IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Dr. K.L.Vyas, Professor and Head – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Uppal Municipality – Respondent
Writ Petition No.4462 of 2005
Decided On : 25-09-2024
(A) Public Interest Litigation – Writ Petition No. 4462 of 2005 – The court addressed the issue of encroachment and pollution of Ramanthapur Pedda Cheruvu, directing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and other authorities to conduct a survey, fix Full Tank Level (FTL), and take necessary actions to protect the water body. (Paras 2, 16)
(B) Compliance with Previous Orders – The court noted that previous orders regarding the protection of water bodies had not been fully complied with, emphasizing the need for timely action by the authorities. (Paras 12, 16)
(C) Directions Issued – The court issued specific directions for the fixation of FTL, fencing, de-silting, and beautification of the lake, with timelines for completion. (Paras 16)
Facts of the case: The writ petition was initiated based on concerns raised about the encroachment and pollution of Ramanthapur Pedda Cheruvu, a significant water body in Hyderabad.
Findings of Court: The court found that no final notification had been issued regarding the FTL and directed the authorities to take necessary actions to protect the lake.
Issues: The main issues included the fixation of FTL, encroachment, and pollution of the water body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely action by the authorities to protect public water bodies and the need for compliance with previous orders.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
(Alok Aradhe, CJ.)
Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
Mr. C.H.Jaya Krishna, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.Vishnu Vardhana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board for respondent No.2.
Ms. T.Rajitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for respondent No.3.
Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for respondent No.6.
Mr. P.Padma Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9.
Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 28.
Mr. G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.35 to 38.
Ms. B.Rachna, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for respondent Nos.48 to 59 and proposed respondents in I.A.No.21 of 2024.
Mr. S.Sainathan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.60 and 61.
Mr. G.Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for respondent Nos.127 to 130.
2. One Dr. K.L.Vyas, Professor and Head, Department of Hindi, Osmania University, Hyderabad has addressed a communication to the Chief Justice of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 05.02.2005. In the aforesaid communication, it was stated that Hyderabad was a city of lakes and gardens and had about 532 lakes and 200 gardens. It was further stated that gradually the lakes and gardens have vanished giving way to fast growing city centre and only 170 lakes exist. It was further stated that Ramanthapur Pedda Cheruvu is a water body situated on 26 acres of land and is occupied by encroachers and the land of the lake has been plotted and sold out. It was further stated that the water body is being used as a dump yard for throwing municipal garbage, which is a breeding place for mosquitoes and stray dogs. On the basis of the aforesaid communication, this writ petition was registered as public interest litigation.
3. It is pertinent to mention that aforesaid Dr. K.L.Vyas had filed several other writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.24260 of 2008, 30067 of 2011, 13215 of 2012, 3705 of 2012, 12540 of 2012, 4362 of 2013, 8303 of 2013, 11499 of 2015 and PIL.No.254 of 2012. It is pertinent to note that Ramanthapur Pedda Cheruvu was a subject matter in the previous writ petitions filed by Dr. K.L.Vyas namely W.P.Nos.24260 of 2008, 30067 of 2011, 13215 of 2012, 3705 of 2012, 12540 of 2012, 4362 of 2013, 8303 of 2013, 11499 of 2015 and PIL.No.254 of 2012. The petitioner in the said writ petitions Dr. K.L.Vyas did not appear before the Court. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court has appointed an Amicus Curiae. Neither Dr. K.L.Vyas, learned Amicus Curiae nor any counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court that the present writ petition namely W.P.No.4462 of 2005 in respect of Ramanthapur Pedda Cheruvu is pending. A Division Bench of this Court by a common order dated 11.07.2016 disposed of the writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.24260 of 2008, 30067 of 2011, 13215 of 2012, 3705 of 2012, 12540 of 2012, 4362 of 2013, 8303 of 2013, 11499 of 2015 and PIL.No.254 of 2012. The order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petitions is extracted below for the facility of reference:
AI
The court mandated the fixation of Full Tank Level and protective measures for Ramanthapur Pedda Cheruvu, emphasizing compliance with prior orders and timely action by authorities.
The court mandated the Lake Protection Committee to consider objections regarding the Full Tank Level of Durgam Cheruvu tank, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of due process in property disputes and directed the Lake Protection Committee to consider the petitioner's objections regarding the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu.
The tribunal emphasized the necessity of restoring natural drainage to prevent further environmental degradation and affirmed the lack of legal recognition for the lake status of Mazid Banda Cheruvu.
The absence of a substantively recognized lake leads to affirming private land ownership, rejecting claims of public water body due to encroachments and pollution.
The State must follow due process and cannot arbitrarily demolish legal residential properties without proper notices and adherence to established laws.
Land utilization must comply with Full Tank Level regulations to preserve ecological integrity; unauthorized activities affecting water bodies are impermissible.
Encroachment on wetlands for non-wetland use is impermissible under environmental law, and the natural state of the water body must be restored.
The designation of land as a pond under revenue records requires factual substantiation, and the mere presence of water does not suffice to classify it as such under law.
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.