IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Smt. S. Maheswari, W/o. G. Ramesh Babu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 20185 and 7988 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 18(1) r/w Sections 14 and 15 - Project - Harvest rain water and increase ground water levels - Petitioner filed the Writ Petition as pre-emptive litigation to restrain the revenue authorities in allotting house sites to weaker sections people - Whether petition is maintainable.
Finding of the Court: In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and upon regional and international instruments, Draft Declaration of Human Rights and Environment, passed by several regions and United Nations Organization to which India is signatory - Act of the respondents, more particularly, Respondent No.5-Tahsildar is declared as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directed the Respondent No.5 not to allot house site under the scheme or any other scheme in any extent on the hillock in Village.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
ORDER :
These two Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two different concerns claiming identical reliefs. Therefore, I find that it is expedient to decide both the Writ Petitions by a common order:-
1. Writ Petition No.20185 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
2. Writ Petition No.7988 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
3. Since the contentions in both the writ petitions are one and the same, to avoid repetition of facts, W.P.No.20185 of 2020 is taken as a leading case.
4. The petitioner in W.P.No.20185 of 2020 is a person having background to protect environment and filed this petition only to protect and to conserve the mountains as her right to life is affected on account of proposed action of the respondents.
5. The petitioner born and brought up at Kuntrapakam Village and after marriage also she is living at Kuntrapakam Village as her husband also belongs to same village. She possessed Master Degree in Telugu, English and also in Education, worked as Lecturer in Philosophy and Environmental Education for 16 years and served as Incharge Principal. She did many environmental protection activities along with SV University NSS, Sri Padmavathi Mahila University NSS, Oriental College and elected unanimously as President of Water users Association of Yeguva Cheruvu Dhiguva Cheruvu, Kuntrapakam. During her period as President, she took a project with the help of locals to harvest rain water and increase ground water levels. She planted thousands of plants with SV and Padmavathi Mahila Universities NSS volunteers and invited many great people to their village to get suggestions for environmental protection. She being a Chairman of Yeguva Chervuvu and Diguva Cheruvu Water Users Association submitted that land measuring Ac.131-45 cents in Sy.No.612 at Kuntrapakam Village, Tirupati Rural is classified as Gayalu (Gutta) Poramboke and it is locally called as Yetteri Gutta (Yetteramma Gutta). The land is situated about 2 Kms from Kuntrapakam and Kupuchandrapet Villages and 8 Kms from Tirupati. It is a hillock with abundance of trees, plantations and plays a vital role in sustaining the flora and fauna. The Eguva Cheruvu meaning upper tank, spread in an extent of Ac.119-34 cents situated in S.No.599 and Diguva Cheruvu meaning lower tank, spread in an extent of Ac.165-23 cents situated in Sy.No.575/1 of Kuntrapakam Village. While Eguva Cheruvu has an ayacut of Ac.112-70 cents, Diguva Cheruvu is having an ayacut of Ac.117-74 cents and both th
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati Vs. State of A.P.
M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Others
Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. Sudhakar Hegde and Others
Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
Sarvepalli Ramaiah and others vs. District Collector, Chittoor District
Lal Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi
N.D. Jayal and Others V. Union of India and Others
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar V. Union of India
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad V. Union of India
Particular piece of land is earmarked for public or communal purpose, it shall not be alienated even after change of classification of the land.
The court establishes that historical usage and socio-economic context of land use must influence zoning classifications, balancing environmental protection with community needs under the Forest (Con....
Point of law : Section 46 of Act, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide certain amenities to the public and maintain them, such as construction of schools (clause iii), laying and maintenan....
The court ruled that Zudpi Jungle lands are to be classified as forest lands for conservation purposes, yet allows for non-forestry uses considering socio-economic impacts and historical context.
The State has a constitutional duty to provide housing for the poor, and the implementation of welfare schemes should not be obstructed by vested interests.
Point of law : water bodies cannot be alienated even if they are dry and cultivation carried on dried bed of water bodies does not denude land of its character as water bodies.
before making the allotment the State Authorities were required to set apart the land for access to the lands of the khatedar tenants, their dhani and the public utilities and the entries
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.