APHC010142402020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8599/2020 Between: 1. BODDU SATHI RAJU,, S/O LATE SRI RAJU @ PULLAIAH, HINDU, AGE- 75 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, RIO PEDDADA - 533 344, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, E G DISTRICT 2. MALLIPUDI VEERABHADRA RAO @ BHADRA RAO,, S/0 SRI SATTI RAJU, HINDU, AGE- 56 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O PEDDADA - 533 344, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, E G DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI 522 503, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA - 533 001 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KAKINADA - 533 001, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, PEDAPUDI - 533 006,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. GRAM PANCHAYAT, PEDDADA - 533 344, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, E G DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PANCHYAT SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not preventing the work of filling up of tank area with gravel and earth in respect of the tank called Vooracheruvu' situated in Sy.No. 259- 1A and 259-1B in a total extent of Ac. 10.39 Cents in Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and consequently, direct the Respondents herein to remove all encroachments and constructions in the tank area covered by S.No. 259-1A and 259/1B of Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District and protect the water body free from encroachments forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents and their subordinates to stop the work relating to filling up of part of the water body called 'Vooracheruvu' situated Sy.No. 259-1A and 259-1B in a total extent of Ac. 10.39 Cents in Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, pending, disposal of the present Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 12-05-2020 in IA.No.1/2020 in WP.No.8599 of 2020 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.NO.8599 OF 2020 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- < to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not preventing the work of filling up of tank area with gravel and earth in respect of the tank called >Vooracheruvu? situated in Sy.No.259-1A and 259-1B in a total extent of Ac.10.39 Cents in Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and consequently direct the Respondents herein to remove all encroachments and constructions in the tank area covered by S.No.259-1A and 259-1B of Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District and protect the water body free from encroachments forthwith and pass such other order or orders...= 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners herein are the residents of respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat. The petitioners along with other villagers are dependents on the water tank and are drawing water from the tank called as 8Vooracheruvu9 situated in Sy.Nos.259-1A and 259-1B to an extent of Ac.10.39 cents in Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. While so, contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the respondent No.5 is trying to close the subject tank by filling with the gravel and sand which would cause inconvenience to the petitioners and public at large who are drawing water from the subject tank. He further submits that it is a settled principle of law that natural water tanks, river courses, and other natural water bodies should be protected by both the State and local authorities under intellectual property law. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon9ble Apex Court in Hinchlal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Others1, wherein, paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 is extracted hereunder: <13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks, 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 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 attempt to seek allotment in non-abadi sites. 14. For the afore-mentioned reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated 25.02.1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on 12.03.1999. Consequently, respondents 1 to 10 shall 1 (2001) 6 SCC 496 vacate the land, which was allotted to them, within six months from today. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period, the official respondents i.e., respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. The State including respondents 11 to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further, it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the environment in regard to which this court has repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must begin at the grass-root level if they were to become the nation's pride.= 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, wherein, it is stated as under: <There is a Gadda Land adjacent to this tank in an extent of 72 cents in Sy.No.301/8 which was classified as tank in the revenue records. But, in fact on ground the said extent is the plain land. Hence, long back constructed the Kalayana Mandapam and its related structures. In the year 1985 Gram Panchayat building was also constructed in the land in Sy.No.301/8. Having known the fact, the petitioner kept quite all these months till the construction of the building reached to the finishing stage filed the present writ petition with false and baseless allegations. Though there was a mention as a tank in the revenue records, but on the ground there is no water spread area in the land in Sy.No.301/8. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that we are closed the tank and constructing the building is absolutely false. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat further submits that counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.354 of 2022 which is a connected matter, wherein, it is admitted that there are encroachments to an extent of 20 cents out of Ac.10.43 cents where vooracheruvu is situated since several decades and the same shall be removed. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Gram Panchayat/ respondent No.5 should protect the tank by restoring actual extent, the storing capacity of water by strengthening the bunds and to keep the feeder channels in good condition. He further submits that out of Ac.10.43 cents of the land, 20 cents was occupied by the house dwellers and constructions were made several decades ago and the same can be removed by following due process of law. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the subject Vooracheruvu tank situated in Sy.No.259-1A and 259-1B of Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District is consisting of Ac.10.43 cents. It is also an admitted fact that the said tank is still intact with water and had been protected by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the Gram Panchayat is taking steps for strengthening of bunds and to keep/ store more possible water in the tank and to protect the tank as per the principle laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court as referred supra and also Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs State of A.P. and another 2 is valid and sustainable. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that in view of the categorical undertaking by way of counter affidavit that the subject tank should be protected as claimed by the petitioners, as such, no further orders are necessary to be passed by this Court is valid and reasonable and sounds merits. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authorities clearly admitted in their counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.354 of 2022 that there are encroachments to an extent of 20 cents out of Ac.10.43 cents where vooracheruvu is situated since several decades and the same shall be removed is valid and sustainable in view of the settled proposition of law. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, pursuant to the principle laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are hereby directed to protect the subject tank from future encroachments and to restore the tank as it is. Further, if there are any encroachments in respect of the subject tank area, respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall take steps in accordance with law as well as the principle laid down by the Hon9ble Apex court in Government Of Andhra Pradesh Vs Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr 3, for removal of the same by initiating appropriate civil proceedings, at the earliest. 2.W.P.Nos.7955 and 8650 of 1994; dt.28.09.2000 3.1982 AIR 1081 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:08.10.2025 BSP 227 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.NO.8599 OF 2020 DATED:08.10.2025 Date:08.10.2025 BSP