Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 5258
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CHENNAI (SOUTHERN ZONE BENCH)
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, Satyagopal Korlapat, Expert Member
Gareeb Guide (NGO) – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Original Application No.92 of 2020 (SZ) | Execution Application No.03 of 2023 (SZ)
For Applicant(s): Mr. D.V. Rao
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R1 & R2
Tank poramboke lands, even if defunct, must be restored for ecological functions; encroachments to be removed progressively despite practical constraints; no alienation or allotment permitted under protective G.O.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Protection of Water Bodies - Government poramboke tank lands - G.O. Ms. No.571 dated 14.09.2012 prohibits alienation or reclassification of tank bed lands - Even defunct tanks must be protected and restored for ecological functions beyond irrigation, including groundwater recharge and aquifer maintenance - Encroachments on tank poramboke, including permanent structures and agricultural activities, must be removed; partial restoration feasible despite longstanding public utilities - Authorities directed to deepen restored areas, preserve inlets, install fencing, and explore elevated bridges and feeder channels - Claim for allotment of tank land under G.O. Ms. No.571 rejected as tank poramboke ineligible ("nemo dat quod non habet") - Non-compliance with Tribunal directions attributed to practical constraints, not wilful disobedience; no action against officials at this stage. (Paras 30, 32, 36-38, 42)
(B) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 25(2) r/w 26 - Execution Application for enforcement of Tribunal orders - Where compliance partial due to socio-legal complexities involving decades-old public structures, execution closed with further directions for progressive restoration, subject to higher court proceedings. (Paras 17-18, 41, 44)
Facts of the case:
NGO filed Original Application highlighting unauthorized encroachments on government poramboke tank land classified in revenue records, including residential houses with pattas since 1988, public structures like school and panchayat office occupying 5.07 Acres, and agricultural activities over 22 Acres. Joint Committee reported tank defunct since 1978 with no visible structure, recommending regularization of house sites and eviction of agriculture. Authorities evicted agricultural encroachments but cited unviability of removing longstanding public utilities; applicant alleged incomplete compliance and sought enforcement via Execution Application.
Findings of Court:
Lands confirmed as protected tank poramboke; agricultural encroachments cleared but permanent structures remain; partial restoration of 22.01 Acres ordered with deepening, inlet preservation, fencing; elevated road bridge and feeder channel feasibility to be explored; execution closed noting partial compliance.
Issues: (I) Classification as protected tank poramboke; (II) Sustainability of land allotment claim; (III) Illegality of encroachments; (IV) Viability of defunct tank restoration claim; (V) Compliance with Tribunal directions and need for action against officials.
Ratio Decidendi: Tank poramboke lands protected from alienation; defunct status no bar to restoration for ecological roles; encroachers have no right to continue occupation; practical constraints in evicting public utilities warrant progressive compliance over punitive action.
Result: Original Application disposed of with restoration directions; Execution Application closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized encroachments on government tank poramboke (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. joint committee confirms defunct tank with encroachments (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 26) |
| 3. authorities report partial eviction of agricultural encroachments (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. applicant's objections allege selective enforcement (Para 15) |
| 5. tribunal directs restoration; execution for non-compliance (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. parties' contentions on encroachments and compliance (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 7. framing issues based on land classification and restoration (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. tank poramboke protected; no allotment entitlement (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. persistent encroachments mandate eviction and verification (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. defunct waterbodies require ecological rejuvenation (Para 37 , 38) |
| 11. incomplete compliance due to practical constraints (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 12. directions for restoration, deepening, and rehabilitation (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
COMMON JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. Both the above-captioned Original Application and Execution Application have been filed by Gareeb Guide (NGO), represented by its President, highlighting grave environmental concerns arising from the unauthorized occupation and conversion of ‘Kakarla Pond’, located in Survey No.59 of Chinnadugam Village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. It is alleged in the Original Application that despite the land being classified as ‘Government poramboke’ (tank), various unauthorized developments such as the construction of a school, panchayat office, temporary houses, and illegal cultivation have been permitted by the District Collector, Srikakulam District (Respondent No.2).
3. The Applicant has relied upon the report of the Tahsildar (vide R.C. No.197/2020, dated 07.05.2020), which states that the original tank has disappeared as a result of the encroachments. Further, the actions violate G.O. Ms. No.571 dated 14.09.2012, which prohibits alienation or reclassification of tank bed lands. Despite media reports highlighting the issue, no remedial action has been taken.
4. The Applicant also relied upon judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court orders, which mandate the protection of water bodies and penal action against defaulting officials.
5. The Applicant further stated that the continued inaction of the authorities and the encroachments pose a substantial environmental question affecting the local ecosystem and the community at large. If not addressed, the damage to the environment will be irreversible.
6. Hence, the Applicant seeks directions from this Tribunal for legal action against authorities who facilitated illegal encroachments in Kakarla Pond (Sy. No.59), removal of unauthorized structures such as schools, shops, and houses, and restoration of the pond to its original condition.
7. While issuing notices to the respondents, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee, vide Order dated 02.07.2020, to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application, comprising (i) a Senior Officer from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Chennai, (ii) a Senior Officer from the Lake Protection Committee, Hyderabad and (iii) the District Collector, Srikakulam. Further, the Committee was directed to inspect the site, verify the revenue records to ascertain the existence, nature, and historical use of the pond in the subject area, determine the onset of encroachments, and examine the steps taken by the State authorities to remove such encroachments and protect the water body, and to submit a factual as well as action taken report in case of any violations found.
8. Upon notice, the respondents entered appearance through the standing counsel and both parties filed their respective pleadings.
9. The Joint Committee, appointed by this Tribunal, has filed a report on 01.02.2021, wherein it is stated that a jo
