HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION No.12895 of 2022

illegal mining, public trust doctrine, water bodies, environmental protection, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Writ Petition, sand excavation, SOP, minor minerals, ecological balance

15 Jul, 2026
Listen in 00:58 mins | Read in 73:30 mins

Boddusatyavathi Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court WRIT PETITION No.12895 of 2022

Link copied!

Case Background

As per case facts, petitioners, who are farmers, sought relief against the District Collector's actions allowing concessionaires to excavate sand and gravel from Kannamnaidu Water Pond for National Highway construction, ...

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION No.12895 of 2022

Between:

1. BODDUSATYAVATHI, W/O.RAMU BONDAPALLIMANDALAM,

KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

2. GORLEVENKATARAMANA, S/O GORLESATHYANARAYANA

VARRIVEEDHI, KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

3. DEVUPALLINARAM NAIDU, S/O ACHHANNA

C-93 VARRIVEEDHI, BONDAPALLIMANDALAM,

KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

4. VARRISANYASAPPADU, S/O NAYANAPPA,

H.NO 1-63A, MAJJIVEEDHI, BONDAPALLIMANDALAM, ,

KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NELAPADU,

AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINES,

OFFICE OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,

VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR,

VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION,

OFFICE OF THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,

VIZIANAGARAM.

5. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAQ,

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

OFFICE OF THE RDO, VIZIANAGARAM,

ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT(S):

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.07.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

___________________________________

JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

+ WRIT PETITION No.12895 of 2022

% 15.07.2026

BODDUSATYAVATHI, W/O.RAMU BONDAPALLIMANDALAM,

KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM – 535221 & 3 others

... Petitioners

Vs.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

GEOLOGY NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

& 4 OTHERS

... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Alekhya Reddy Tadasina

^ Counsel for Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM

AREA DEV

GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

? CASES REFERRED : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892)

(1997) 1 SCC 388

(1995) 2 SCC 577

(2000) 6 SCC 213

(1981) 2 SCC 205

(2012) 3 SCC 1

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796

(1999) 8 SCC 266

(2011) 8 SCC 568

Date of Reserved:08.05.2026

Date of pronouncement: 15.07.2026

Date of uploading: 15.07.2026

APHC010219002022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3504]

WEDNESDAY, THE 15

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 12895 of 2022

Between:

1. BODDUSATYAVATHI, W/O.RAMU BONDAPALLIMANDALAM,

KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

2. GORLEVENKATARAMANA, S/O GORLESATHYANARAYANA

VARRIVEEDHI, KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

3. DEVUPALLINARAM NAIDU, S/O ACHHANNA C -93 VARRIVEEDHI,

BONDAPALLIMANDALAM, KOTHAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

4. VARRISANYASAPPADU, S/O NAYANAPPA, H.NO 1 -63A,

MAJJIVEEDHI, BONDAPALLIMANDALAM, KOTHAPALEM,

VIZIANAGARAM - 535221.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

GEOLOGY NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINES, OFFICE OF MINES AND

GEOLOGY, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR,

VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, OFFICE OF THE

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VIZIANAGARAM.

5. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAQ, REVENUE DIVISIONAL

OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA

PRADESH

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased to issue any order, direction, writ more particularly one in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus, declaring the actions of the Respondents, more

particularly respondent no.3 in permitting the concessionaires and other

organisations to excavate and shift sand and gravel from nearby ponds

existing in the nearby villages for construction work relating to National

Highways including the issuance of the proceedings vide Rc No

2292/2015/G3/Dt. 08.04.2022 and Rc No 2292/2015/G3/Dt. 15.04.2022 as

illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and contrary to the

provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,

A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and Andhra Pradesh Mineral

Dealer Rules, 2017and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith stop

the illegal mining operations happening in the kannamnaidu water pond,

KothtapalleVilalge, BondapalleMandalam and set aside the impugned

proceedings and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

direct the respondents to forthwith stop the illegal mining operations

happening in the Kannaninaidu water pond, Kothapall e Village,

BondapalleMandalam by suspending the impugned proceedings pending the

final disposal of the writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. ALEKHYA REDDY TADASINA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

4. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION No.12895 of 2022

The Court made the following Order:

Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Art 226 of the Constitution of

India with the following main prayer:

“to issue any order ,direction , writ more particularly one in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents more

particularly respondent no.3 in permitting the concessionaires and other

organisations to excavate and shift sand and gravel from nearby ponds

existing in the nearby villages for construction work relating to National

Highways including the issuance of the proceedings vide Rc No

2292/2015/G3/Dt 08 04 2022 and Rc No 2292/2015/G3/Dt 15 04 2022

as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional without jurisdiction and contrary to

the provisions of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act

1957 A P Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and Andhra Pradesh

Mineral Dealer Rules 2017and consequently direct the respondents to

forthwith stop the illegal mining operations happening in the

kannamnaidu water pond Kothtapalle Village, Bondapalle Mandalam

and set aside the impugned proceedings and pass may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances in the case”.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.3 in

permitting concessionaires and other organisations to excavate sand and

gravel from nearby ponds/water bodies existing in the nearby villages for

construction work relating to National Highways.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows:

i) Petitioners are farmers in Kothapalem Village, Bondapalli Mandal,

Vizianagaram District and “Kannamnaidu Water Pond” is the only

source of water to carry out their agricultural activities and it acts

as source of water for nearby villages spreading up to nearly

2,000 acres. Petitioners submit that Government of India, issued

a Notification for acquisition of land in Vizianagram District, for the

development of Economic Corridors, Inter Corridors, Feeder

Routes and Coastal Roads to improve the efficiency of freight

movement of India (Lt-3/Odisha &Jharkhand-Kurd-Ondarangi

Section of Raipur-Vishakapatnam EC Extension upto

Vizianagaram in the State of Andhra Pradesh from 363.62 Kms to

458.05 Kms Section of NH130CD.)

ii. Concessionaires of the National Highway Project requested the

District Collector i.e., Respondent No.3 to excavate and shift the

soil and gravel from the nearby ponds in the existing villages, for

the purpose of construction of National Highway and that in the

reply to the said request, the District Collector straightaway

directed Respondent Nos.2 and 4 vide Rc.No.2292/2015/G3/

Dt.08.04.2022 and Rc.No.2292/2015/G3/Dt.15.04.2022 to

facilitate the concessionaires to excavate and shift the soil and

gravel from the ponds in the nearby villages identified by the

Respondent No.5/Competent Authority (L.A.)NH-130 CD &

Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, for the construction

purpose, so as to facilitate the concessionaries for the work.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the action of the 3

Respondent (District Collector) in issuing Rc.No.2292/2015/G3/Dt.08.04.2022

and Rc.No.2292/2015/G3/Dt.15.04.2022 to Respondent Nos.2 and 4 is

grossly illegal and arbitrary, as the District Collector is not having any authority

or jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming a moment that the

work of National Highway is in the interest of the public, the mere use of the

term „public interest’ does not permit the authorities to violate mining rules,

where environmental and other ecological issues are directly involved.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that as per the Andhra

Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the soil and gravel are Minor

Minerals and as per the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

1966; Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2017; and Mines and Minerals

(Development & Regulation) Act, 2017, no person shall undertake quarrying of

any minor mineral in any area expect either under the conditions stipulated

therein of a lease agreement or under a permit granted to the persons under

the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

7. Learned counsel further argues that identification of the place to

excavate the soil and gravel cannot be done, at the whims and fancies of the

Respondents and submits that proper identification has to be done in

consultation and approval of the conservator of water bodies.

8. Learned counsel further asserts that in order to excavate the soil and

gravel from the Kannamnaidu Water Body, an application has to be made

before concerned authorities including Respondent No.2 and other numerous

permissions are required to be taken before excavating the soil and gravel,

including transit passes and dispatch permits. He submits that in the present

case, no such application has ever been made to excavate the soil from

Kannamnaidu Water Body.

9. At last, he contends that the District Collector has subsumed the

jurisdiction of the Mines Department and illegally issued the impugned

proceedings. It is also stated that the petitioners along with the other villagers

have also made a representation to the respondents and other officers to

immediately stop the concessionaries from excavating and shifting the soil

and gravel from Kannamnaidu Water Body. But, the respondents have not

paid any heed to the requests of the petitioners and are helping the

concessionaries to further excavate and shift the soil and gravel illegally.

10. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that Respondent No.3 has issued

instructions vide Rc.No.2292/2015/G3, dated 08.04.2022 to the 2

Respondent stating that the competent authority (LA) NH-5130 CD & Revenue

Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram has reported that the Government of India

has issued notification for acquisition of land in Vizianagaram District, for

development of Economic Corridors, Feeder Routes and Coastal Roads to

improve the efficiency of freight movement of India (Lot-3/Odisha and

Jharkhand-Kurd-Ondarangi Section of Raipur-Visakhapatnam EC Extension

upto Vizianagaram and from 363.32 Kms to 458.05 Kms Section of NH-130)

and as a part of the above project, construction work is going on in certain

places in the district and the concessionaries who are holding the construction

work have requested to shifting of gravel/Earth from the nearby places, for

construction work and also excavation of sand from the nearby ponds existing

in the nearby villages, for construction purpose.

11. He further submits that, the 3

Respondent requested the 2

Respondent to permit the concerned, for shifting of gravel and excavation of

sand from the ponds in the nearby available villages, as identified by the

Competent Authority (L.A) NH- 130CD & Revenue Divisional Officer,

Vizianagaram, for construction purpose, so as to facilitate the concessionaries

for speedy completion of the work.

12. Learned Government Pleader contends that as per office records, no

applications were received from the concessionaries for issue of permit,

consequent to the instructions issued by the 3

Respondent in

Rc.No.2292/2015/G3, dated 08.04.2022 and as such, no permits were

accorded to any concessionaries from this office to excavate the soil and

gravel from the nearby ponds in nearby villages to the Highway works as

contended by the petitioner. He asserts that the permits can be issued on

collection of necessary Seigniorage Fee, application fees, rents and rates as

prescribed by the Government under A ndhra Pradesh Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1966, after receipt of necessary orders from the concerned

mining authorities.

13. It is apt to note that, except the 2

Respondent, no other Respondents

have filed counter-affidavit. In fact, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Memos

by compilation of their concerned departments G.O‟s and Memos/Circular

Instructions in respect of Water Bodies, Tanks, Bed Lands etc.

14. It is pertinent to note that, this Court on 06.05.2022 observed that the

impugned proceedings does not contain any guidelines and that giving such a

general permission is clearly not conductive to the ecological balance of the

water bodies and suspended the proceedings, by leaving it open to the District

Collector, Vizianagram, to issue fresh proceedings, after taking into

consideration, the requirement to maintain the ecological balance of water

bodies including ponds in the villages and after setting out guidelines, as to

how such excavation is to be carried out. Thereafter, the matter was listed on

16.02.2026 and there was no representation for the petitioner on that day and

later, when the matter was subsequently listed on 20.02.2026, in view of the

gravity of issue on hand, this court directed the learned Government Pleader

for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation to submit their

respective departmental G.O.‟s/Memos/Guidelines etc,. in respect of

preservation and protection of water bodies and to prepare comprehensive

report in detail, more particularly, the remedial measures taken for preserving

water bodies across the State.

15. Further, the matter was adjourned twice to give time to learned

Government Pleaders to submit their respective response. At last, when the

matter was listed on 01.04.2026, the learned Government Pleader has

submitted their respective compilation, and on that date, this Court after taking

into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, has passed an order,

wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, respective

Government Pleaders submitted that they have complied with the

earlier orders of this Court and filed respective compilation of

Government Memo and other documents.

5. After glancing the relevant material filed by the respective parties, this

Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and also after taking note of the judicial notice of successive cases

being filed before this Court alleging the illegal excavation of natural

resources i.e., water bodies, hillock etc., particularly minor,

6. Added to that keeping in view Doctrine of Salus Populi Suprema

lex (the welfare of people in the supreme law) and also Doctrine of

Public Trust, as the same were recognized right from vedic period as

well as Indian dynasties some of them are Mourya, Gupta, Chola,

Vijayanagara, which are being followed by the Apex Court and this

Court in catena of judgments as well as multiple statutory frame works

codified by our legislative bodies.

7. In fact, the Executive Authorities also issuing repeated Memos by

merely mentioning specific orders of the Constitutional Courts for

instance Govt.MemoNo.50150/Assn.J(1)/98.1 dated 02.09.1998 was

issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh wherein by mentioning

interim order dated 22.09.1997 in WP MP No.27780 of 1997 in WP

No.23829 of 1997 passed by the common High Court at Hyderabad

issued specific measures to all the District Collectors in the entire state

which seems to remain as mere communication in the concerned

Government Office files. But its true letter and spirit is lacking in its

implementation by the ground level office personnel.

8. In view of the above peculiar aspects involved in the lis, as well

as similar cases are being filed day in and day out, this Court venture

into pass the following order.

9. All the parties are hereby directed to come up with effective

appropriate measures comprehensively within the statutory realm more

particularly, in view of significance of the lis, as well as series of

identical/similar cases are pending before this Court, Chief Secretary to

State of Andhra Pradesh is hereby directed to look into above aspects

and give suitable instructions to all the concerned respondents to

submit their concerned departmental measures etc., and thereafter

codifying the same in a structured manner in the form of Standard

Operating Procedures (SOP), with a sole intention to prevent/address

the illegal, irregular acts which are greatly damaging the water bodies in

multiple facets.

10. Registry is directed to serve a copy of this Order to the Chief

Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Principal

Secretary-Irrigation Department, the Principal Secretary-Revenue

Department, the Principal Secretary-Land Acquisition Department and

also to the learned Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

for taking effective steps to reach logical end in the lis.

11. Registry is directed to print the name of learned Advocate

General for the respondents in the cause list.”

Emphasis supplied.

16. Idea of conserving and protecting the nature is not a modern

development because the concept of respecting, protecting and conserving

the nature has been in existence, since ancient times across the world. More

particularly, in our Indian context, our ancient scriptures teaches us to respect

and worship the earth, sky, rivers, plants which all form part of nature and the

same is rooted in the belief that such resources are intended for common

benefit of all living beings.

17. Water and other natural resources has always been regarded as a

sacred and life-sustaining resource across the world's major religions,

reflecting the essence of the Doctrine of Public Trust. In Hinduism, rivers such

as the Ganga, Yamuna, and Godavari are revered as divine mothers, and

water is considered a purifier of the body, mind, and soul. The Vedas and

other Hindu scriptures emphasize that natural resources are gifts of nature

meant for the welfare of all living beings and should not be polluted or

monopolized.

18. In Christianity, water symbolizes life, purification and renewal, as seen

in the sacrament of baptism and numerous Biblical references describing

water as God's blessing for all humanity. The Bible teaches that the Earth and

its resources belong to God and human beings are merely stewards entrusted

with their protection and responsible use.

19. Similarly, in Islam, water is regarded as a divine gift and a source of life.

Islamic teachings prohibit wastage and contamination of water and recognize

that all people have an equal right to access this essential resource. Thus, the

shared values of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and all other communities

recognize water not as private property but as a common heritage entrusted to

human kind for preservation and equitable use from generation to generation.

These religious principles closely align with the Doctrine of Public Trust.

20. The “Doctrine of Public Trust” is based on a principle that certain

resources like air, sea, water, forests etc are gifts of nature and should be

made available to all the people and as such, it must be held by the State as a

trustee for the public, as it would be unjustified to subject these valuable

resources to private ownership. The doctrine imposes a duty on the State to

preserve and protect the resources in the public interest as to preserve the

natural resources for present and also for future population.

21. In this context, it is apt to note that the Doctrine of Public Trust has its

origin in Roman Law, whereas under English common law, the Sovereign

could own the natural resources but the ownership was limited in nature and

the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners, if such grants

would interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. The United

States Supreme Court, in the case of Illinois Central Railroad Co Vs People

of State of Illinois

, vividly explained its substantial thoughts in the domain of

Doctrine of Public Trust and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

, have discussed the philosophical basis and

observed as under:

“34. Our legal system based on English common law 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. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running

waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a

trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These

36 L Ed 1018 (1892)

(1997) 1 SCC 388

resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private

ownership.”

Thus, Apex Court of India in its unequivocal words explained the origin,

significance in a meaningful manner and recognized it as an integral and

inextricable part of Indian Jurisprudence. The Court categorically held that the

public trust doctrine is part of law of this country.

22. Significantly, preservation and protection of environment has been

recognized as an integral part of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India.

23. In Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana

, Hon‟ble Supreme Court

observed that the Right to Life under Article 21 of Constitution of India,

extends beyond mere physical existence and includes Right to Live with

human dignity in a clean, safe and healthy environment, for which protection

and preservation of the environment, maintenance of ecological balances and

access to unpolluted air and water are just necessary and held that the State

has to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic

environment.

24. Further, Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution, lays down a

strong foundation pertaining to environment, preservation of forests, wildlife,

rivers and lakes. Constitutional philosophy enshrined in these constitutional

provisions must be implemented in its stricto sensu. For better understanding

Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution is delineated as under:

(1995) 2 SCC 577

"48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of

forests and wildlife. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve

the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the

country."

"51-A. (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living

creatures".

Emphasis supplied

25. Whereas the Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

, held that

Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India must be interpreted in light

of Article 21 of Constitution of India. In this context, it is significant to extract

the relevant portion:

“8. …. These two articles have to be considered in the light of Article 21

of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of

his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established

by law. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air,

water and soil, which are necessary for “life”, would be hazardous to

“life” within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

26. In State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others

, the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court observed that natural resources, including minerals, are part

of the nation's wealth and that every generation bears a responsibility to

conserve and develop them in the best possible manner, for the benefit of the

future.

"6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a

nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away

and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to

(2000) 6 SCC 213

(1981) 2 SCC 205

all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural

resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of

mankind. It is in the interest of the nation ...."

27. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors

v.Union Of India & Ors

, while dealing with the Doctrine of Public Trust and

the distribution of natural resources observed that there is no universally

accepted definition of natural resources and that such resources are generally

considered as having intrinsic utility to mankind and further held that

“74.… Natural resources belong to the people but the State legally owns

them on behalf of its people and from that point of view natural

resources are considered as national assets, more so because the

State benefits immensely from their value.

75. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However,

as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing

natural resources, the State is bound to act in consonance with the

principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken

which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action,

constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of

natural resources.In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been

provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the

community should be distributed so as to best subserve the common

good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally

define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of

course, environmental laws enacted by Parliament and State

Legislatures deal with specific natural resources i.e forest, air ,water ,

coastal zones etc ”

(2012) 3 SCC 1

Which means the State is the legal owner of the natural resources as a trustee

of the people and although it is empowered to distribute the same, the process

of distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles including the

doctrine of equality and larger public good.

28. Moreover the Constitutional Bench (Nine Judge Bench) of Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority Etc v. M/s.Steel

Authority of India

, reaffirmed that natural resources, including minerals, are

held by the State in trust for the benefit of the people, the State is under a

constitutional obligation to protect, manage, and regulate mineral resources in

a manner that serves the public interest, ensures sustainable development,

and safeguards the interests of both the present and future generations. And

stated that:

“61. The principles which emanates from the above discussion is that

State holds all natural resources, including minerals as a trustee of the

public and must deal with them in a manner consistent with the nature

of such trust”

Therefore, in view of Constitutional Provisions, coupled with authoritative

judicial dictums by the Supreme Court, some of which have been only referred

above for illustrative purposes wherein the Doctrine of Public Trust has been

mandated and is required to be implemented in its true letter and spirit in the

pragmatic way.

29. Coming to the case on hand, it is the specific case asserted by learned

counsel for the petitioners that the 3

Respondent who is District Collector,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796

without following due process of law, unilaterally, arbitrarily issued

proceedings vide Rc.2292/2015/G3, dated 08.04.2022, addressed to the 2

Respondent-Mining Authority to permit the concessionaires for shifting of

gravel and excavation of sand from the ponds/water bodies from the nearby

villages as identified by the 5

Respondent. Similarly, the very same 3

Respondent also issued P roceedings vide Rc.2292/2015/G3, dated

15.04.2022 addressing the 4

Respondent who is Executive Engineer in

Irrigation Department in a similar fashion and asked them to facilitate the

concessionaires. In proof of the said assertions, learned counsel for the

petitioners placed the relevant proceedings as material papers along with

multiple photographs, which clearly depicts the process of excavations of the

sand and gravel in and around the water bodies.

30. In reply to the said Writ Affidavit, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 only have

filed Counter Affidavit, wherein they have also admitted the issuance of

proceedings dated 08.04.2022 addressed to the Respondent No.2, however,

they have stated that as per their office records, they have not received any

application from the concessionaries seeking permission to excavate soil and

gravel and that they have not issued any permits in that regard.

31. In the light of above rival contentions asserted by the respective

counsels, it is crystal clear that the averments relates to the excavation and

shifting of the sand and gravel nearby the water bodies. Added to that, it is

prima facie evident from the material on record filed by the petitioner along

with the Writ Affidavit (which remains undisputed by the respondents) that

excavation and shifting are taking place in and around the water bodies.

32. In fact, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 who are answering Respondents have

not filed any counters either substantiate or contradicting the issuance of

proceedings dated 08.04.2022 and 15.04.2022 by Respondent No.3 (District

Collector). Thus, in view of the above apparent facts and circumstances, it is

crystal clear that the issuance of proceedings dated 08.04.2022 and

15.04.2022 are not in dispute at all.

33. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that sand and gravel comes under

the definition of “Minor Minerals” in terms of Section 3(e) of the Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 15 of the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowers the

State Governments to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases,

mining leases or other mineral concessions, in respect of the Minor Minerals

by the way of notification in the Official Gazette.

34. Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh has framed Andhra Pradesh

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and Section 5 of the said Rules states

that „no person shall undertake any quarrying of any minor mineral in any

area, except in accordance with the terms and conditions of quarry lease or a

permit granted under these Rules‟.

35. It is also significant to note that, though the verbatim used by 3

Respondent by way of the impugned proceedings dated 08.04.2022 and

15.04.2022, at the first glance gives an impression of request, but the

proceedings in its entirety reveals that it is nothing but a way of directions

issued to the Government Officials i.e., Mining Department as well as the

Irrigation Department, without taking comprehensively taking into

consideration its catastrophic consequences and also ignoring the very

fundamental and foundational aspects of “Doctrine of Public Trust”.

36. The impugned proceedings issued by the 3

Respondent are emanated

without there being any proper application, along with all the procedural pre-

requisites, as envisaged in Mining Laws in vogue. As such, the impugned

proceedings dated 08.04.2022 and 15.04.2022 are contrary to the due

procedure established under the law.

37. It is well settled that, once the procedure is contemplated under the law,

it cannot be deviated or tinkered by any authorities. In a nutshell, the statutory

procedures should be followed in it‟s true letter and spirit, without any

retractions. In this context, it is relevant to note the dictum of the Apex Court in

Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahvir Prasad

, wherein it is observed that where

a statute provides a thing to be done in particular manner, then it has to be

done in that particular manner but not otherwise.

38. It is pertinent to note that, even though the projected purpose is speedy

completion of the works of the National Highways, but it is relevant to take into

note of statutory realm as well as ground realities. Neither the National

Highway Authorities of India nor concessionaries have preferred any

(1999) 8 SCC 266

prescribed application. More so, the concessionaries secured the construction

contract on monetary basis, from the National Highway Authorities but on not

charity basis. Added to that, they will also receive requisite amounts towards

execution of the commercial contracts, as such, it is their duty and

responsibility to secure the gravel and sand from the Statutory authorities,

after following the due procedure established under the law but not beyond

the statutory rigour.

39. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 08.04.2022 and

15.04.2022 issued by the 3

respondent are arbitrary, illegal and also against

the very foundational principles of “Doctrine of Public Trust” too. Hence, they

are liable to be set aside.

40. It is significant to note that the fruits of the Doctrine of Public Trust will

not yield instantaneous reliefs, but following it in it‟s true letter and spirit would

be beneficial to the future generations, who are none other than our own

progeny. In that sense, it can be seen as gift to the our successors. The

environment and natural resources are national assets and must be held for

the benefit of both present and future generations. Doctrine of Public Trust

looks beyond the needs of the present generation and obligates the State to

protect the natural resources for the future generations as well.

41. For instance, if our earlier generations had failed to preserve and

protect the environment, natural resources and had they exploited them solely

for their own selfish purposes, we, the present generation would have faced

severe and multifaceted consequences, directly affecting our very sustenance

that is Right to Life and its expanded dimensions. Although we are presently

confronted with several environmental challenges, we have not reached a

stage of acute scarcity. So now, if we ignore the principle and true spirit of

Doctrine of Public Trust, it would result in grave and far-reaching

consequences, for our own progeny

42. At this juncture, it is apposite to look back at history. Several visionary

Rulers undertook enormous efforts to create and preserve water bodies for

the welfare of posterity. One such example is Cumbum Cheruvu, man-made

largest artificial tank developed in the reign of Sri Krishnadevaraya of the

Vijayanagara Empire in the 15

Century

, which even today continues to cater

the needs of the people in and around Prakasam District. Likewise,

Anantharaja Sagar, popularly known as “Porumamilla Cheruvu”,

Bukkarayasamudhram Cheruvu and several other water bodies, constructed

centuries ago, continue to fulfil the essential needs of people, particularly in

the drought-prone Rayalaseema Region of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The

above illustrations are only a few living examples and are merely illustrative in

nature, they are by no means exhaustive.

43. There are multiple facets which are paving way to „Doctrine of Public

Trust’, and it emerged as one of the branch of contemporary jurisprudence. In

fact, both the Union and the State Governments have enacted multiple

legislations to strengthen the Doctrine of Public Trust. One of such example is

The Imperial Gazetteer of India, vol. 11, Coondapoor to Edwardesabad (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1908), Page Nos.74–75.

the Andhra Pradesh Water Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short “AP WALTA

Act”). A glance at the salient features of the AP WALTA Act would show that it

sets out a statutory scheme to curb environmental degradation and to

preserve the water, trees and land which are indispensable and inextricable

components of the Doctrine of Public Trust.

44. There are numerous welfare legislations to protect the major

environmental components such as air, water etc., in vogue providing different

and distinct parallel forums. But, despite the existence of multiple statutory

quasi-judicial, administrative foras, a vacuum/gap continues to exist in the

ground reality. Such gap may be attributable to either intentional or

unintentional acts or omissions by the State and its instrumentalities.

45. In Delhi Jal Board Vs National Campaign for Dignity and rights of

Sewerage and Allied Workers & Ors

, Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed

that despite the enactment of several welfare legislations by Parliament and

State to achieve the constitutional goals set out in the Constitution, the

implementation has remained extremely inadequate which leads to

multifarious problems.

46. In the light of above detailed views, this Court by invoking its inherent

powers with a sole intention to protect the broader spectrum of Doctrine of

Public Trust in all its facets, effectively and consistently, on 01.04.2026

directed the Principal Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh to

submit comprehensive Standard Operative Procedure (SOP), with due

(2011) 8 SCC 568

coordination from concerned Departments with the advice of learned Advocate

General, State of Andhra Pradesh.

47. Consequently, the Office of learned Advocate General submitted

Standard Operative Procedure, vide Memo No.ICD01-COOR0MISC/60/2026

Reforms dated 08.05.2026 and a copy of same is served on learned counsel

of the petitioner as well. Pursuant to which, learned counsel for the petitioners

filed response to the same. For the purpose of holistic understanding and to

gain complete picture, the said SOP is delineated as under:-

“GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ( SoP)

FOR

IDENTIFICATION, REPORTING, REMOVAL AND RECOVERY OF

COST OF REMOVAL OF

UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS AND ILLEGAL EXCAVATION FROM

WATER BODIES & NATURAL SOURCES

(Tanks, Foreshore Areas, River Courses, Canals & Water Bodies)

PREFACE

The water bodies of Andhra Pradesh comprising tanks, ponds,

reservoirs, lakes, rivers, streams, foreshore areas, irrigation channels,

canals and drains including reservoir bunds, tank bunds, canal/channel

banks-are critical public assets. They sustain agriculture, ground water

recharge, fisheries, biodiversity, and the drinking water security of

millions of citizens. Unauthorized encroachments on these waterbodies

including construction of structures, dumping of waste, agricultural

cultivation, industrial activity, unauthorized excavation of sand/earth/soil

and commercial use without authorization-severely impair their

capacity, ecology, and public utility.

The water bodies of Andhra Pradesh comprising tanks, ponds,

reservoirs, lakes, rivers streams, foreshore areas, irrigation channels,

canals and drains including reservoir bunds tank bunds, canal/channel

banks are critical public assets. They sustain agriculture. groundwater

recharge, fisheries, biodiversity, and the drinking water security of

millions of citizens. Unauthorized encroachments on these water

bodies including construction of structures, dumping of waste,

agricultural cultivation, industrial activity, unauthorized excavation of

sand/earth/soil and commercial use without authorization severely

impair their capacity, ecology, and public utility.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh has enacted and adopted several

legal instruments to prevent and remove such encroachments,

including A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, A.P. Municipalities Act,

1965, A.P. Irrigation Utilization and Command Area Development Act,

1984, AP Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, Andhra Pradesh Water, Land &

Trees Act, 2002 (APWALTA), the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971, the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Sand Mining (Prevention of Illegal Mining,

Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2016 under the MMDR Act.

All field officers, revenue authorities, irrigation engineers and

enforcement agencies of the State are directed to follow this SoP for

implementation of the legal provisions cited herein.

Where encroachment removal orders are challenged before Courts, the

concerned departments shall ensure that Government Pleaders are

promptly briefed and all records including survey documents, FTL

maps, drone imagery and inspection reports are placed before the

Court without delay.

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND APPLICABLE LAWS

1.1 Key Definitions

 Water Body: Includes tanks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers,

streams, nullahs, irrigation canals/channels, drains and other

water conservations structures, foreshore areas including tank

bunds, reservoir bunds, canal/channel bunds and any area

notified as a water body under applicable law.

 Full Tank Level (FTL)/Full Reservoir Level (FRL) : The

maximum designed storage level of a tank or reservoir, as

certified by the Water Resources Department up to which water is

stored in the tank/reservoir and its correspondence to the crest of

surplus weir (ungated) as certified by the Water Resources

Department.

 Maximum Water Level (MW L): The maximum level of water

allowed in a tank as certified by Water Resources Department.

The difference between MWL and FTL is the surplus or spillage or

head over the crest of the surplus weir (ungated) for disposing

Maximum designed flood discharge.

 Tank Bund Level (TBL): Designed maximum elevation of top of

tank bund/Bund of Reservoir, as certified by the Water Resources

Department.

 Free Board: Free Board is vertical distance between Maximum

Water Level (MWL) and the Top level of bund (TBL). Free Board

is provided to protect the bund from overtopping by severe wave

action.

 Foreshore Area: The land area surrounding and adjacent to a

tank or reservoir, extending upto the Full Tank Level (FTL)

boundary as demarcated in official survey records and certified by

the Water Resources Department.

 Unauthorized Encroachment/Occupation : Any occupation,

construction, dumping, cultivation or use of land, unauthorized

excavation of sand/soil/spoil within the boundaries of a water

body or of its foreshore area without lawful authorization.

 Competent Authority: The District Collector/Revenue Divisional

Officer/Tahsildar or any officer notified/delegated powers under

the relevant Act for the purpose of encroachment removal.

 Buffer Zone: The strip of land measured from the FTL boundary

of a Tank or reservoir outward (not less than 30 meters or as

specified in the project report or applicable Government Orders).

 High Flood Level (HFL): The maximum flood level observed or

designed for a river reach as recorded by the Water Resources

Department used as the reference boundary for river course

encroachment determination.

No Regulation of Encroachments: No encroachment on any water body

covered under this SOP shall be regularized under any scheme,

Government Order, or any Policy. This SOP operates as an absolute

bar against regularization of any encroachment within the FTL

boundary, foreshore area, buffer zone, river course or canal bank of any

water body governed hereunder.

1.2 Primary Legislation

Act/Rule Key Provisions Relevan t to

Encroachment Removal

Remarks

AP Water, Land

and Trees Act,

2002

(APWALTA)

Protection of water bodies from

encroachment; prohibition of diversion of

water bodies.

Empowers Competent Authority to

remove encroachments.

Primary

Legislation

governing this

SoP.

Andhra Pradesh

Irrigation

Utilization and

Command Area

Development

Act, 1984

Protection of irrigation systems and

authorize Competent Authority to

penalize and take action.

AP Land

Encroachment

Act, 1905

Encroachment on government land

(including water body beds, foreshore,

tank bunds) is an offence. Eviction

powers vested in Revenue Officers.

Recovery of occupation charges.

AP Panchayati

Raj Act, 1994

Vests management of village tanks and

water bodies with Gram Panchayats

subject to State oversight. Panchayats

empowered to prevent encroachment

AP Municipal

Corporations Act

and AP

Municipalities Act

Urban Local Bodies empowered to

protect water bodies within municipal

limits; encroachment removal authority

vested with Commissioner.

MMDR Act/AP

Minor Mineral

Concession

Rules, 1966

Unauthorized sand and soil excavation

from water bodies, licensing of sand

mining.

Environment

Protection Act,

1986

Dumping and industrial encroachments

on water bodies; pollution offences

Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhitha, 2023

Criminal trespass on Government water

body land; FIR provision

2. SCOPE AND APPLICABLITY

This SoP shall apply to all unauthorized encroachments on the

following categories of water bodies in the State of Andhra Pradesh:

Sl.

No.

Type of water

Body

Governing Authority Relevant Law

1. Government

Tanks/Ponds

(Village, Zilla

Parishad, Minor

Irrigation)

Water Resources Dept/

Revenue Dept/Panchayati

Raj

APWALTA

2002, AP Land

Encroachment

Act, 1905, AP

Panchayati Raj

Act, 1994

2. Major/Medium

Irrigation Systems

Water Resources Dept AP Irrigation

Act, APWALTA

2002

3. Foreshore/Buffer

Zone of Tanks &

Reservoirs

Water Resources Dept/

Revenue Dept

AP Irrigation

Act, APWALTA

2002

4. Rivers, Streams

and Flood Plains

Water Resources

Dept/Revenue Dept/

Panchayati Raj

APWALTA

2002, AP Land

Encroachment

Act, 1905,

5. Irrigation Drains

and Drainage

Channels

Water Resources

Department/Revenue

Department

AP Irrigation

Act, APWALTA

2022

6. Urban Water

Bodies (Lakes,

Tanks within ULBs)

Municipal

Corporations/MAUD

Municipalities

Act, AP Water

Bodies

Conservation

Acts

7. Tanks and Water

Bodies vested with

Zilla Parishads

Zilla Parishad, Water

Resources

Department/Revenue

Department

AP Panchayati

Raj Act, AP

Land

Encroachment

Act, 1905,

APWALTA,

2002

3. INSPECTION OF WATER BODIES

3.1 Obligation of Inspecting Officers

It shall be the mandatory duty of all officers of the Water Resources

Department, Revenue Department and Panchayati Raj Department to

conduct regular inspections of water bodies within their jurisdiction to

identify unauthorized encroachments and bring them to the notice of the

Competent Authority for removal under the relevant provisions of the

APWALTA 2002, AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and o ther

applicable laws.

All inspection notes, along with visual and documentary evidence

(including photographs, sketch maps and drone imagery), shall be

recorded and communicated to Competent Authority to review and take

action.

Failure to conduct mandatory inspections within the prescribed

frequency without valid recorded reason shall be treated as dereliction

of duty and shall be reported to the next higher authority for appropriate

action.

3.2 Prevention

It shall be the mandatory of the Officers of AP Transco not to give any

Electrical connections for the dwelling houses/commercial

establishments of any type constructed on unauthorizedly occupied

Water bodies. And also the Municipal Authorities/Panchayath

authorities shall thoroughly check the ownership of the land before

making assessment of property tax.

3.3 Frequency of Meeting/Inspection

A. At Chief Engineer Level/Superintending Engineer Level

S.No. Office/Designation Frequency of Inspection

1. Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation) At least once in three months

2. Superintending Engineer (Circle

level)

At least once in a month.

B. At District/Division Level

Sl.

No.

Office/Designation Frequency of

Inspection

Committee Members

1. District Collector Once in three

months as per

i. District Collector-Chairman

ii. Joint Collector-Member

AP Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002

G.O.Ms.No.188, PR&RD Dept., Dt. 21.11.2011

G.O.Ms.No.188,

PR & RD Dept.,

Dt.21.11.2011

iii. Superintendent of Police-

Member

iv. S.E/PR-Member

v. SE(R&B)-Member

vi. SE(WRD)-Member

vii. AD/Survey and Land

Records-Member

viii. AD (Mines)-Member

ix. District Panchayat Officer-

Member Convener

2. Revenue Divisional

Officer (RDO)

At least once in

two months

i. RDO/Sub Collector-

Chairman.

ii. EE/PR-Member

iii. EE/R&B-Member

iv. EE/WRD-Member

v. Town Planning Officer-

Member

vi. Municipal Commissioner-

Member

vii. Divisional Panchayath

Officer-Member Convener

3. Mandal Level At least once in

a month

i. Tahsildar-Chairman

ii. DEE/PR-Member

iii. DEE/R&B-Member

iv. DEE/WRD-Member

v. Town Planning Officer

vi. Mandal Surveyor-Member

vii. MPDO-Member

Minutes of the Meeting shall be documented, and necessary

action is to be taken for evacuation of the encroachments duly

following procedure as per law.

Inspections shall be documented in the prescribed Inspection

3.4 Drone Survey and Aerial/Satellite Imaging

All field officers of the Water Resources and Revenue

Departments shall ensure drone survey and satellite-based

monitoring of water bodies under their jurisdiction. The frequency

shall be as follows:

Category of Water Body Frequency of

Drone/Satellite Survey

Major/Medium Reservoirs Once every six months

Large Tanks (> 100 acres ayacut)

including inlets/feeder channels/outlets

Once every three months

Minor Tanks (> 100 acres ayacut)

including inlets/feeder channels/outlets

Once every six months;

quarterly where

encroachment is reported

River Courses/Streams/Flood Plains in

Urban Areas

Monthly

River Courses in Rural Areas Once every six months

Irrigation Canals in Urban/Semi-Urban

Areas

Quarterly

Note - The cost of drone surveys shall be borne by the respective

department as part of the annual maintenance budget Processed

imagery and change detection reports shall be uploaded to the

designated State portal within 15 days of survey completion.

4. IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF UNAUTHORIZED

ENCROACHMENTS

4.1 Sources of Identification

Unauthorized encroachments will be identified through:

1. Periodical field inspections by authorized officers (as per

Section 3 above).

2. Complaints received from the general public through:

(a) AP PGRS (Public Grievance Redressal System)

portal

(b) Written Petitions to District

Collector/Tahsildar/WRD officials.

3. Drone survey/satellite imagery analysis indicating change

in water body boundaries.

4. Survey of land records showing occupation of poramboke

/ government water body land in Revenue/Survey

department records.

5. Reports by Gram Panchayat Secretary/Ward Secretariat

staff during village surveys.

4.2 Issuance of Preliminary Notice

Upon identification of unauthorized encroachment, the concerned

field officer (Executive Engineer/Deputy Executive

Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer in the Irrigation

Department) shall intimate about the same to the Tahsildar in the

Revenue Department; Executive Officer in the Panchayat, or

equivalent officer shall issue a Preliminary Notice in the prescribed

form to the encroacher within 7 (seven) working days of

identification.

The Preliminary Notice shall:

 Identify the survey number, FTL boundary, bund, or bank

boundary (with reference to official maps) and the location

and extent of encroachment.

 Call upon the encroacher to remove the unauthorized

occupation within 15 (fifteen) days from service of notice.

 Warn the encroacher of the penal and eviction

AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905

consequences under AP WALTA 2002, AP Land

Encroachment Act 1905 and other applicable laws.

 Be accompanied by photographic evidence, sketch map

and drone imagery if available.

The Preliminary Notice shall be served: (a) By personal delivery to

the encroacher or adult member of the encroacher's family; (b)

where personal services is not possible, by registered post with

acknowledgement due to the encroachers last known address; (c)

where the encroacher is unidentifiable or absconding, by affixation

on the encroached structure in the presence of two witnesses and

by publication in a local newspaper. The mode of service and date

of serve shall be recorded in the file.

In cases of large-scale or complex encroachments involving major

structures, the field officer may, with the approval of the District

Collector, extend the period specified in the Preliminary Notice to

not more than 30 days, recording reasons in writing

A copy of the Preliminary Notice shall also be sent to:

 The RDO of concerned Revenue Division

 The District Collector (for information)

 The Superintendent of Police/Sub-Inspector of Police of the

area (for maintaining law and order if required).

 The concerned Gram Panchayat (for village tanks).

The issuing officer shall thereafter make all efforts to facilitate

voluntary removal of the encroachment through engagement with

the local panchayat, community leaders, village elders and local

administration.

The provisions of this SoP apply equally to encroachments by

Government departments, Government-aided institutions, local

bodies, and private parties. No encroachment shall be exempt

from removal on the ground that it was constructed by or with the

knowledge of any Government authority.

4.3 Preparation of Encroachment File

Encroachment File

 The field officer shall prepare Encroachment File recording

all details of

 The Preliminary Notice issued and date of service.

 Responses (or lack thereof) received from the encroacher.

 Outcome of voluntary removal efforts.

The Encroachment File shall also include survey number and

extent of encroachment; FTL/HFL map reference, photographs,

and drone imagery, copy of preliminary notice and proof of service,

encroacher's response if any; and revenue records showing land

classification as water body/Poramboku.

AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905

AP Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002

This Encroachment File shall form part of the file when invoking

the jurisdiction of the District Collector/Competent Authority under

APWALTA 2002 & AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

5. INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMPETENT

AUTHORITY

5.1 Escalation to Competent Authority

If the encroacher fails to remove the unauthorized occupation

within the period specified in the Preliminary Notice, the field

officer shall refer the matter to the Competent Authority as follows:

Type of

Encroachment

Referral Authority

(Competent Authority)

Applicable

Law

Encroachment on

Village Tank/

Poramboke Water Body

Land including inlets/

feeder channels and

outlets

Tahsildar --> RDO -->

District Collector

AP Land

Encroachment

Act 1905;

APWALTA

2002

Encroachment on Minor

Irrigation Tank/Major/

Medium Reservoir/

Foreshore including

inlets/feeder channels

and outlets.

Executive Engine --> RDO

--> District Collector

APWALTA

2002

Encroachment on

Canal/Stream/Drain

Bed or Foreshore

Executive Engineer

(irrigation/WRD) --> District

Collector

AP Irrigation

Act;

APWALTA

2002

Encroachment on

Riverbed/Flood Plaint

(Rural)

MRO/RDO --> District

Collector

AP Land

Encroachment

Act, 1905;

APWALTA

2002

Encroachment on

Urban Lake/Water

Body within ULB Limits

Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation/Municipality-->

District Collector

Municipalities

Act;

APWALTA

2002

Encroachment on Major

inter-District Irrigation

Systems (HNSS,

SRBC, TGP etc)

EE (WRD) --> SE (WRD)

--> CE (WRD) --> District

Collector of concerned

District.

AP Irrigation

Act;

APWALTA

2002

5.2 Statutory Notice by Competent Authority

The District Collector/Competent Authority, upon receipt of the referral,

shall issue a Statutory Notice under the relevant provisions of

APWALTA 2002/AP Land Encroachment Act 1905 to the encroacher-

granting within 7 (seven) days of receipt of the referral, granting a

period of not less than 15 days for the encroacher to show cause and

appear for hearing, after which the Competent Authority shall pass a

reasoned order within 15 days of the hearing duly following the

principles of natural justice i.e, issuing notices and providing

opportunity of hearing to the encroacher.

The Statutory Notice shall also provide for a hearing of the

encroacher's representation. The representation, if made, shall be

heard within a specified date with proper notice thereof. The

Competent Authority shall pass a reasoned order after hearing.

Any person aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority may

prefer an appeal to the next higher authority as specified under the

relevant Act within the period prescribed therein. The pendency of an

appeal shall not automatically stay the removal order unless a stay is

specifically granted by the appellate or judicial authority.

6. REMOVAL OF UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS AND

IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES

6.1 Removal Procedure

1. The Competent Authority shall issue a written removal order

with date of compliance.

2. If the encroacher does not comply, the authorized officer shall

arrange for physical removal using department labour

equipment.

3. Police assistance shall be requisitioned from the local

Superintendent of Police/DSP/SHO in cases where resistance is

anticipated or law and order issues.

4. The removal shall be carried out in the presence of a

Gazetted Officer with proper Panchanama (witness statement)

prepared.

5. Photographs and video recordings shall be made before,

during and after removal.

6. Any structure/material removed shall be listed and, if

unclaimed within 30 days, disposed of as per government

procedure.

The Panchanama shall be prepared in the presence of not less than

two independent witnesses, at least one of whom shall be a

Government servant not below the rank of Village. Revenue Officer

and shall be signed by the Gazetted Officer conducting the removal,

the witnesses, and if possible, the encroacher.

Unclaimed materials (after 30 days) shall be disposed of by public

auction conducted by the Revenue Department, with sale proceeds

credited to Government account after deducting removal and storage

costs.

6.2 Penalities and Recovery of Removal Costs

The following penalities and cost recovery mechanisms shall be

invoked:

Applicable Law Penalty/Recovery Provision

AP Land

Encroachment Act,

1905-Section 7

Occupation Charges (at prescribed rates)

recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the

encroacher.

APWALTA 2002 Cost of removal of encroachment and restoration of

the water body to be recovered from the encroacher.

AP Irrigation Act-

relevant provisions

Unauthorized use of canal foreshore/buffer zone

attracts fine and recovery of costs as per the Act

Criminal Trespass

(IPC/BNSS)

Where the encroachment amounts to criminal

trespass on government water body land, FIR may

be lodged under applicable provisions of BNS/IPC.

A Bill for Recovery of Cost of Removal shall be issued in the form to

the encroacher within 15 (fifteen) days of completion of removal. The

bill shall include:

 Cost of physical removal (labour, machinery, transportation).

 Cost of repair/restoration of damaged bund, canal bank or

foreshore area.

 Additional charge at 15% of cost of restoration (as administrative

overhead).

 Occupation charges/fine as applicable under the relevant law.

If recovery is not made within 30 days of the bill, the amount shall be

recovered as arrears of land revenue under the AP Revenue Recovery

Act.

In cases where the encroacher is a company or corporate entity,

recovery may also be pursued under the provisions of the Companies

Act against the assets of the company. In cases where the encroacher

has no recoverable assets in the State, the matter shall be referred to

the Government Pleader for appropriate legal proceedings.

7. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF

WATER BODIES

7.1 Village Tanks (Minor Irrigation Tanks)

 FTL boundaries and foreshore area maps including that of

inlets/outlets shall be obtained from Revenue / Survey

Department records before initiating encroachment removal.

 Gram Panchayat must be formally informed and involved in the

removal process.

 Any cultivation within FTL area shall be specifically photographed

and reported. The cultivator shall be given Preliminary Notice

before removal of crops / structures.

 Restoration of the tank bed, foreshore and bund shall be ensured

AP Irrigation Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984

after removal, including re-plantation of tree species on bunds.

Where standing crops exist within the FTL area at the time of removal,

the field officer shall assess and document the crop details. No

compensation shall be paid for crops cultivated in an unauthorized

manner within the FTL area, and this position shall be clearly stated in

the Preliminary Notice.

7.2 River / Stream Courses and Flood Plains

 River boundaries (High Flood Level / bank line) as per Survey of

India / State survey maps shall be used as the reference for

encroachment determination.

 Sand mining activities without license within riverbeds shall be

treated as unauthorized encroachment and referred to the Mining

Department in addition to Revenue / Water Resources

 Structures constructed in flood plains/notified buffer zones shall

require Environment Clearance / Flood Plain Management

Authority (FPMA) clearance. Absence of such clearance shall be

treated as unauthorized encroachment.

 Seasonal encroachments (e.g., cultivation during dry season)

shall be documented before monsoon for removal before flooding

season.

For seasonal agricultural encroachments on riverbeds or tank beds

during the dry season, the Tahsildar shall issue a general public notice

before the start of each cultivation season (October) warning against

cultivation in notified water body areas. Field officers shall conduct pre-

monsoon verification (May-June) to ensure such encroachments are

cleared before the onset of floods.

7.3 Major and Medium Irrigation Reservoirs (Foreshore/Buffer

Zone)

 A Buffer Zone of not less than 30 meters from FTL line (or as

specified in the original project report) is to be maintained free

from all encroachments.

 Demarcation stones / pillars indicating FTL boundary shall be

maintained by the Irrigation Department. Missing pillars shall be

restored before encroachment removal.

 Encroachments within the FTL area require mandatory removal

regardless of duration of occupation. No regularization of

encroachment within FTL is permissible.

 Fishery leases within reservoirs do not entitle the lessee to any

construction or occupation of the foreshore area.

Missing FTL pillars shall be restored by the concerned Executive

Engineer (WRD) in coordination with the Survey and Settlement

Department within 30 days of identification. The cost of pillar restoration

shall be borne from the WRD maintenance budget.

AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905, AP Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002

AP Irrigation Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984, AP Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002

7.4 Urban Water Bodies (Within ULB Limits)

 ULBs shall prepare and maintain a register of all water bodies

(with buffer zones as mentioned in The Andhra Pradesh Land

Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017) (lakes,

cheruvu, kunta, nala) within their limits with survey numbers, FTL

boundary and current encroachment status.

 High-Resolution satellite imagery shall be used to monitor

encroachment on an annual basis.

 Regularization of any structure within the notified Full Tank Level

boundary of an urban water body is not permissible.

8. MONITORING OF ENCROACHMENT REMOVAL

No.

Level of Review Frequency Remarks

i. Mandal/Project Level Every one

month

Track all pending encroachments,

actions taken and removal status.

Report to Superintending

Engineer/Collector.

ii. Divisional Level/I

S.E/RDO in-charge)

Every two

months

Review unresolved cases; bring

critical cases to notice of Chief

Engineer/Collector.

iii. District Level Quarterly Review all pending cases; take up

with local police/panchayat/ULB

for resolution. State -level

reporting.

iv. State Level (Principal

Secretary, WRD,

Principal Secretary,

PR, Principal

Secretary, MAUD)

Half-yearly

(Bi-annual)

Review of all districts.

Districts that fail to submit quarterly encroachment status reports to the

State-level review shall have this fact recorded and reported to the

Principal Secretary, WRD. Persistent non-reporting shall be taken up as

a performance issue with the concerned District Collector.

8.2 Drone Analytics and Satellite Monitoring

A dedicated Drone Analytics Management System shall be maintained

in the AP Water Resources MIS/designated State portal. All field officers

shall ensure monthly updating of encroachment status in the system.

Satellite-based change detection maps shall be generated every quarter

to identify new encroachments.

8.3 Time-Bound Action Plan for Removal of Existing

Encroachments

This SoP addresses not only future encroachments but also requires

time-bound action on encroachments already identified or known. The

Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules, 2017

following schedule shall apply:

1. Within 30 days of issuance of this SoP, all field officers shall

submit a complete list of known encroachments within their

jurisdiction to the District Collector.

2. District Collectors shall prepare a priority-wise removal schedule

within 60 days of receipt of the above lists

3. Not less than 50% of identified encroachments shall be removed

within one year of issuance of this SoP

4. State-level progress shall be reviewed by the Principal Secretary,

WRD every six months and reported to Government.

8.4 Protection of Informants

The identity of individuals reporting encroachments to Government

authorities shall be kept strictly confidential. No field officer shall

disclose the identity of an informant to any person, including the

encroacher, without the express written permission of the District

Collector. Violation of this provision shall be treated as misconduct.

8.5 Encroachment Register

Every Tahsildar and Executive Engineer (WRD/MI) shall maintain a

mandal-wise/division-wise Encroachment Register in the prescribed

format recording: survey number, water body name and type, nature

and extent of encroachment, name of encroacher (if known); date of

identification, notice issued, and date, status of removal, and amount of

cost recovered. The Register shall be updated monthly and produced at

every review meeting.

8.6 Resolution of FTL Boundary Disputes Between WRD And

Revenue Records

Where a dispute arises between WRD records and Revenue/Survey

records on the FTL boundary or foreshore extent of a water body, the

matter shall be referred to a Joint Committee comprising the

Superintending Engineer (WRD), the Revenue Divisional Officer, and

the Assistant Director (Survey and Settlement) for determination within

30 days. Removal proceedings shall be kept in abeyance only in

respect of the disputed boundary portion pending such determination.

8.7 Prevention of Re-Encroachment After Removal

After removal of any encroachment, the concerned field officer shall

ensure. (a) erection of boundary markers (b) plantation of trees or laying

of protective fencing on bunds where feasible; (c) entry of restored

status in land records; and (d) increased inspection frequency for the

concerned site for a period of one year following removal, to prevent re-

encroachment.

9. ILLEGAL EXCAVATION FROM WATER BODIES

This section governs the regulation, monitoring, and enforcement of

actions against illegal and unauthorized excavation of sand and other

Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966

minor minerals from water bodies, riverbeds, streams, tanks, and other

natural sources in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The District Level Sand

Committee (DLSC) is the primary authority at the district level

responsible for overseeing all sand operations, ensuring compliance,

and taking action against illegal extraction. The provisions herein are

drawn from Rule 9-B (sub-section 9 to 17) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, as amended, and are to be read in

conjunction with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Act, 1957

9.1 Constitution of District Level Sand Committee (DLSC):

District Level Sand Committee (DLSC) shall consist of the following

officers:

i. District Collector: Chairman

ii. Superintendent of Police: Member

iii. Joint Collector: Member

iv. Sub-Collector/RDO Concerned – Member

v. District Mines & Geology Officer concerned: Member-Convener

vi. Divisional Mines & Geology Officer concerned: Member

vii. District Panchayat Officer: Member

viii. Regional Transport Officer: Member

ix. Dy. Director, Ground Water Dept.: Member

x. Executive Engineer, Irrigation/River Conservation: Member.

xi. Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply: Member

xii. Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control

Board: Member

xiii. Any other invitees as suggested by the Chairman

9.2 Monitoring of SAND Operations

a. At State level, a Command & Control Centre shall be established

by Director of Mines and Geology to oversee all sand excavation,

transportation activities and timely redressal of the grievances

received from consumers.

b. At District level, Facilitation Centers shall be established by DLSC

to monitor sand supplies on real-time basis and improve co-

ordination between consumers, transporters & othe r

stakeholders.

c. District Collector shall designate a Joint Collector as a Special

Officer for monitoring all sand activities in the respective districts.

d. DLSC shall ensure to:

i. Establish CCTV Cameras at sand reaches & sand supply

points.

ii. All sand transporting vehicles shall be covered with

tarpaulin, banner mentioning "Uchitha Isuka Ravana

Vahanam" and shall be fitted with an active GPS

devices/GPS enabled application.

G.O.Ms.No.100 Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) dated 26

June 2025

iii. Weighbridges shall be installed at all active reaches, check-

posts, stockyards and exit points riverbank areas.

e. Protection of river channels and access points, and strict

enforcement against night mining and mechanized mining, are

addressed under sections 3.4 and 9.4.

9.3 Prohibited Activities

The following activities are prohibited:

i. Stocking of sand more than the requirement for own construction

ii. Re-sale of sand

iii. Transportation of sand to other States.

iv. Sand using for filling purpose or any other purpose, other than

building construction.

v. Any other prohibited activity as prescribed under environmental

guidelines issued by MOEFCC, Orders of Hon'ble NGT, Hon'ble

High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court/Government/ DLSC.

9.4 Vigilance and Task Forces

a. State Level and District Level Task force has been constituted

G.O.Ms. No. 69, Industries and Commerce Department, dated

08.03.2006.

b. The review mechanism has been implemented through monthly

meetings of the District Level Task Force and quarterly meetings

of the State Level Task Force to ensure effective monitoring and

to curb illegal mining and transportation in the State.

c. District Level Task Forces (DLTF) shall be constituted by the

District Collectors with line departments for periodic inspections of

all the supply points and the sand sources to ensure smooth

functioning of sand operations and to curb illegal mining/

transportation.

d. The Chairman of DLSC shall conduct a fortnightly co-ordination

meeting with the task forces on the action taken and minutes of

meeting shall be communicated to Director.

e. DLSC shall ensure to:

i. Establish CCTV Cameras at sand supply points.

ii. Weighbridges shall be installed at all active reaches,

check-posts, stockyards and exit points of riverbank

areas.

iii. Co-ordinate with Police Command & Control to

monitor the transportation of sand through the CCTV

monitoring system.

iv. Establish sufficient check posts and CCTV Cameras

in co-ordination with Police on routes to prevent inter-

state transport of sand.

v. Any vehicle transporting sand without registration,

tarpaulin cover and GPS shall be blacklisted in co-

G.o.Ms.No.69, Industries and Commerce Department dt.08.03.2006

ordination with Transport Department.

vi. Any vehicles shall operate strictly on the approved

routes and within the authorized time window

vii. Any vehicle transporting sand without valid e-transit

permit shall be blacklisted in co-ordination with

Transport Department and vehicle to be seized.

viii. Any vehicle used for black marketing of sand to be

blacklisted, seized and criminal case to be filed

against vehicle driver/owner.

ix. Initiate levy of penalty against violators of free sand

policy.

f. Director/DLSC shall establish and maintain call center and online

application for the public to report illegal sand excavation and

transportation.

9.5 Compliant Redressal Mechanism

a. Any person/NGO/party may file a complaint regarding illegal sand

mining/transportation/hoarding/black marketing activities to the

DLSC with material evidence either through online or otherwise.

b. DLSC shall setup a complaint redressal mechanism including set

up of compliant redressal committee, enquiry team, maintenance

of district level toll free numbers, e-mail Ids to redress the

complaints made by any citizen/ NGO in an effective and time-

bound manner.

c. Similarly, a state-wide toll-free number and email-id shall be

established and maintained by Director. These complaints shall

be referred to DLSC for their effective and time bound redressal.

d. DLSC shall conduct an enquiry, take the decision on each

complaint, and pass speaking orders within reasonable time.

e. Timelines

S.No. Description Timeline

1. Filing of Complaint (T0)

2. Preliminary scrutiny and assignment to

Complaint Redressa l Committee;

deployment of enquiry team for fact-finding

and report preparation (T1)

T0 + 2 Weeks

3. Issue of notice by DLSC seeking

explanation from concerned parties based

on enquiry findings (T2)

T1 + 1 Weeks

4. Receipt of explanation of evaluation by

DLSC; hearing, if required (T3)

T2 + 2 Weeks

5. Decision by DLSC and passing of order for

Imposition of penalties/enforcement action

(T4)

T3 + 1 Weeks

9.6 Constitution of State Level Committee (SLC):

a. The SLC shall consist of following officers:

i. Chief Secretary: Chairman

ii. Director General of Police: Member

iii. Secretary, Mines (Ind & Com) Dept: Member

iv. Secretary, Revenue Dept: Member

v. Secretary, PR & RD Dept: Member

vi. Secretary, Water Resources Dept: Member

vii. Commissioner, Rural Development: Member

viii. Commissioner Transport Department: Member

ix. Member Secretary, APPCB: Member

x. Director, Ground Water Dept: Member

xi. Engineer -In-Chief, Irrigation: Member

xii. Commissioner & Director of Mines & Geology: Member

Secretary

xiii. And any other invitees as suggested by the Chairman

b. The SLC shall meet periodically to take up review the

performance of sand extraction in the state, examine the matters

referred to DLSC for review of any statutory provisions and issue

necessary guidelines for proper implementation of the Rules.

9.7 Compliances

DLSC shall ensure all the operations shall be in compliance with Sand

Policy of Andhra Pradesh, Mines Act 1952, MMDR Act 1957, WALTA Act

& Rules, MOEF&CC notifications, Office Memorandums & Guidelines

and any other applicable law, rules, Government orders, Instructions

issued by Government and Department of Mines & Geology from time

to time.

9.8 Offences and Penalties

a. Vehicles engaged in illegal/un-authorized excavation in the

prohibited areas (i.e. within 500 meters from the Ground water

structures, Bridges, Dams, Railway lines and cross drainage

structures etc.), transportation of sand outside the State and

found transporting sand without valid permit shall be penalized as

follows:

Vehicle Type First Time (In Rs.) Second Time (In Rs.)

Tractor Upto 10,000/- Rs.10,001 to 20,000/-

Lorry fitted with upto 10

Tires capacity

Upto 25,000/- Rs.25,001 to 50,000/-

Lorry fitted with above

10 tires

Upto 50,000/- Rs.50,001 to 1,00,000/-

Machinery Upto 50,000/- Rs.50,001 to 1,00,000/-

b. Any vehicle transporting sand, if found, carrying sand in excess of

the quantity specified in Sand transit form /invoice or in excess of

quantity permitted by the Transport Dept., penalty shall be levied

Andhra Pradesh, Mines Act, 1952, MMDR Act 1957, WALTA Act & Rules

on such excess quantity @ Rs.2000/- per MT

c. Whenever any person/ selected agency by the DLSC extract

sand more than the permitted quantity or has extracted sand in

the areas other than those notified for lawful excavation, the

officers authorized shall assess such quantity of sand and levy

and collect@ Rs.2,000/-per ton of sand or Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs), whichever is higher, as penalty.

d. If any stock of sand beyond a person's reasonable requirement is

stocked/hoarded/black marketed/sold, it shall be seized by the

officer authorized. The person shall be punishable with

imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs). DLSC shall take-over the seized sand and arrange

to dispose the same, at the rates fixed by DLSC.

e. Officers authorized to levy, collect penalties and seizure of

vehicles from the persons involved in illegal

mining/stocking/hoarding/selling/ black marketing in the State

authorized under these rules are as follows:

i. District Collector (Concerned)

ii. Joint Collector (Concerned)

iii. Superintendent of Police (Concerned)

iv. Additional Superintendent of Police (Concerned)

v. Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer

(Concerned)

vi. Tahsildar (Concerned) Mandal.

vii. Sub-Divisional Police Officer (Concerned)

viii. Station House Officer (Concerned)

ix. District/Divisional Panchayat Officer

x. District/Divisional Mines & Geology Officer

(Concerned)

xi. Assistant Director, Regional Vigilance Squad

authorized by Director in this behalf having jurisdiction

xii. Any other officer nominated by Dist. Collector

(Concerned) /Director of Mines & Geology

f. The vehicle/machinery, found involved in any violation more than

two times, such vehicle/machinery along with sand shall be

seized by officers authorized duly following the procedure as

under:

i. Issue show cause notice to the person/owner from whom

the vehicle/machinery is seized.

ii. Immediately take steps by preparing seizure report and

produce the vehicle/machinery before the Competent Court

to enable the person/owner from whom the

vehicle/machinery is seized to file an application under

Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C) for

release of vehicle/machinery.

iii. In the alternative, the person/owner from whom

vehicle/machinery is to be seized shall be permitted to

submit explanation to the show cause notice along with an

application to the authorized officer seeking release of

vehicle/machinery.

iv. Upon receipt of explanation to the show cause notice and

the application for release of vehicle/machinery, the

authorized officer shall consider the application and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period

of two weeks there from, on production of security of

Rs.25,000/- in case of tractor, Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of

vehicle upto 10 tones capacity: Rs. 1,50,000/- in case of

vehicle above 10 tons capacity and Rs. 2,00,000/- for any

machinery, in the form of Demand Draft drawn in favor of

the authorized officer along with an affidavit/undertaking to

produce the seized vehicle / machinery as and when

required.

v. The fine paid as per the orders of Competent Court; the

security furnished as per clause above shall be deposited

in the Head of Account prescribed by the Government. The

amount collected shall be utilized for the restoration works,

removal of illegal ramps/roads, strengthening riverbanks,

installing surveillance systems, replenishment studies,

drone surveys etc.

10. ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAKEHOLDER

DEPARTMENTS

Department/Agen

Responsibilities under this SoP

Water Resources

Department (WRD)

Nodal department for this SoP. Identification of

encroachment with the help of Tahsildars/Mandal

Surveyors. Inspection of major/medium reservoirs and

canals. Drone Survey. Liaison with Revenue for eviction

orders. State-level monitoring and review.

Revenue

Department

(Collectors/RDOs/

MROs/

Tahsildars)

Competent Authority for eviction under AP Land

Encroachment Act, 1905 and APWALTA 2002.

Issuance of statutory notices, removal orders and

recovery bills.

Maintenance of land records.

Panchayati Raj and

Rural Development

Department

(PR&UD)

Management of village tanks. Gram Panchayat to report

encroachments. Coordination for voluntary removal.

MA&UD/Urban

Local Bodies

Protection of urban water bodies. Maintenance of GIS

maps of water bodies. Encroachment removal within

ULB limits.

Police Department Provide assistance during physical removal. Register

FIR in cases of criminal trespass/resistance. Maintain

law and order.

Survey and

Settlement

Department

Provide updated FTL maps, survey maps and

demarcation support. Restore/re-demarcate FTL pillars.

Forest Department Action on encroachments on water bodies within or

adjacent to forest areas. Coordination with Revenue.

District

Administration

(District Collector)

Overall coordination and final Competent Authority for

eviction orders. Quarterly district-level review. Report to

State Government.

Mines & Geology

Department

Identification and action on unauthorized sand/gravel or

soil extraction from riverbeds, tank beds and foreshore

areas; coordination with Revenue and WRD for

prosecution under MMDR Act and AP Minor Mineral

Concession Rules.

AP Pollution

Control Board

(APPCB)

Action on waste dumping, industrial activity in water

bodies; prosecution under Environment Protection Act,

1986; Coordination with Revenue & WRD for

encroachment cases with environmental impact.

11. REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES IN AND AROUND WATER

BODIES

The following activities in and around water bodies shall be subject to

regulation and if carried out without lawful authorization, shall be treated

as encroachment under this SoP:

Activity Regulatory Requirement Authority

Construction of any

structure within

FTL/buffer zone of

tank or reservoir

No construction activities allowed

within FTL Level

Prior written permission from

WRD + Revenue shall be

obtained for bifurcation of

Tank/developing green belt

EE (Irrigation)/

District Collector

Sand/gravel mining in

riverbed or tank bed

License from AP Mines &

Geology Department;

Environmental Clearance

District Collector/

AP Mines &

Geology

Aquaculture/fishery

within reservoir/tank

Fishery lease from AP Fisheries

Department; no

construction/occupation of

foreshore

AP Fisheries Dept/

District Collector

Cultivation within FTL

area of tank

Not permissible. Seasonal

cultivation during dry weather

subject to prior permission;

removal before monsoon

mandatory

MRO/Tahsildar/EE

Industrial/Commercial Prior Environmental Clearance + District Collector/

use of water body

land

Land conversion; CRZ clearance

if coastal; APWALTA clearance

APPCB/ MoEF

Dumping of waste/

debris in water

bodies

Strictly prohibited under

APWALTA 2002 and EP Act.

Treated as encroachment and

environmental offence

District

Collector/APPCB

Religious/cultural

structures within FTL

Existing structures to be

surveyed; no new structures

permissible within FTL; relocation

of encroaching structures to be

facilitated with community

sensitization.

Legal basis: APWALTA 2002/AP

Land Encroachment Act 1905.

District Collector shall convene

community meeting with religious

leaders and local elected

representatives before issuing

removal order, to facilitate

voluntary relocation. Where

voluntary relocation is not

possible within the notice period,

removal shall proceed as per law.

District Collector/

RDO

Unauthorized

borewells/ground

water extraction

structures within FTL

area

Prohibited without ERD

permission treated as

encroachment under APWALTA,

2002 referral to Ground Water

Department for action under AP

Water, Land and Trees Act.

EE (Irrigation)/

District Collection/

Ground Water

Department.

Emphasis supplied

48. A plain reading of the SOP, clearly reveals that the Principal Chief

Secretary for the State of Andhra Pradesh by taking aid of relevant provisions

and statutory realm from different legislations, articulated and encompassed

the SOP so as to protect the main components of “Doctrine of Public Trust”

such as land, soil, major and minor minerals, tress etc.

49. In the light of above overall facts and circumstances and the reasons

stated above, instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the following terms:

(i) The impugned proceedings vide Rc .No.2292/2015/G3/

Dt.08.04.2022 and Rc.No.2292/2015/G3/Dt.15.04.2022 issued by

the 3

Respondent/District Collector, Vizianagaram are hereby

declared as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions

envisaged in Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957 and Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966

and also transgression of the “Doctrine of Public Trust” and

consequently, the same are hereby set aside;

(ii) Respondent No.1 (State of Andhra Pradesh) and its instrumentalities

are hereby directed to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating

Procedure (S OP) vide Circular Memo.No.ICD01 -

COOR0MISC/60/2026-Reforms, dated 08.05.2026 in its true letter

and spirit without any retractions.

(iii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh is hereby

directed to conduct a Review meeting, at least once every year to

assess and ensure the effective implementation of the above

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

There shall be no order as to costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

___________________________________

JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 15.07.2026

PSA

Whether the Order is:

Speaking ✔ Reasoned ✔

Reportable ✔ Non-reportable

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 12895 of 2022

Date: 15.07.2026

Note: LR Copy to be marked

B/o.

PSA

Reference cases

M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.

2:00 mins | 0 | 12 May, 2000

Description

Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Public Trust Doctrine in Landmark Illegal Mining Case

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in *Writ Petition No. 12895 of 2022*, delivered a powerful judgment on `Illegal Mining in Andhra Pradesh` and the fundamental principles of the `Doctrine of Public Trust rulings`. This decision, now prominently featured on CaseOn, sets a crucial precedent for environmental protection and regulatory compliance in the state.

Case Background: The Petitioners' Plea Against Unlawful Excavation

Four petitioners, residents and farmers from Kothapalem Village, Vizianagaram District, approached the High Court. Their primary grievance concerned the unauthorized excavation of sand and gravel from the 'Kannamnaidu Water Pond'—a vital water source for their agricultural activities, serving nearly 2,000 acres.They alleged that the 3rd Respondent, the District Collector, Vizianagaram, had arbitrarily permitted concessionaires and other organizations to excavate and shift sand and gravel from nearby ponds and water bodies for National Highway construction. These permissions, issued via proceedings Rc No 2292/2015/G3/Dt. 08.04.2022 and 15.04.2022, were challenged as illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to existing mining laws and environmental regulations.

Issues Before the Court

The central issues for the High Court to determine were:

Whether the actions of the District Collector in permitting the excavation of sand and gravel from water bodies without following due process were illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and beyond jurisdiction.
Whether these actions violated the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealer Rules, 2017, and the fundamental 'Doctrine of Public Trust'.
Whether the respondents should be directed to immediately halt illegal mining operations and set aside the impugned proceedings.

Key Legal Rules and Principles Applied

The Court's decision was anchored in several crucial legal frameworks and principles:

Constitutional Mandates and Environmental Protection

**Article 21 (Right to Life):** The Court reiterated that the right to life extends to living in a clean, safe, and healthy environment, requiring the protection and preservation of the environment and maintenance of ecological balance.
**Article 48-A (Directive Principles of State Policy):** Mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
**Article 51-A(g) (Fundamental Duties):** Enjoins every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.

The Doctrine of Public Trust

This doctrine formed the bedrock of the judgment. The Court extensively referred to:

**Illinois Central Railroad Co Vs People of State of Illinois:** The American precedent explaining the State's role as trustee for natural resources.
**M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388:** The Indian Supreme Court's pronouncement that the State is the trustee of all natural resources (sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests, ecologically fragile lands) for public use and enjoyment, with a legal duty to protect them. These resources cannot be privatized.
**Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577:** Emphasizing the State's policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment.
**Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors (2012) 3 SCC 1:** Reiterating that natural resources are national assets, legally owned by the State on behalf of its people, to be distributed equitably and in public interest.
**Mineral Area Development Authority Etc v. M/s.Steel Authority of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796):** Reaffirming the State's role as trustee for mineral resources, with a constitutional obligation to protect and manage them for sustainable development and public interest.

Statutory Frameworks for Minor Minerals and Water Bodies

**Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Sections 3(e) & 15):** Defines 'minor minerals' (including sand and gravel) and empowers State Governments to make rules for their concession.
**A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (Section 5):** Stipulates that no person shall quarry minor minerals except under a lease agreement or permit granted under these rules.
**Andhra Pradesh Water Land and Trees Act, 2002 (APWALTA Act):** A statutory scheme to curb environmental degradation and preserve water, trees, and land.
**Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahvir Prasad (1999) 8 SCC 266):** The principle that 'where a statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that particular manner but not otherwise.'

Court's Analysis and Rationale

The High Court critically examined the District Collector's actions, noting that the impugned proceedings were issued without proper application or adherence to the elaborate procedural prerequisites mandated by mining laws. The 3rd Respondent (District Collector) and 4th Respondent (Executive Engineer, Irrigation) did not file counters to substantiate or contradict the issuance of the proceedings, effectively leaving the petitioners' claims undisputed.

For legal professionals analyzing such complex rulings, especially those involving multiple statutes and constitutional doctrines, CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs provide a concise yet comprehensive overview, helping to quickly grasp the nuances and implications of these specific judgments.

Initially, the Court had suspended the impugned proceedings in May 2022, observing that they lacked guidelines and were detrimental to the ecological balance. This led to a directive for the State to prepare a comprehensive report and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for preserving water bodies across the State.Subsequently, the Office of the learned Advocate General submitted a detailed SOP on May 8, 2026. This SOP outlines a robust framework for:

**Identification and Reporting:** Periodical inspections, drone surveys, public complaints, and land record analysis.
**Legal Framework:** Incorporates various acts like APWALTA 2002, AP Land Encroachment Act 1905, AP Panchayati Raj Act 1994, MMDR Act, Environment Protection Act 1986, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
**Competent Authorities:** Clearly defines responsibilities for different types of water bodies at Mandal, Division, District, and State levels.
**Enforcement and Penalties:** Details procedures for issuing notices, removal of encroachments, and imposing penalties for illegal excavation and transportation of minor minerals, including seizure of vehicles and recovery of costs.
**Monitoring:** Establishes State and District Level Sand Committees (SLSC and DLSC) for real-time monitoring, CCTV installation, GPS tracking for vehicles, and a complaint redressal mechanism.

The Court found that the District Collector's actions directly contravened the spirit of these laws and the `Doctrine of Public Trust`, which obligates the State to protect natural resources for present and future generations. The notion that such resources could be exploited on the 'whims and fancies' of officials, even for public projects like National Highways, was firmly rejected, emphasizing that statutory procedures must be followed without deviation.

Conclusion and Court's Order

In light of the comprehensive analysis and the newly formulated SOP, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directives:

The impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent (District Collector, Vizianagaram) vide Rc.No.2292/2015/G3/Dt.08.04.2022 and 15.04.2022 were **declared arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to statutory provisions and the 'Doctrine of Public Trust'**, and were consequently **set aside**.
Respondent No.1 (State of Andhra Pradesh) and its instrumentalities were **directed to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)** (Circular Memo.No.ICD01-COOR0MISC/60/2026-Reforms, dated 08.05.2026) in its true letter and spirit, without any retractions.
The Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh was **directed to conduct a review meeting at least once every year** to assess and ensure the effective implementation of the SOP.

There was no order as to costs, and all interlocutory applications were closed.

Why This Judgment is an Important Read for Lawyers and Students

This judgment is a crucial read for legal professionals, environmental activists, and students alike for several reasons:

**Reinforcement of Public Trust Doctrine:** It powerfully reiterates and applies the `Doctrine of Public Trust`, establishing that the State holds natural resources as a trustee for its citizens, a principle vital for environmental jurisprudence.
**Judicial Activism for Environmental Protection:** The Court's proactive role in directing the State to formulate a comprehensive SOP highlights judicial commitment to safeguarding ecological balance and ensuring regulatory compliance.
**Procedural Due Process in Mining:** It underscores the absolute necessity of following statutory procedures for minor mineral extraction, even for projects of public interest, curbing arbitrary actions by authorities.
**Interplay of Constitutional and Statutory Law:** The judgment demonstrates how constitutional provisions (Articles 21, 48-A, 51-A(g)) are interpreted in conjunction with specific environmental and mining statutes to protect natural resources.
**Blueprint for Governance:** The detailed SOP outlined in the judgment provides a practical framework for identifying, reporting, and removing encroachments and illegal excavations from water bodies, serving as a model for other states and legal practitioners dealing with similar issues.
**Future Implications:** This ruling will likely influence future cases involving resource allocation, environmental clearances, and the accountability of government officials in managing natural assets.

Disclaimer: All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances.

Legal Notes

Add a Note....

Boddusatyavathi Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Background

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

Reference cases

M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.

Description

Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Public Trust Doctrine in Landmark Illegal Mining Case

Case Background: The Petitioners' Plea Against Unlawful Excavation

Issues Before the Court

Key Legal Rules and Principles Applied

Constitutional Mandates and Environmental Protection

The Doctrine of Public Trust

Statutory Frameworks for Minor Minerals and Water Bodies

Court's Analysis and Rationale

Conclusion and Court's Order

Why This Judgment is an Important Read for Lawyers and Students

Legal Notes

Advance Search Tool