IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Chekuri Siva Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.27125 of 2021
Decided on : 18-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21, 58(d) - Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 - Section 4, 11 - Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty - Whether sustainable development which can be achieved only by way of protecting environment and conserving natural resources for benefit of humanity and future generations could be ignored in garb of economic growth or compelling human necessity –Held, This Court and upheld law in catena of judgments -Therefore, under these present circumstances, this Court has no other option except to follow same to safeguard canal in question -However, due to persistent developmental activities over a long time, much of natural resources of lakes and tanks have been lost, and considered irreparable - This, though regrettable, is beyond power of this Court to rectify - It is true that tank as well as field channel are communal property and State authorities are trustees to hold and manage such properties for benefits of community and they cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission, which will infringe right of community and alienate property to any other person or body on guise of development and public purpose - Repeated plea of respondents that subject construction is only meant for intra-development for public at large, more particularly, community of village cannot weigh more than environmental considerations, which is primus as on today –Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in constructing the Grama Sachivalayam in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents out of the total extent of Ac.39.82 cents in Survey No.254 of Revendrapadu Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 19.07.2019, apart from principles of natural justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6, and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 9 started construction of Grama Sachivalayam/Village Secretariat building in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents out of total extent of Ac.39.82 cents in Survey No.254 of Revendrapadu Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District, which is vested with the Department of Irrigation and Public Works Department and without having any prior permission from the concerned authorities. Moreover, the land in Survey No.254 is classified as canal land (buckingham canal) and notified as Government land. He further contended that the revenue records i.e., adangal for the fasali 1431 dated 30.08.2021 categorically classified that the proposed constructed area is in Survey No.254, which is a land of irrigation canal. Once a piece of land is classified as water body, it cannot be converted for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it is meant for. He also contended that there is no conversion of land proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’) to make the construction of Village Secretariat. He also contended that in view of the proposed construction of the Grama Sachivalayam/Village Secretariat, they excavated the land to the extent of 2 meters depth abutting to the house of the petitioner, but which causing seepage of water from the canal which is abutting to the proposed construction and getting damage to the house of the petitioner. Further, even though the land in Survey No.254 is consisting of Ac.39.82 cents, the canal i.e., Buckingham Canal is a big irrigation and drinking water canal, which runs hundreds of kilometers and the width of the canal including bunds is more than 100 meters. In some places it is 200 meters. The entire extent of the land is covered by the canal passing through the revenue village of the Revendrapadu Village. The small pieces of extents i.e., Ac.0.05 cents or Ac.0.10 cents are also part and parcel of the bunds of the canal and it is not a vacant land or a vacant site as contended by the respondents. Moreover, the entire canal flow area in that particular revenue village is only one survey number which is Survey No.254. As such it is not a vacant site and it is only part of the bund as admitted by the respondents. Therefore, no construction shall be made in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Walta Act’) and more particularly, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, time and again to keep the natural courses and water bodies as intact.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 9 filed counter, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 filed counter and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.2 also filed counter.
5. Respondent No.2 through his counter contended that as per the directions of the 3rd respondent, the 6th respondent-Tahsildar identified all pieces of land an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in Survey No.252 but the 3rd responden
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the State to hold and manage communal properties, such as water bodies, for the benefit of the community. The judgment also emphasizes ....
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.
The state must diligently protect water bodies and thoroughly evaluate land status before permitting construction that may disrupt natural water flow, as outlined in the Odisha Irrigation Act.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of the Siddapura Lotus Pond on the disputed land and that the grants made to private individ....
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.