APHC010391452024

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH

ATAMARAVATI

(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)

[3328]

MONDAY,THETWENTYTHIRDDAYOFJUNE

TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYFIVE

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEGANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRITPETITIONNO:19674/2024

Between:

1.MAGINENISHANMUKHAVINAYKUMAR,,S/O.POTURAJUAGED

32YEARS,OCCBUSINESS,R/O.D.NO.4-411,DANIGUDEMROAD,

CHINNACHERUVUGATTU,KAIKALURUVILLAGEANDMANDAL,

ELURUDISTRICT.

2.MAGINENISATYAANJANI,,W/O.M.SHANMUKHAVINAYKUMAR

AGED30YEARS,OCCHOUSEWIFER/O.D.NO.4-411,

DANIGUDEMROAD,CHINNACHERUVUGATTU,KAIKALURU

VILLAGEANDMANDAL,ELURUDISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1.THESTATEOFANDHRAPRADESH,REP.BYITSPRINCIPAL

SECRETARY,DEPARTMENTOFREVENUE,SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTURDISTRICT.

2.THEDISTRICTCOLLECTOR,ELURU,ELURUDISTRICT.

3.THEREVENUEDIVISIONALOFFICER,,ELURU,ELURUDISTRICT.

4.THETAHSILDHAR,KAIKALURU,ELURUDISTRICT

5.THEDEPUTYEXECUTIVEENGINEER,IRRIGATIONSUBDIVISION

KAIKALURU,ELURUDISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

CounselforthePetitioner(S):

2

1.KVADITYACHOWDARY

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.GPFORREVENUE

2.GPFORIRRIGATIONCOMMAREADEV

TheCourtmadethefollowingORALORDER:

HeardSriK.V.AdityaChowdary,learnedCounselfortheWrit

Petitioners;SriSrinivasPathuri,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderfor

RevenueappearingfortheOfficialRespondents.

2.ThepresentWritPetitionisfiledseekingthefollowingrelief:

“PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionof

Indiaprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe

affidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto

issueaWrit,Orderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein

thenatureofWRITOFMANDAMUSdeclaringtheaction

oftheRespondentNo.4inissuingNoticeR.B.216/2024,

dated04.09.2024topetitionersforremovalofBridge

(ingressandegresstoPetitioners’House)onRallaKodu

ChannelatKM2.000,situatedatD.No.4-411,Dangudem

Road,ChinnaCheruvuGattu,Kaikaluru,EluruDistrictis

illegal,arbitrary,violationofConstitutionofIndiaandset

asidethesameandtopasssuchotherorderororders

maydeemfitandproperinthecircumstancesofthe

case.”

Shornofunnecessaryfacts:

3.ItisthesubmissionofSriK.V.AdityaChowdary,learnedCounselforthe

WritPetitionersthatforgainingingressandegresstothehouseoftheWrit

Petitioners,fatheroftheWritPetitionerNo.1hasmadeanApplicationtothe

DeputyExecutiveEngineerdated20.05.2015(Ex.P.2)forconstructionofa

bridgewithretainingwallsonbothsidesoftheRallaKoduChannel;thatvide

Proceedingsdated10.06.2015(Ex.P4),theRespondentNo.5hasgranted

permissionwithseveralconditions,inter-alia,thatthesaidconstructionwork

shallbeundertakenundersupervisionoftheExecutiveEngineer,Irrigation

3

Departmentandbymaintainingthesamewidthanddepthoftheactualcanal

withconcretebedoffive(5)mts.,andstonerevetmentetc.;thataboutseven

(7)conditionshavebeenprescribed;thatowingtofloodsituation,the

Tahsildar,Kaikaluru,EluruDistricthadissuedNoticedated04.09.2024

(Ex.P.1)directingtheWritPetitionerstoremovethebridgeconstructedby

themonRallaKoduCanal;thisNoticeissuedbytheTahsildardated

04.09.2024isunderchallenge.TheWritPetitionershavefiledPhotographs

frompageNos.40to46ofthepaperbookwhichindicatesthewidthofthe

Canalonly,butnophotographhadbeenfiledbytheWritPetitionersshowing

theactualconstruction/improvementmadebythem.

4.ThisCourtvideOrderdated06.09.2024haddirectedtheTahsildaras

wellastheDeputyExecutiveEngineer,Irrigation(Sub-Division),Kaikaluru

(RespondentNos.4and5respectively)tosubmitaReporttothisCourtby

10.09.2024,whethertheWritPetitionershaveviolatedthetermsand

conditionsintermsofthepermissiongrantedon10.06.2015(Ex.P4).On

10.09.2024,thisCourthasnoticedthattheWrittenInstructionsfurnishedby

theTahsildardoesnothavethedateofissuanceoftheWrittenInstructions

andonperusaloftheWrittenInstructions,ittranspiredthatthesamedoesnot

addressanyofthedirectionsgivenbythisCourton06.09.2024.Therefore,

videOrderdated10.09.2024,theTahsildarwasdirectedtoappearbeforethe

Courton20.09.2024.

5.TheTahsildar(RespondentNo.4)aswellastheDeputyExecutive

EngineerforIrrigation(RespondentNo.5)havesubmittedtheirReports.The

ReportoftheTahsildardated18.09.2024indicatesthattheWritPetitioners

haveconstructedconcreteslabstoalengthof62feetand11Inches(i.e.,

almost63feet),therebycoveringtheentirestretchoftheCanalallalongthe

lengthofthecompoundoftheWritPetitioners.ItwasnoticedbytheCourtthat

theWritPetitionershaveclearlyviolatedtheconditionalpermissiondated

10.06.2015(Ex.P4)bylayingconcreteslabstoalengthofabout62feet11

4

inches.Thiswouldindicatethatthe62feet11inchesconcreteslabhadbeen

laidbytheWritPetitionerswithoutinformingtheExecutiveEngineeraslaid

downintheconditions.Takingthisaspectintoaccount,thisCourthaspassed

thefollowingOrderon20.09.2024:

“5.Inthisviewofthematter,thisCourttakesaseriousview

withregardtotheconductonthepartoftheWritPetitioners

infraudulentlyviolatingtheconditionsimposedbythe

DepartmentofIrrigation.Itisunfortunatethat,whensucha

hugeconstructionisbeingbuilt,neithertheRevenueOfficials

northeIrrigationOfficialshaveraisedtheirobjectionaboutit

andinitiatedappropriateaction.

6.TheWritPetitionersaredirectedtoremovetheentire

concretestructure,leavingaboutsixfeetforthepurposeof

ingressandegress.ThereshallbeadirectiontotheWrit

Petitionersthat,whileremovingthesestructures,theyshall

ensurethatnotasinglepieceofdebriswillfallintothecanal.

TheTahsildar,aswellastheExecutiveEngineer,Irrigation

Sub-division,Kaikaluru,shallpersonallysupervisethis

removalandsubmitaReportwithinten(10)daysbeforethis

Court,alongwithphotographsandvideographsbywayof

pendrive.Theyshallalsoensurethatthegateisconfinedto

thesamewidthandisattachedtothecompoundwall

belongingtothepetitioners,butnotonthepublic”

6.TheReportsfiledbytheTahsildaraswellastheExecutiveEngineeron

20.09.2024alongwithPhotographswouldindicatethattheOfficial

RespondentshavedeliberatelyignoredtheviolationcommittedbytheWrit

Petitioners.TheReportsubmittedbytheTahsildaron19.09.2024wouldalso

indicatethattheWritPetitionersinfacthasfreeandconvenientingressand

egressonthewesternsidebuttheWritPetitionershavecloseditbyerecting

aGarageandhadstartedtakingcompleteaccessfromthesouthernside

wheretheWritPetitionershaveillegallyconstructedaconcretebridgetoa

lengthof62feet11inches.AfterexecutingtheCourt’sdirections,the

TahsildarhasnowplacedonrecordanAffidavitwithphotographswhich

indicatesthattheWritPetitionersarepermittedtojustretainaconcretebridge

5

acrossRallaKoduCanalofwidthofabout6feetandtherestoftheconcrete

structurehasbeenremoved.

7.Theseviolationsonwaterwaysandwatercoursesinwhichfreshwater

ordrainagewaterflowsaredamagingordestroyingthefloraandfauna

besidescausinghumongousdamagetothehumaninhabitations.Intimesof

flood,inundationoflandbywaterbecomevirtualdeath-trapsforanimalsinthe

wild(inforests)aswellastothehumansinthevillages,townsand

metropolitancities.Itisalsonoticedthattheviolatorsgoscot-freewith

impunitybecausetheexistinglaw,doesnothaveadeterrenteffect.Therefore,

itistherighttimefortheGovernment(lawmakers)tomakelaws,rulesand

regulationstoweaponisetheGovernmentDepartmentstoachievethis

purpose.Thislawneedstoaddressnotonlytheviolatorsfromamongthe

public,butalsotheOfficialswhoconvenientlyturnablind-eyetotheactsof

violation.

8.TheaboveconcernexpressedbythisCourthasalsobeenaddressed

bytheLd.SingleJudgeoftheHighCourtofMadrasinT.SannamaniAmmal

V.GovernmentofTamilnaduRep.byitsSecretaryRevenueDepartment

andOthers;2018SCCOnlineMad13056.Ld.SingleJudgehadconsidered

theaspectsrelatingtotheencroachmentsmadebythepublicinawaterbody

andtheconsequentialdisastersthatwouldensueonaccountofsuch

encroachments.ParaNos.3to7ofthesaidJudgmentisusefullyextracted

hereunder:

”3.ThelearnedGovernmentAdvocateappearingon

behalfoftherespondentsmadeasubmissionthatthe

writpetitionerisanencroacherandisinpossessionof

theland,whichisclassifiedasEriporomboke.Eri

porombokeisawaterbodyandtherefore,theauthority

competentshouldboundtoevictallsuchencroachers

fromthewaterbodiesandwaterresources.

4.ItisagrowingtendencyacrosstheStatethatthe

waterbodies,waterresourcesandGovernmentEri

porombokelandsareencroachedforpersonalenjoyment.

Afewcorruptmenareindulgedinencroachingthepublic

6

landsfortheirpersonalgainsandtheauthorities

competentareboundtomonitorallsuchencroachments

andevicttheencroachersbyfollowingtheprocedures

contemplatedundertheEncroachmentActascited

above.

5.Encroachmentisasocialevil.Encroachmentin

waterbodyandwaterresourcesareaffectingthe

ConstitutionalRightsofallothercitizens.Whenever

therightsofthecitizensingeneralareinfringedon

accountofcertainillegalactsbyfewgreedymen,

thentheStateisboundtoactswiftlyandevictall

suchencroachmentsbyfollowingtheprocedures.

6.Peoplearefrustratedonaccountoflargescale

encroachmentsinwaterbodiesandwaterresources.On

accountofsuchencroachmentsinwaterbodiesand

waterresources,peopleatlargearefacingdisaster,

whichareallmanmade.Eventheexpertsarerightly

emphasizingthatthedisastersareoccurringon

accountoftheillegalactivitiesofsuchpersonsby

encroachments.Thisbeingtheopinionofthe

expertsonmanyoccasions,theStateisboundto

evictallsuchencroachmentsinthewaterbodies,

waterresourcesandGovernmentEriporomboke

lands.Inthepresentcaseonhand,thelandinquestion

isclassifiedasEriporombokeland,whichisawater

body.Thus,therecannotbeanyleniencyorsympathyin

respectofevictingtheencroachers.

7.TheStateundoubtedlyhastoprovidewelfare

schemesforthelandless/houselesspoorpeople.When

theschemeforallotmentoflandlesspoorpeopleare

undertakenbytheState,thesaidSchemesaretobe

implementeduniformallyandbyconsideringallthe

eligiblepersonswithoutcausinganydiscrimination.In

otherwords,theencroachers,onevictionmaybe

providedwitharehabilitationscheme.While

implementingtherehabilitationScheme,theStatemust

consideralleligiblepersonsequallyandtheschemeisto

beimplementedstrictlyinaccordancewiththetermsand

conditionsandwithoutanyviolation.Contrarily,ifthe

encroachersareallowedtocontinueinwaterbodies

andwaterresources,theconsequenceswouldbe

disastrousandtherightsofallothercitizensin

generalarebeinginfringed.”

9.NitiAayog,GovernmentofIndia,havingtakenaveryseriousnoteofthe

constantfloodingoccurringinIndiaduetomanmadeviolationsand

indiscriminatehumaninterferencebywayofencroachments,hassubmitteda

7

Reportintheyear2021i.e.,“ReportoftheCommitteeConstitutedfor

FormulationofStrategyforFloodManagementWorksinEntirecountryand

RiverManagementActivitiesandWorksrelatedtoBorderAreas(2021-26)”

(theReport2021-26)’.

10.Inthe‘Foreward’oftheabovementionedReport2021-26,renderedby

theChiefExecutiveOfficerofNITIAAYOG,itisstatedthat:

“……..Majorreasonsforthefloodofsuch

magnitudeareunplannedconstructionand

encroachmentonriverbedsthathavereducedthe

capacityofriverstocarryfloodwaters.Unfortunately,

thisisnotjustthepicturefromonedisasterbutin

Indiathesoaringriseinthedamagefromthefloodis

resultoftheheedlessconstructionandincreasing

activitiesinfloodplains.”

11.Inthe‘Introduction’partofthesaidReport2021-26,itisstatedthat:

“Floodisthemostprevalentandcostliestnatural

disasterintheworldwhichdevastatesbothlifeand

economy on large

extent……………………………….…………………………

……..Urbanfloodhasbecomeoneofthemajor

problemsnowadays,therecentfloodsinKerala,

UttarakhandandinmetropolitancitieslikeDelhi,

Mumbai,Kolkatapointtowardstheneedforproper

managementoffloodsandthedrainagesystem.”

xxxxxx

“…………..Urbanfloodingduetostormwater

drainagecongestion(pluvialinnature)hasalso

becomecommonintowns/citiesduetosuchextreme

meteorologicalevents.Thedevastationcauseddueto

floodsinthepasthasdrawnattentionoftheplanners

ofthecountrytowardscomprehensiveflood

managementplans,policiesandimplementation

thereof.”

12.The“ConstitutionalPosition”withregardtothefloodingandflood

managementisalsodiscussedintheReport2021-26.Therelevantportion

fromtheReport2021-26isusefullyextractedhereunder:

“Asperconstitutionalprovisions,thesubjectof

floodmanagementincludingerosioncontrolfallswithinthe

8

purviewoftheStates.Thefloodmanagementandanti-

erosionschemesareplanned,investigatedand

implementedbytheStateGovernmentswithown

resourcesasperprioritywithintheState.TheUnion

GovernmentonlyrendersassistancetoStateswhichis

technical,advisory,catalyticandpromotionalinnature.

Thesubjectoffloodcontrol,unlikeirrigation,does

notfigureassuchinanyofthethreelegislativelists

includedintheConstitutionofIndia.However,drainage

andembankmentsaretwoofthemeasuresspecifically

mentionedinEntry17ofListII(StateList),reproduced

below:

“Water,thatistosay,watersupplies,

irrigationandcanals,drainageand

embankments,waterstorageandwaterpower

subjecttotheprovisionofentry56ofListI

(UnionList).”

Entry56ofListI(UnionList)readas

follows:

“Regulationanddevelopmentofinter-

Stateriversandrivervalleystotheextentto

whichsuchregulationanddevelopmentunder

thecontroloftheUnionisdeclaredby

Parliamentbylawtobeexpedientinthepublic

interest.”

Itmaybeseenthattheprimaryresponsibilityfor

floodcontrollieswiththeStates.AnumberofStateshave

alreadyenactedlawswithprovisionstodealwithmatters

connectedwithfloodcontrolworks.However,thereexists

asignificantprovisionthatthepowerstobeexercisedare

subjecttoEntry56ofUnionList.Itmaybepointedoutthat

Entry17ofListII(StateList)quotedabovedoesnotcover

landuseinvolvedintheadministrativemeasuresof

dealingwithreductionoffloodlossesviz.floodplain

zoning.”

13.ThesaidReport2021-26hasapproachedtheFloodManagementina

twofoldmanner:(i)StructuralMeasuresforFloodManagement;and(ii)

Non-StructuralMeasuresforFloodManagement.ThesaidReport2021-

26statesthatthe‘structuralmeasuresoffloodprotection/antierosion,which

donotreducethefloodflowbutreducespillingare:

9

“a.xxxxx

b.Channelanddrainageimprovementwork,

whichartificiallyreducethefloodwaterlevel

soastokeepthesame,confinedwithinthe

riverbanksandthuspreventspilling.

c.xxxxx

d.xxxxx”

14.Oneofthemajorfindingrelatingtothefloodscausedincityof

Hyderabadin2020isdiscussedbyNITIAAYOGinitsReport2021-26andit

isusefullyextractedhereunder:

“MajorFindings

1.Muchofthedamagewasduetotheoverflowingof

lakes–inparticular,theHussainSagarlakeinthe

middleofthecityandthebreachingofstormwater

drains.Constructionoverlakebedsand

encroachmentsofdrainagechannelshavebeen

identifiedasproblemsthathaveexacerbated

floddingandinundationinthecity.

2.xxxxx

3.xxxxx”

15.HavingregardtotheabovefactswheretheWritPetitionershave

constructed62feet11inchesofconcretebridgeinblatantviolationofthe

permissiongrantedbytheDeputyEngineer,DepartmentofIrrigationdated

10.06.2015(Ex.P4)andthattheWritPetitionershavebeenutilizingthis

portionillegallyforaconsiderablelengthoftimeandtheIrrigationDepartment

alsohasconvenientlyignoredtheblatantviolationoftheirowndirections,this

Courtisratherconstrainedtoissuethefollowingdirections,inpublicinterest,

totheDepartmentofRevenue,DepartmentofIrrigation,Departmentof

PanchayatRaj,DepartmentofMunicipalitiesandMunicipalCorporations:

i.TheIrrigationDepartment,RevenueDepartment,

DepartmentofPanchayatRaj,Municipalitiesand

MunicipalCorporationsshallensurethatall

waterwaysandorwatercourses(withwhatever

10

nomenclaturetheyarecalled)thatcarryfresh

wateraswellasdrainagewateraremaintained

andpreservedintermsofdepth,widthandlength

aspertheOfficialRecords.

ii.TheaboveDepartmentsshallensurethatany

constructionmadebyanyoneoverthe

watercoursesandorwaterways(withwhatever

nomenclaturetheyarecalled)thatenableflowof

freshwateranddrainagewatershallnotinany

mannerimpede,blockor‘causeabottleneck

effect’eitherduringthenormaltimeorduringthe

timeofflood.

iii.ConcernedDepartmentsshallmakeperiodical

visits/inspectionsalongtheentirelengthofsuch

waterways/watercourses (with whatever

nomenclaturetheyarecalled),preferablyoncein

six(6)monthsandsubmitreportstotheir

respectiveHeadsofDepartmentsasregards

violationsordeviationsfrompermits/licences

whicharenoticedduringtheirvisits/inspections

with complete measurements ofthe

violations/deviationsandtheparticularsofthe

violators/deviators.

iv.ConcernedHeadsoftheDepartments,upon

receivingofsuchreports,shallforthwithcausean

enquiryandensureclearancewithinfifteen(15)

days,byfollowingthedueprocessoflaw.

v.Theabovedirectionsshallapplytoallwaterways

andorwatercourses,andfeederchannels,either

man-madeornatural.ConcernedHeadsof

DepartmentsshallpercolatethisOrdertoall

11

Officersinthewholehierarchyforeffective

compliance.(Note:FreshWaterandDrainage

Water,wherevertheyarereferredtoshallmean

andincludebrackish-waters,back-watersand

seweragewaters)

16.Beforepartingwiththiscase,thisCourtdeemsitappropriatetoissue

furtherdirectionsinviewofthefactthattheDepartmentofPanchayatRaj,

DepartmentofMunicipalAdministrationandMunicipalCorporationsarenot

arrayedasparties.ThePrincipalSecretary,IrrigationandthePrincipal

Secretary,Revenue,shallsubmitacopyofthisOrdertotheChiefSecretary,

GovernmentofAndhraPradeshwithintwo(2)weeksfromthedateof

uploadingofthisOrderonthewebsiteofthisCourt.TheChiefSecretary,

GovernmentofAndhraPradeshshallcommunicatethisOrdertothe

DepartmentofPanchayatRaj;DepartmentofMunicipalAdministrationaswell

astoallCommissionersofMunicipalCorporationsanddirectthemtofollow

thedirectionsgivenhereinabovewithoutanydeviation.

17.Withtheseobservationsanddirections,thisWritPetitionstands

disposedoff.Noorderastocosts.

18.InterlocutoryApplications,ifany,standclosedintermsofthisorder.

______________________________________

GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNAPRASAD,J

Dt:23.06.2025

UPS/JKS/MNR

12

02

HON'BLESRIJUSTICEGANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNAPRASAD

WRITPETITIONNo.19674OF2024

Dt:23.06.2025

UPS/JKS/MNR