Point of Law: De-silting the tank does not amount to changing the physical features of the water body known as “Koneru” situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti town, YSR Kadapa District, to violate constitutional obligation of the State under Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief :

“..to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 for carrying out the conversion works and changing the physical features of the water body known as “KONERU” situated at Sy.No.697 Rayachoti town, YSR Kadapa District inspite of receipt of our representation dt.2.2.2016 at the behest of 6th respondent, without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

The brief facts of the case are that :

2. The petitioner is the resident of Mohammedpura street, Rayachoty Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, the 2nd respondent is the District Collector, 3rd respondent is the Revenue Divisional Officer, 4th respondent is Tahsildar and 5th respondent is the Rayachoty Municipality and the 6th respondent is Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple represented by its Executive Officer, who proposed the conversion works and changing the physical features of the water body known as “Koneru” situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

3. The petitioner submits that he is the resident of Mohammedpura Street, adjacent to the Koneru. Since several decades, in his ancestral residential house, the petitioner is personally affected with the illegal and unwarranted activities of the respondents for tampering and changing the physical features of water body known as “Koneru”, situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti Town, Y.S.R District for the purpose of constructing 6th respondent temple, depriving the right of petitioner to get the water from the Koneru. As a matter of fact, as per the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register of Rayachoti town, the subject land in Sy.No.697 admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.08 cents is originally a Grama Kantam.

4. However, in due course of time, the Government has allotted house pattas to the poor people, mostly to the Minority Community, since then, they have been in possession and constructed their houses and living therein with their respective families. However, so far as petitioner’s residential house is concerned, it is his ancestral property, purchased for valid sale consideration from its vendor on 26.08.1990.

5. After making such allotments to the poor people, in the remaining extent of 0.75 cents, the Government has dug the pond for storing water for the use of people residing in and around the said area, and with the help of subject pond the ground water level in that area is being maintained at good levels and in fact, it is the main source of water to the people residing in and around of the subject pond. Therefore, in the event of any tampering and changing the physical features of the pond for any purpose, it will adversely affect the area in maintaining the ground water level, as it is the main water body providing water directly or indirectly to the people residing in the said area.

6. While so, the respondents are trying to change the physical features only with a view to deprive the petitioner from enjoying the right to draw water from the pond. The petitioner contended that, he submitted a representation dated 01.02.2016 to the authorities requesting not to change physical features of the Pond (Tank), but no action has taken so far.

7. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit admitting about existence of Koneru (Tank), the said Koneru is known as “Holi Koneru”. In the counter affidavit, the 6th respondent contended that, it is false that the Government has dug the pond for storing water for the purpose of people residing in and around the said area. It is further false that with the help of the said pond, the water level in the area is being maintained and it is false that it is the main source of water for the people r