APHC010116652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 6016/2025 Between: 1. M SREEDEVI, W/O. M. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. BALIJA VEEDHI, BHAKARAPETA VILLAGE- 517194, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMIRATION, AND SPL. CHIEF SECRETARY, O/O. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION MANGALAGIRU-522503, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PVS EMPIRE, D.NO.12-47, PATHURU ROAD, BESIDE RELIANCE DIGITALS, TADEPALLI VILLAGE, PIN CODE 522501, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, O/O. COLLECTORATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, O/O. COLLECTORATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 2 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, O/O. COLLECTORATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 7. THE DISTRICT WATER RESOURCE OFFICER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, O/O COLLECTORATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEAR ALIPIRI, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 9. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI DIVISION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 10. THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 11. THE TAHSILDAR, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 12. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERIRRIGATION, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT 13. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, BHAKARAPETA VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14. THE BHAKARAPETA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SARPANCH BHAKARAPETA VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 15. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BHAKARAPET GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHAKARAPETA VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMA MURTY P V S A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Rama Murthy P.V.S.A, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (appearing through online), Sri T.Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri S.Hruthik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. Sri T.Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati dated 28.03.2025. Copy of it is not served on the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner because he is appearing through online. This Written Instruction is taken on record. 3. The Written Instructions would indicate that the subject land, according to the Revenue record, is classified as Government Tank Poramboke. The Written Instructions would indicate that out of an extent of Ac.1.48 cents of Government Tank Poramboke, an extent of Ac.0.47cents is occupied by encroachers, and an extent of Ac.0.54 cents is still not notified. 4. Since it is shown in the Revenue record under the classification of the Government Tank Poramboke, which in otherwise means that it is a water body, it is covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supremes Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-13 of the said judgment, has held as under: “13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including 1 (2006) 6 SCC 496 4 the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.” 5. Having regard to the above extract, this Court is of the view that the official Respondents shall not allow any encroachments to take place on the public land, if such public land is classified as water tank. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority and another vs. Steel Authority of India and another2, as held under: “59. The public trust doctrine is founded on the principle that certain resources are nature's bounty which ought to be reserved for the whole populace, for the present and for the future. [ Joseph L. Sax, “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention”, (1970) Michigan Law Review 471, 484.] Since these resources are intrinsically important to every person in society, the State Acts as a public trustee to safeguard them. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, para 34] , Kuldip Singh, J. observed that the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The learned Judge further observed that the State has a legal duty to protect natural resources which cannot be converted into private ownership. [M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, para 34] The environment and natural resources are national assets and subject to intergenerational equity. [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 142, para 45] The public trust doctrine looks beyond the needs of the present generation and obligates the State to protect natural resources for future generations as well. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1, para 89].” 2 (2024) 10 SCC 1 5 7. In this view of the matter, the official Respondents are directed to clear the encroachments within Eight (08) weeks from today by following due process of law. 8. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 02.04.2025 SNI 6 180 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.6016 OF 2025 02.04.2025 SNI