets, irrigation sluices and
surplus water.
66
wp_16411_2020 & batch
(v) Feasibility and cost estimation for the revival of the old feeder channel for
Swarnamukhi River should be carried and a report to be submitted to the
Court.
(vi) Each house already constructed by the TTD must provide for roof top
rain water harvesting. Abstraction from ground water to be completely
banned. No borewell/ tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.
(vii) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with the
CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on ground
water regime.
With regard to Avilala tank:
(i) No further construction to be allowed in the area.
(ii) Each house already constructed by the APHB/ TUDA must provide
structure for roof top rain water harvesting. All the storm water in the
already built colonies to be recharged to groundwater. Structures for such
purposes to be designed in consultation with the CGWB.
(iii) No borewell/ tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.
(iv) An area of 40 acres presently reserved for the Government should not be
developed in any way that may lead to concretization of the ground surface.
Recharge structures to be constructed for rainwater harvesting.
(v) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with the
CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on ground
water regime.
2. Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
22
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The High Courts exercising their
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the
power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are
duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public
authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred
upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has
exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.
22
(2020) 9 SCC 356
67
wp_16411_2020 & batch
In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give
directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of
the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.”
3. Delhi Development Authority & Another Vs. Joint Action
Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Others
23
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “An executive order termed
as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the
superior courts may not interfere with the nitty-gritty of the policy, or
substitute one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the
court shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the
impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of
the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to
judicial review.
Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following
grounds:
(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it de hors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations;
(c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation;
(d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.”
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:
1. The Writ petitioners are farmers of the Lands situated adjacent to the
canal and their lands were acquired in the years 1992, 1993 and 2001 by
the SRBC Authorities for the purpose of
a) For Srisailam Right Bank Canal;
23
(2008) 2 SCC 672
68
wp_16411_2020 & batch
b) For Approach and Trial Channel of Mutchatla Vagu aqueduct for
package No.9 of SRBC;
c) For excavation of Additional Quarry for C.N.S. Soils to Block No. X of
Srisailam Right Bank Canal.
They have locus standi to file the Writ Petition. With respect to filing of
earlier petition regarding the same cause of action in W.P.No.19560/2011,
it is submitted that the earlier petition was filed with respect to barrow area
land and now it is filed with respect to canal bund only.
2. The properties allotted for house sites are private lands acquired by SRBC
Authorities for a specific purpose i.e., to have more margins.
So it should be used only for the purpose for which they are acquired.
3. When the earlier breaches occurred, it could be corrected swiftly because
there was no obstruction at that time. If the houses are built now, then it
would be difficult to mitigate the breaches or floods swiftly that may occur in
future because huge machinery which is required for mitigating the
breaches cannot be brought in the narrow lanes of houses.
The learned Additional Advocate General was not correct in submitting that
even if the floods occur, the people living in the house sites will be affected
first and not the petitioners.
4. All the present four Writ Petitions challenge the impugned orders of the
District Collector Rc.E1/494/2020, Rc.E1/495/2020, Rc.E1/496/2020
dated.04-03-2020. The District Collector cannot simply say that he took
possession of the lands belonging to the SRBC. The District Collector has
69
wp_16411_2020 & batch
not taken the opinion of the Irrigation Department before issuing the
impugned orders.
5. The Respondent No.5 (Irrigation Department) cannot say that the
property can be taken when the same is rejected by the Government vide
Memo No.24698/LA.II/A1/2012-03
24
dated 16-02-2013 and in Memo
No.24698/LA.II/A1/2012-04
25
dated 06-05-2013 the report of the Chief
Engineer is sought to decide whether the SRBC lands can be given for house
site purpose.
In the present case, the report of the Chief Engineer is not sought by the
respondents and to cure this, they brought in the Joint Inspection Report. A
land acquired for a particular purpose cannot be taken away by the Joint
Inspection Report.
6. The houses cannot be built on loose soil.
24
The Chief Engineer (Projects), Irrigation, Kurnool was requested to accord necessary
permission for sparing SRBC land for house site pattas to poor of Banaganapalli (V) from
Km.91.00 to Km.92.650 on the request of Hon’ble MLA Banaganapalli Constituency.
The Chief Engineer (Projects,) Irrigation, Kurnool is informed that once human settlements
are allowed near the canal, there will be further encroachments along the canal, moving
space along the canal will be reduced. It is not advisable to allow the Quarry area for house
sites. Either the Government land or private land can be acquired for house sites. Hence,
this proposal is herewith rejected.
25
It is noticed that on either side of canal at Km 91.000, i.e., 2A1 on right side of canal
and area between canal boundary and IB1/1B2 on the left side of canal can be spared for
giving house site pattas to poor people.
The Chief Engineer (P), Irrigation, Kurnool is requested to inspect the said site to identify
the portion of land suitable to spare for the house sites duly marking on a site map. The
land so identified shall be away from the embankment/drainage arrangements etc, so that
there shall be no interference with the functions of the maintenance of the canal. The land
identified should be segregated piece of land so that once land is allotted for house sites
there should not be encroachments on open land belonging to our department and land
which is not allotted should be fenced and used for tall tree plantations to prevent
encroachments.
He is also requested to submit a report duly attending to the above issues along with plans
duly marking the lands to be spared for the said purpose.”
70
wp_16411_2020 & batch
With respect to G.O.Ms.No.275 is concerned, it is for safeguarding the Canal
and not the people and the present Petitions were filed not for safeguarding
the canal but the people.
7. According to Para 8 of G.O.Ms.No.510, environmentally sensitive and
fragile areas such as tank beds, river beds, other water bodies shall not be
used for house site purposes fragile areas such as tank beds should not be
taken.
What is meant by Fragile needs to be determined.
Further the canal has breached 18 times and the same has not been denied
by the respondents.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL:
1. The W.P.No.19560/2011 was filed earlier with respect to the same survey
number and the same pleas were taken before the erstwhile Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said Writ Petition was dismissed vide order
dated 28-12-2011 by making the following observations:
“This Writ Petition is filed by some of the owners of the lands,
which were acquired for construction of the tail channel of SRBC, as far
back as the year 1990 with the grievance that a part of the said acquired
land is now sought to be used for construction of houses for weaker
sections.
The admitted position is that the petitioners' lands were
acquired in the year 1990 for construction of a tail channel under SRBC.
The petitioners alleged that, instead of utilizing the said land for the
purpose for which it was acquired, the respondents are intending to use
a part of the said acquired land for house sites. They apprehend that, if
the acquired property is used for housing purpose, there is every
71
wp_16411_2020 & batch
possibility of their remaining property being inundated as free flow of
water will be obstructed by construction of houses.
A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3
wherein it is inter alia averred that an extent of Ac.17-20 cents in Survey
No.55/5B of Banaganapalle Village was acquired, for construction of
aqueduct of Muchatla Vagu for changing the direction of the course of
Vagu due to formation of SRBC main canal, vide award, dated.20-03-
1993 and; that the compensation amount was paid to the land owners.
It is further averred that the Joint Collector has inspected the said land
on 15-06-2011 and noticed that the same is fit for provision of house
sites and instructed to prepare a layout in consultation with the Project
Director, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Kurnool. It
is further stated that construction of houses for weaker sections over the
said land will not affect the free flow of water from the aqueduct of
Muchatla Vagu and that there is no threat of submergence of the
petitioners' lands. It is further stated that even though the land was
acquired, the petitioners have been unauthorisedly cultivating the same
and that they have filed the present Writ Petition with a mala fide
intention to prevent use of the said land for public purpose so that they
can continue with unauthorized cultivation.
Except expressing an apprehension that there is a likelihood of
floods in the event of construction of houses over part of the acquired
land, the petitioners have not supported their plea by filling any material
such as expert's opinion. Once the property is acquired after paying
compensation, the land absolutely vests in the Government under
Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners, who received compensation, have
lost their title and interest over the acquired land. The State is, therefore,
entitled to use the property for any public purpose. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that, in the absence of any proof of the petitioner's apprehension
that construction of houses over a part of the acquired land may lead to
inundation of their remaining lands, the respondents cannot be
prevented from using the said acquired land for construction of houses
for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly is a public purpose.
For the above mentioned reasons the Writ Petition is merit less
and hence, the same is dismissed.”
72
wp_16411_2020 & batch
It is further submitted that the petitioner suppressed the 2011 order and
the inundation pleas were dismissed in the 2011 order too.
2. The petitioners are unauthorisedly cultivating the said lands and they do
not want to part with the same. So they filed the present Writ Petitions.
3. The petitioners have not filed any expert opinion to support their
contentions.
4. The petitioners are contending that the lives would be lost if the
construction of houses are allowed on the said lands then they should
file Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and not Writ Petition.
5. The G.O.Ms.No.275 dated.18-07-2017 issued as per the Andhra Pradesh
Land Development (Layout and Subdivision) Rules 2017 states that the
distance from the building or layouts to the Railways or religious
structures or Water Bodies has been prescribed differently so as to avoid
disasters due to accidents or floods or otherwise.
According to Rule 11 (b), the water bodies and courses shall be
maintained as Recreational /Green Buffer zone and no building
activity/Land Development shall be carried out within:
(iv) 9m from the defined boundary of Canal, Vagu, Nala, Storm Water
Drain of width more than 10m.
The width of the canal varies from 7.50 Meters to 10 Meters, from the
place where house sites are now proposed. As per the G.O., it is
sufficient to maintain the buffer zone of 9 Meters. But in the instant
case, there is 8 Meters path way for Inspection of the canal and 14
Meters back side slope is provided along the canal. Moreover, after the
above said measurements, a 30 Meters buffer zone is also provided
73
wp_16411_2020 & batch
along the canal which is more than the prescribed width as per the
Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules
2017. So the distance from the boundary of the canal exceeds 9
meters by any stretch of imagination.
6. With respect to the issue of inundation, it is submitted that even if the
house sites are not given, the Government cannot stop inundation.
Further the house sites were allotted after leaving the buffer zone and
before the petitioners lands. So even if the inundation occurs, the people
living in the house sites will be the first affected and then the petitioners.
Previous experience of Inundation
It is not correct to state that the SRBC canal discharges 2500 cusecs
where house sites are allotted to the poor people. The total capacity of the
canal water flow would accommodate a discharge of 1800 cusecs of
water. The petitioner also stated that there was a history of 18 times
breaches earlier inundating not only the proposed land but also
surrounding colonies of Banaganapalli town, which is not correct and
denied. The water flow of the canal is from Gorakallu Reservoir to Owk
reservoir. Since the construction of the canal till today only 800 to 1000
cusecs of water was released from Gorakallu Reservoir to Owk reservoir,
that is during the months between August to March (only 9 months).
Remaining period there would not be any flow of water in the canal.
During the period when there is no flow of water checking of the entire
canal will be conducted and if any breaches or pipings found are
74
wp_16411_2020 & batch
immediately acted upon. In fact, the SRBC Canal was breached during
the year 2014 at Km 88.750 on Right side of the bank; and in the year
2017 at Km 91.500 on Left side of the bank. The breaches and pipings
that have occurred were only meager through which only 10 cusecs of
water was leaked in pipings (leakages) & 20 to 25 cusecs of water was
leaked in breaches. Immediately the same was attended too closing the
same on war footing basis without any loss of property and human life.
7. With respect to the plea of petitioners that the Executive Engineer was
forced to give the affidavit, it is submitted that it is not a proper
argument on the part of the petitioners’ counsel.
An inspection was done by the Joint Collector in 2011 itself and noticed
that the said lands are fit for provision of house sites and instructed to
prepare a layout in consultation with the Project Director, Andhra
Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Kurnool.
And the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh too in
W.P.No.16450 of 2011 held that in the absence of any proof of the
petitioner's apprehension that construction of houses over a part of the
acquired land may lead to inundation of their remaining lands,
the respondents cannot be prevented from using the said acquired land
for construction of houses for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly is a
public purpose.
At any rate, the petitioners cannot have any grievance if the Government
is giving a house site which is a laudable object.
75
wp_16411_2020 & batch
The Joint Inspection Report conducted on 28-02-2020 stated that
“The team of officers has concluded that as there is a maintenance of 30
Mts of buffer zone on either side of the canal while preparing the house
site layouts wherever canal exists in the above mentioned lands, there
will not be any problem for the canal banks. For the remaining lands,
where the SRBC canal does not exist which were taken as borrow area at
the time of excavation of the canal, there is no objection for preparation
of house site layouts and fit for providing house sites to the eligible
beneficiaries of Banaganapalli & Banumukkala Villages of Banaganapalli
Mandal.”
8. With respect to use of lands acquired for a particular purpose and using
it for another public purpose, it is submitted that as per the order of the
erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 16450 of
2011, it is clear that “Once the property is acquired after paying
compensation, the land absolutely vests in the Government under
Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners, who received compensation, have
lost their title and interest over the acquired land. The State is, therefore,
entitled to use the property for any public purpose.”
9. With respect to the authority of the Collector to order resumption of un
utilized lands, it is submitted that the Government has authorised the
Collector under G.O.MS.NO.510, dated.30-12-2019 to utilise any
unutilised lands by the Government Department for provision of house
sites under Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu. With respect to Para 8 of
the said notification, it is submitted that it is just a canal and not
76
wp_16411_2020 & batch
environmentally sensitive and fragile areas like tank bed, river
bed. Further no deaths have occurred till date due to the breaches or
floods.
10. It is submitted that the SRBC authorities acquired Ac. 79.07 Cents
vide Award No. 4/92 dated 15-10-1992 and 18/92 dated 20-03-1993 for
the purpose of diverting the natural flood flow water of existing Mutchatla
vagu by constructing an aqueduct across the SRBC Channel in order to
prevent damage to the canal and to protect the agricultural lands of
those pattadars/ryots existing downstream due to the said diversion of
flood water of the Mutchatla Vagu. But now with the increase in the area
of cultivation of lands upwards in the catchment area and the
construction of GNSS canal, a flood flow channel just at a distance to the
west of SRBC on parallel lines, the volume of water and the strength of
its currents of Mutchatla Vagu stream reduced to a minimum. Some of
the vested interests have gone to the extent of laying plots in the said
lands and are selling them unauthorizedly and some temporary and
permanent constructions have started to come. Thus the acquired land is
being wasted and has become a venture for real estate and peaceful
cultivation. Those lands are located very near to the Banaganapalle town
and located besides the Banaganapalle road towards its east and west.
It is submitted that in order to vindicate the version of Respondent No.4,
a copy of the Judgment in WP.No.19560/2011
26 dated 28-12-2011
26
The Writ Petition is filed by the owners of the lands whose lands were acquired for the
purpose of constructing tail channel of SRBC in the year 1990. The grievance of the
petitioners is that, instead of utilising the said land for the purpose for which it was
acquired, the respondents are intending to use a part of the said acquired land for house
77
wp_16411_2020 & batch
delivered by the then Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is filed. It is
submitted that the efforts of the government to utilize the said lands for
the purpose of house sites have been thwarted by the vested interests
since a long time when the Joint Collector, Kurnool on 15-06-2011
inspected the land and gave a green signal but as on date it is not
materialized.
Upon consideration of the above said facts and circumstances,
the rival submissions made, and the cases cited, it can be reasoned as
under:
(1) The respondent No.1 issued the G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (Lands-I)
Department, dated 30.12.2019 authorising the District Collectors of the
respective Districts to resume the unutilized Government lands on the
grounds of violation of conditions or non utilization of the allotted land
which was earlier alienated in favour of the Private Individuals/Private
Organizations/ Government Organizations/ Government Departments/
Public Sector Undertakings/State Government Corporations/Urban
sites. They apprehend that, if the acquired property is used for housing purpose, there is
every possibility of their remaining property being inundated as free flow of water will be
obstructed by construction of houses.
The then Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “Except expressing an
apprehension that there is a likelihood of floods in the event of construction of houses over
part of the acquired land, the petitioners have not supported their plea by filing any
material such as expert’s opinion. Once the property is acquired after paying compensation,
the land absolutely vests in the Government under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners,
who received compensation, have lost their title and interest over the acquired land. The
State is, therefore, entitled to use the property for any public purpose.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that, in the absence of any proof of the petitioners’
apprehension that construction of houses over a part of the acquired land may lead to
inundation of their remaining lands, the respondents cannot be prevented from using the
said acquired land for construction of houses for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly, is a
public purpose.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is merit less and hence, the same is
dismissed.”
78
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Development Authorities & Urban Local Bodies on the grounds of violation
of conditions or non-utilisation of the alienated lands in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.57, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 16.02.2015 and they are
further authorised to utilize the lands acquired by various government
departments/organisations for any public purpose but not put into use for
the same purpose. These lands shall be utilized for providing House sites to
the eligible beneficiaries under the flagship programme of “Navaratnalu-
Pedalandariki Illu”. Paragraph 8 of the said GO prohibits the District
Collectors from proposing any lands belonging to the Endowments,
Educational Institutions, Wakf or any other religious related lands,
environmentally sensitive and fragile areas such as tank beds, river beds,
other water bodies and hillocks with afforestation etc., for the house site
purposes.
In the light of the above said GO, the revenue officials inspected the
subject lands belonging to the Water Resources Department-SRBC land and
found that they are available as unutilized lands by the SRBC and in the
portion of the total extent of the land available, about 1453 beneficiaries and
above can be accommodated by converting them into house sites for
providing house sites to the eligible house less poor. Accordingly, they
submitted a report to the respondent No.2/District Collector and upon
consideration of the matter thoroughly the respondent No.2 issued the
impugned Memo dated 04.03.2020 directing the Tahsildar concerned to take
over the possession of the subject lands for providing house sites to the
79
wp_16411_2020 & batch
eligible beneficiaries under the welfare scheme of Navaratnalu-pedalandariki
illu.
The said impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2020 also refers to the
G.O.Ms.No.367, Revenue (Assignment-I) Dept., dated 19.08.2019 which
deals with the distribution of house site pattas to all the eligible
beneficiaries residing in rural and urban areas in the State under the
flagship programme of “Navaratnalu-Pedalandiriki illu” following the policy
guidelines for implementation of the programme.
(2) There was a Memo issued by the respondent No.1 dated 06.05.2013
requesting the Chief Engineer (Projects) to inspect the said site in Survey
No.62/1B to 147/2A in Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Kurnool District
to identify the portion of the land suitable to spare for the house sites duly
marking on a site map. The land so identified shall be away from the
embankment/ drainage arrangements etc so that there shall be no
interference with the functions of the maintenance of the canal. The land
identified should be a segregated piece of land so that once land is allotted
for the house sites there should not be encroachments on open land
belonging to the department and the land which is not allotted should be
fenced and used for tall tree plantations to prevent encroachments.
Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and
Sub-division) Rules, 2017 were framed by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.275, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development (H) Department, dated 18.07.2017 in which the then existing
lay out rules were revised by issuing a common and comprehensive lay out
80
wp_16411_2020 & batch
Rules for all the Urban Development Authorities and Urban Local Bodies in
the State for achieving transparency and also for easy implementation so as
to encourage faster development. Under the said Rules of the Andhra
Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017, the land
development/layout shall be considered subject to the condition as under:
“11. Water Bodies
(a) No building/Land Development shall be approved in the bed of water bodies
like river or nala and in the Full Tank Level (FTL) of any lake, pond, cheruvu or
kunta/shikam lands.
Unless and otherwise stated, the area and the Full Tank Level (FTL) of a
Lake/Kunta shall be reckoned as measured and as certified by the Irrigation Department
and Revenue Department.
(b) The above water bodies and courses shall be maintained as Recreational/Green
Buffer Zone and no building activity/Land Development shall be carried out within:
(i)…
(ii)….
(iii)…
(iv) 9m from the defined boundary of Canal, Vagu, Nala, Storm Water Drain
of width more than 10 m.
(v)…
(c)…”
(3) There was a joint Inspection Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Executive Engineer, SRBC, Banaganapalli and Executive Engineer, Housing,
Nandyal on 28.02.2020. As per the said report they inspected the subject
lands in Banaganapalli and Banumukkala villages of Banaganapalli Mandal
which were already acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition, Nandyal and kept unutilised by the SRBC Department for a
long time and now proposed for providing house sites to the eligible
beneficiaries of Banaganapalli and Banumukkala Villages of Banaganapalli
Mandal under Navaratnalu– Pedalandiriki Illu Programme in different
survey numbers for different extents in total to an extent of Ac.65.11 cents.
The said lands were classified as Government lands as per column No.6 of
Adangal and the then Special Deputy Collector, LA, SRBC, Banaganapalli
81
wp_16411_2020 & batch
and Nandyal had acquired the lands for formation of SRBC Canal, SRBC
quarters as borrow area for Soils and also for keeping/movement of large
number of vehicles. Due to excavation of large quantity of soils in the borrow
areas, at the time of formation of canal there were large pits in the borrow
areas. These pits can be leveled by the Revenue authorities making it
suitable for providing the house sites. They also noted that the Government
of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.510 (Revenue) Lands Department, dated
30.12.2019 authorized the District Collector, Kurnool to resume the
unutilized lands for providing house sites to the eligible beneficiaries under
the flagship programme of Navarathnalu – Pedalandariki Illu. During the
field inspection, the joint inspection team noticed that the SRBC department
dug the pits from the borrow area of the acquired lands which have to be
leveled for providing house sites. They further opined that the buffer zone
where ever the canal exists on either side of the SRBC Canal, for a distance
of 30 mts from the banks of the canal is to be left to safeguard the canal.
They further observed that the area proposed for house sites are fit for
providing house sites to the beneficiaries as the canal area and buffer zone
were left and maintained as per the instructions of the Water Resources
authorities and excluded from house site proposals. They further noted that
the discharge capacity of the canal in this SRBC reach is about 1800 Cusecs
and the entire canal is lined. Even if any breaches occurs there is an
emergency bed level escape at Km.89.442 of the SRBC main canal with a
discharge capacity of 400 cusecs to decrease the flow of water in the canal.
The lands in Survey Nos.51/5A, 55/1B, 55/2B, 57/1B1, 57/1C1, 70/2A1,
66/2A1B,70/1B2, 69/1B, 69/2A2A, 72/1, 73/1A & 67 are left out and not
82
wp_16411_2020 & batch
proposed for house sites which relates to the SRBC. So the soils that are
available in these lands can be utilized, whenever necessity arises for SRBC
purposes. The Executive Engineer Housing, Nandyal also stated that if the
jungle/pits existing in the land are cleaned and levelled,
the above lands are feasible for housing purpose. Finally they submitted
that 30 mts buffer zone is to be left, wherever canal exists on either side of
SRBC canal in the above said lands so that there will not be any problem for
the canal banks. For the remaining lands, where the SRBC canal does not
exist which were taken as borrow area for the soils at the time of excavation
of the canal there is no objection for preparation of house site layouts, as
these lands are fit for providing house sites to the eligible beneficiaries of
Banaganapalli & Banumukkala Villages of Banaganapalli Mandal.
(4) The Executive Engineer, SRBC Division II, Banaganapalli also
addressed a letter to the Superintending Engineer, SRBC, Circle-2, Nandyal
dated 08.07.2020 stating that the revenue authorities may be requested to
maintain 30 mtrs of buffer zone wherever canal exists in the above
mentioned lands so that there will not be any problem for the canal banks.
For the remaining lands, where the SRBC canal does not exist which were
taken for borrow area at the time of excavation of the canal, there is no
objection for preparation of house site layouts. In turn the superintendent
Engineer, SRBC Circle No.2, addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Nandyal, dated 08.07.2020 requesting the revenue authorities to
maintain 30 mts of buffer zone on either side of the canal while preparing
the house site layouts wherever canal exists in the above mentioned lands.
83
wp_16411_2020 & batch
For the remaining lands where the SRBC Canal does not exist which were
taken for borrow area at the time of excavation of the canal, there is no
objection for preparation of house site layouts.
In the instant case, the width of the canal varies from 7.50 metres to
10 metres, from the place where house sites are now proposed. As per the
G.O.Ms.No.275, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H)
Department, dated 18.07.2017, it is sufficient to maintain the buffer zone of
9 metres. As per Rule 11(b) (iv) of the above said GO, it is necessary to
maintain 9 metres from the defined boundary of canal but in this case they
left 8 metres path way for inspection of the land and 14 metres back side
slop is provided along the side of the canal. Apart from the said
measurements, another 30 metres buffer zone is also provided along the
side of the canal which is more than the prescribed rules.
It is the experience of the respondents that right from the construction
of the canal till date only 800 to 1000 cusecs water was released from
Gorakallu Reservoir to Owk reservoir, between the months of August to
March and in the remaining period there was no flow of water in the canal.
During that period, checking for the canal will be conducted and if any
breaches or pipings found they were attended immediately. When it was
breached in the year 2014 at K.M. 88.750 on the right side of the Bank and
in the year 2017 at K.M. 91.500 on the left side of the Bank. Only 10 cusecs
of water was leaked in pipings and 20 to 25 cusecs of water was leaked
through breaches. Immediately by acting upon the same the said problem
was solved without there being any loss of property and human life.
84
wp_16411_2020 & batch
(5) The next thing is that the case cited by the petitioner’s counsel
reported in Intellectual Forum’s case
27 has no application to the facts of
this case as it relates to the case of alienation of Avilalla tank bed land and
Peruru tank bed land to the Tirupati Urban Development Authority and the
AP Housing Board and TTD for housing purpose and whereas in this case
no tank bed land is involved. Hence absolutely it has no application for the
cases on hand dealt with by this common order.
But the facts of these cases are more or less similar to the facts in
W.P.No.19560 of 2011, which was dismissed by the erstwhile High Court
vide order dated 28.12.2011. In that case also the petitioners who were the
earlier owners of the lands therein which were acquired for construction of
the Tail channel of SRBC on payment of compensation under the land
acquisition proceedings and they raised grievance much later in the year
2011 when the said lands were proposed for construction of houses for the
weaker sections.
It is a settled legal position that once the property is acquired after
paying compensation, the land absolutely vests in the Government and the
petitioners who received compensation cannot claim any title and interest
over the acquired lands. Therefore, the State is entitled to use the acquired
lands for any other public purpose.
(6) When a policy decision is impugned, that is subject to the judicial
review on the grounds that when it is unconstitutional, de hors the
provisions of the Act, the rules and the regulations, the delegatee when
27
AIR 2006 SC 1350
85
wp_16411_2020 & batch
acted beyond its power of delegation and when the executive policy is
contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.
In these cases the policy decision of the State in providing welfare
scheme for the poor by identifying the real beneficiaries is not under
challenge.
(7) In fact it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide
housing for the poor by identifying the real beneficiaries in a welfare state to
protect their rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is not an out of place to discuss the relevant case law as under:
1. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Ors
(1997) 11 SCC 121 it was held that
“Socio-economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity and dignity of
person to foster the fraternity among all the sections of the society in an integrated
Bharat is the arch of the Constitution set down in its preamble. Articles 39 and 38
enjoins the State to provide facilities and opportunities. Articles 38 and 46 of the
Constitution enjoin the State to promote welfare of the people by securing social and
economic justice to the weaker sections of the society to minimise inequalities in
income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status. ”
2. In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549, it was held that
“In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting
only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to
develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human
rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised
society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care
and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil,
political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without
these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection
86
wp_16411_2020 & batch
of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally,
intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space,
safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and
water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy
access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right
to a roof over one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to
live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite
to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right.
As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an
obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a
democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have
permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to
improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to
be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a
man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to
develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates
the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice,
fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the
Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and
opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and
constitutional rights.”
3. In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame MANU/SC/0115/1990 :
AIR 1990 SC 630, it was held that the basic needs of man have traditionally been
accepted to be three-food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any
civilised society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to
clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in.
The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be
kept in view. For an animal, it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being, it
has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect-
physical, mental and intellectual. The surplus urban-vacant land was directed to be used
to provide shelter to the poor.
87
wp_16411_2020 & batch
4. In P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/1006/1995 : 1995(1)SCALE653 ,
the Hon’ble Bench of three Judges had considered the mandate of human right to
shelter and read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention of Civic, Economic and
Cultural Rights and had held that it is the duty of the State to construct houses at
reasonable cost and make them easily accessible to the poor. The aforesaid principles
have been expressly embodied and in-built in our Constitution to secure socio-
economic democracy so that everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of the
person. Article 22 of the Declaration of Human Rights envisages that everyone has a
right to social security and is entitled to its realisation as the economic, social and
cultural rights are indispensable for his dignity and free development of his personality.
It would, therefore, be clear that though no person has a right to encroach and erect
structures or otherwise on footpath, pavement or public streets or any other place
reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the State has the Constitutional duty to
provide adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for
settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life
meaningful, effective and fruitful. Right to livelihood is meaningful because no one can
live without means of this living, that is the means of livelihood. The deprivation of the
right to life in that context would not only denude life of effective content and
meaningfulness but it would make life miserable and impossible to live. It would,
therefore, be the duty of the State to provide right to shelter to the poor and indigent
weaker sections of the society in fulfilment of the constitutional objectives.
As discussed above considering various aspects and in view of the
constitutional mandate, support and back up, the welfare scheme of the
State “Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu” shall go on in it’s implementation and
it cannot be hampered, hindered, scuttled or thwarted for extraneous
reasons or with ulterior motives and vested interests.
8. Since the respondent authorities herein followed the above said rules,
government orders, proceedings, report, circulars and letters and necessary
88
wp_16411_2020 & batch
precautions have been taken, it can be safely held that the impugned
proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 04.03.2000 in all these cases are
liable to be declared valid, just and proper for the purpose of distribution of
house sites to the eligible beneficiaries in the subject lands of these writ
petitions covering an extent of Ac.130.86 cents in total. However,
the respondents are directed to protect the remaining open land left for
SRBC Canal maintenance from encroachments and illegal cultivation by
fencing and raising all the tall tree plantations to prevent such
encroachments, occupations and usage. All other necessary measures/
precautions shall be taken to ensure the safety and maintenance of the
canal and the repairs of the canal shall be attended immediately including
breaches/leakages that may occur at any time. Similarly all the necessary
steps/precautions shall be taken for the safe living of the people/the
beneficiaries in the subject sites by ensuring the structural stability of the
houses that may be proposed to be constructed as per the specifications and
norms of the project.
9) Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed off. Interim orders, if any,
are deemed to have been vacated. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
April 4, 2024
Note: LR Copy to be marked
{B/o}
LMV
89
wp_16411_2020 & batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION Nos. 16411, 7736, 16410, 17541 of 2020
04.04.2024
LMV
Legal Notes
Add a Note....