http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1251 of 2006

PETITIONER: Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi                                                   

RESPONDENT: State of A.P. & Ors.                                                        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2006

BENCH: Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7196-7197 OF 2001)  Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted. The present matter raises two kinds of questions. Firstly, at a jurisprudential  level, it falls on this court to lay down the law regarding the use of public lands or  natural resources, which have a direct link to the environment of a particular area, by  the Government. Secondly, this court should decide, on the facts of the present case,  the order to be passed with respect to two tanks in the Tirupathi area \026 Peruru, and  Avilala. The above two appeals were filed by a registered society called, the Intellectuals  Forum, against the respondents herein.  The contesting parties are the State of Andhra  Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary, Tirupathi Urban Development Authority  represented by its Vice-Chairman and the A.P. Housing Board represented by its Vice- Chairman and Housing Commissioner. The present case relates to the preservation of and restoration of status quo  ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in existence since the time of  Srikrishnadevaraya, 1500 A.D.   The tanks are called ‘Avilala Tank’ and ‘Peruru Tank’ which are situated in  suburbs of Tirupathi Town which is a world renowned popular pilgrim centre having  every day in-flow of tourists between one lakh to two lakhs. GRIEVANCE:         Systematic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in  Tirupathi Town, namely, Avilala and Peruru Tank and alienation of the Avilala Tank bed  land to Tirupathi Urban Development Authority (In short, TUDA) and A.P. Housing  Board under G.O. Ms. No. 84 Rev. dated 28.1.1994 and Peruru Tank bed land to  Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (In short, TTD) for housing purposes under G.O. Ms.  No. 181 Rev. dated 15.3.1991, which are impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 8650 of 1994  and 7955 of 1994 respectively. According to the appellant, the cry of socially spirited citizens calling for judicial  remedy was not considered in the right perspective by the Division Bench of the High  Court of Andhra Pradesh despite there being over-whelming evidence of the tanks  being in existence and were being put to use not only for irrigation purpose but also as  lakes which were furthering percolation to improve the ground water table, thus serving  the needs of the people in and around these tanks.  It was submitted that the High  Court has given precedence to the economic growth by completely ignoring the  importance and primacy attached to the protection of environment and protection of  valuable and most cherished fresh water resources.  The Government without  considering the well planned development of Tirupathi town alienated the Tank bed  lands in favour of some governmental agencies for valuable consideration.  It was  further submitted that since Tirupathi is in the draught prone region called Rayala  Seema, there is always shortage of water and the District machinery is constantly put  on alert for devising schemes for the purpose of improving the existing water resources.   An Engineering Team which is assigned such a task had visited in and around the foot- hills of Tirupathi and Tirumala for the purpose of identifying sources of fresh water and  suggestions to be given for their improvement.  Apart from suggestions, the team of  Engineers, in the minutes of the meeting held on 26.5.1990, suggested that  improvement of feeder channels (Vagus) for Peruru tank and Avilala tank would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18  

improve the percolation of all the surrounding areas and that there is enough potential  for the tanks to get enough water if the feeder channels are improved.  It was also  submitted by representation that the Commissioner of Land Revenue to retain Peruru  tank and Avilala tank, since retention of water in the said tanks would improve the water  table which is already very low in the surrounding wells and also to the east of the tanks  before of gradients.  In the meantime, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 181 \026  Revenue dated 15.3.1991 alienating an extent of 150 acres of land which belongs to  the tank bed area of Peruru tank to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (In short, TTD).   The members of the appellant’s forum as also the various other socially spirited citizens  have written letters to various authorities of the Government requesting the said  authorities including the Chief Minister not to alienate the tank bed areas of both the  tanks for housing or for any other activity except for the purpose for which it is meant.   However, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 84 \026 Revenue dated 28.1.1994  authorizing the District Collector, Chittoor to alienate 90 acres of land belonging to  Avilala tank bed area to A.P. Housing Board.  This Government order further directed  that the TUDA should provide a Master plan for the entire area of 170 acres so as to  ensure integrated development of Avilala tank area.   

Since, there was no response to the representations made, the appellant filed  two writ petitions in the High Court challenging the Government Orders passed by the  Government of Andhra Pradesh by which the District Collector, Chittoor was directed to  hand over the tank bed areas of Avilala tank and Peruru tank to TTD and to A.P.  Housing Board.   

Writ Petition No. 7955 of 1994 was filed assailing G.O. Ms. No. 181 dated  15.3.1991, in respect of alienation of Peruru tank bed land to TTD and Writ Petition No.  8650 of 1994 was filed assailing G.O. Ms. No. 84 dated 28.1.1994 alienating Avilala  tank bed area land to A.P. Housing Board.  The respondents  filed their counter  affidavits opposing the writ petitions.  The Indian Medical Association also made a  similar plea that the Government should immediately withdraw its G.Os. alienating  Avilala tank and  Peruru tank and restore them urgently as percolation tanks, to  improve the ground water table.  This prayer was made by the Indian Medical  Association due to alarming increase of the toxic contents like Fluorides and other salts  in the underground water due to steep fall in the underground water table level.  A  feasibility report on Peruru tank was prepared by Sri Venkateswara University College  of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Tirupathi.  Several other individuals  filed affidavits supporting the cause of the appellant.   A counter affidavit was filed by the Government, Revenue Department, in Writ  Petition No. 8650 of 1994 whereby the said respondent justified the issuance of G.O.  Ms. No. 84-Revenue Dept. dated 28.1.1994 stating that the same was in public interest.   A counter affidavit was also filed by respondent No.3, the Law Officer of the Housing   Board stating that the Housing Board has invested Rs.88.43 lakhs towards  development of land and thus the Board has invested in all a sum of Rs. 1,78,43,000/-  and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.  An additional counter affidavit was also  filed by respondent No.3 stating that the area is fully developed.  Likewise, Shri P.  Krishnaiah, the Executive Officer of the TTD filed affidavit stating that a number of  dwelling have come up in the entire area and the prayer in the writ petition could not be  granted and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. By the impugned and common judgment dated 28.9.2000, the Division Bench of  the High Court finding no illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents  dismissed both the writ petitions.  Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions, the  appellant has filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions.    We heard Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the  appellant-Forum, Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the TTD, Mr.  P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Mr.  P. S. Narasimha, learned counsel and Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior  counsel for the respective parties. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the respective counsel appearing for  the parties to this action.  We have been taken through the entire pleadings, documents  and annexures filed along with the appeals and also the report submitted by the Expert  Committee and the objections filed by the parties to the said report. Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made  the following submissions:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18  

1.      The High Court has failed to appreciate that in the light of over-whelming  evidence with regard to the Tank beds being put in use for irrigation,  drinking purpose, and being used as percolation tanks to improve the  groundwater table and quality of underground water in the neighbouring  areas and many villages including Tirupathi town,  the High Court  committed error in holding that the water tanks in issue are now non- existent. 2.      The High Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the  urban development could be given primacy over and above the need to  protect the environment and valuable fresh water resources. 3.      The High Court is not correct in holding that if the Government is not  permitted to use the lands in question properly it will ultimately go into the  hands of land grabbers and anti-social elements and they will be  converted into slums and that such lands will be used as dumping  grounds. 4.      The High Court has failed to notice the fact that the need for sustainable  development cannot be ignored, could not do away with and could not  cause harm to the environment in the name of urban development and  that certain acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the  respondents in not taking proper measures for the preservation of the  Peruru tank, the flow of water into the tank is reduced every year as most  of its feeder channels are either spoiled or closed by unauthorised  encroachers. 5.      The respondents have failed to take necessary measures to remove the  encroachments and repair the feeder channels and as a result, the  natural flow of water into the tank during the rainy season is reduced.  On  account of reduction in the water catchment area due to encroachments,  the quantity of water collected in the tank is getting drastically depleted  year by year and that the water table in the neighbouring area of the tank  including a colony is going down and even the ground water available is  becoming more and more saline with high fluoride content every year and  becoming unfit for drinking purposes. 6.      It was submitted that the respondents are under constitutional obligation  to protect the environment.  The tanks in question is a public property in  which each and every ayacutdar has got a property right and this right  cannot be taken away by the Government to their detriment and that the  communal property cannot be diverted for the purpose of construction of  houses to section of people.    Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for TTD submitted that TTD  gave its own land to Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam and in lieu of the land so  given by it, the State Government under G.O. Ms. No. 181 \026 Revenue dated 15.3.1991  has given Ac.150 m Perur tank to TTD.  TTD took possession of the said land on  19.3.1993.  In 1984 itself, the tank bed became barren and there is no water supply to  the tank.  The agricultural lands which were dependent on the tank water which was  used only for agricultural purposes, therefore, became housing colonies.  There is no  source of water now to the tank and it is not possible to store water in the tank.  Tirupath i  is a growing town whose population is going up constantly demanding more and more  house sites and housing accommodation for the growing town population.  The pilgrim  inflow is also steadily growing requiring more facilities.  An agricultural tank which has  become dry by 1984 itself and which is no longer capable of being used for agricultural  irrigation purposes as it gets no water any more being surrounded by the expanding  town, roads and built up areas cannot anymore be maintained as a tank in its original  form.  There are other tanks and dams and water supply schemes being undertaken in  Tirupathi having regard to their feasibility.  The High Court has considered these aspects  also, he submitted.   TTD is one of the well known Devasthanams in the country which is undertaking  projects of general public welfare consistent with its policy.  It is doing everything  possible in Tirupathi and in Tirumala where the World famous Sri Venkateswara Swami  Temple is situated, to preserve and improve the natural environment.  The tank in  question i.e. Peruru tank cannot be maintained as a tank in the present situation and it  has ceased to be a tank long ago except in name.  It has been obtained by it in lieu of its  own land it has given for a public purpose of a women’s university and requires it for its  own optimum use.  The objection sought to be taken by the appellant as a public interest  objection is without any merit or substance as far as Peruru tank is concerned on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18  

facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for A.P. Housing Board,  submitted that S.No. 18/1 of Avilala village is on the outskirts of Tirupathi town  measuring about 187 acres was classified as Avilala tank Poramboke.  The said tank  was abandoned as far back as in the year 1992.  The Tank area was bulldozed and the  entire land was levelled.  The cultivation particulars of the Ayacut in this tank reveals th at  no lands were being irrigated from the water derived from this tank right from the year  1395 F i.e. the year 1984 A.D.  The feeder source for Avilala tank namely (i)  Ramayapalli Kasarkaluwa (ii) Kasarkaluwa of Vedantpuram Agraharam and (iii)  drainage water of Timlagunta wet fields (iv) Nadinvaka \026 all these sources got defaced  and there has been no scope for accumulation of water in the tank.  It was also  observed that even after sinking that well to a depth of about  60 feet, the land was not  receiving any water from any ground resources after construction of Kalyani Reservoir.   Therefore, proposal for abandonment of tank was submitted by the Revenue Divisional  Officer, Tirupathi to the District Collector in the years 1988 and 1992.  Thereafter, public   notices were issued inviting objections but no objections were filed by anyone.   Thereafter a technical opinion was given by the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation  Department in favour of the alienation of the said land to an extent of 98 acres.  Even  the Gram Panchayat had passed resolution on 14.8.1988 proposing to alienate 98 acres  in S.No. 18/3 carved out S.No. 18/1 of Avilala Village in favour of A.P. Housing Board.   The Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 691 dated 18.7.1989 alienating 98  acres of land for the purpose of constructions of house under the rental housing scheme  for the Government employees.  The said land has been levelled in the year 1992 after  taking possession.  The Housing Board has undertaken infrastructural facilities by laying  of B.T. Roads, electrical lines, digging bore wells apart from levelling and plotting the  land and a sub-station 33 K.V. capacity has been established by the A.P. Electricity  Board. It was submitted that the A.P. Housing Board paid Rs. 90 lakhs towards the cost  of the land @ Rs.1 lakh for each acre to the Government and also spent a sum of Rs.  88.43 lakhs towards development of the land so far.  Thus, in all A.P. Housing Board  has invested a sum of Rs.1,78,43,000/- and the further development was stopped in  view of the pendency of the writ petition.   The A.P. Dairy Development Corporation has established Balaji Dairy in a  portion of the land under reference by spending over Rs.8 crores.  All these amounts  were spent by the Government from its own expenditure from out of public funds.  Apart  from the above, the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated for laying of approach  road and compensation thereafter has been paid by the Revenue Department. Mr. P.S. Narasimha further submitted that the laudable objective of maintenance  of ecology, environment and preservation of water resources are subject to the vagaries  of nature and in the realm of technical matter, there cannot be judicially manageable  standard for granting any relief. Arguing further, he submitted that there are many factors and reasons attributing  to depletion of ground water table due to the expanding urbanization and increasing the  non-agricultural activities.  All such activities have not the sanction of the law supported   by legislative mandate under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act.  The  administration has been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring equitable urban  growth by balancing ecological and environmental interest and in the instant case, the  administration has taken all the proceedings and attending precautions to act in larger  public interest in general for which the appellant cannot have any grievance. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for  TUDA filed a detailed  reply to the appeal.  He invited our attention to the elaborate and detailed reply affidavit   filed by them.  It is seen from the affidavit that the proposals for abandonment of the  erstwhile tank were submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi with  reference to the Collector’s letter No. B-1/7089/88 dated 17.9.1988.  A notice for public  response to the said proposal was published in the village but no objections were  received.  As the land was in the past classified as a tank poramboke, technical opinion  had already been obtained and the Irrigation Department opined that there was no  objection for alienation of the said land.  As per the report of the Revenue Divisional  Officer, Tirupathi submitted in his letter No. Roc. No. G/2016/88, dated 6.9.1988 that the  Avilala Gram Panchayat in its resolution dated 14.8.1988 had resolved to alienate an  extent of 90.00 acres in Sy. No. 18/3 (carved out from 18/1) of Avilala village in favour of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18  

 A.P. Housing Board. In the above circumstances, the Government have alienated 90 acres of land in  Sy. No. 18/3 carved out from Sy. No. 18/1 in favour of A.P. Housing Board for  construction of houses under rental housing scheme for Government employees vide  G.O. Ms. No. 691 dated 10.7.1989 of the Revenue (Assn. IV)  Department.  The District  Collector, Chittoor in his letter No. B1/15246/90 dated 14.7.1992 addressed to the  Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department has informed that the Ayacutdars  have also given their consent for abandonment of the erstwhile tank and to treat the  Ayacut as dry land since the tank does not have any water source.   After the Government have alienated an extent of 90 acres of land to A.P.  Housing Board and 1.12 acres to A.P.S.E.B. and 5 acres towards compensation for  private lands acquired for approach road, there remains a balance of 96 acres of land.   Accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi in his letter G/5234/92 dated  16.9.1992 addressed the District Collector that the balance land available can be better  utilized by handing it over to various agencies for developmental purposes, because of  its proximity to Tirupathi town and adjoining residential colonies like Vaikuntapuram,  Bairagipatteda etc.  There has been a substantial growth in population of Tirupathi town  coupled with physical expansion of the town and consequent conversion of agricultural  lands into pucca residential area and layouts.  The population of Tirupathi is growing day  by day and to cater to the growing demand for housing this authority had requested the  Government for alienation of 90 acres of land for sites and services programmes.   Accordingly, the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 84 \026 Revenue (Assn.IV) Department,  dated 28.1.1994 alienated 90 acres of land in Sy. No. 17/1 of Avilala in favour of this  authority.  Based on the Government Orders and proceedings of the District Collector,  Chittoor in D.O. Toc. No. B/1/15246/92 dated 3.3.1994, the Mandal Revenue Officer,  Tirupathi Rural Mandal has handed over the possession of 65.19 acres of land on  18.4.1994 to this authority. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the Urban Development Authorities are bound  to regulate the massive urban growth and migration of people with appropriate  development plans to prevent formation of slums and consequent urban decay.   Accordingly, the TUDA has taken up development of new Satellite townships around  Tirupathi to relieve congestion of the existing township and one such satellite town is  Rajiv Nagar being developed in the land many years back was under the then existing  Avilala tank in Sy. No. 18/1. As it is evident from the joint inspection of the Joint Collector, Chittoor,  Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Chittoor, etc. on dated 4.4.1992, there has been no  source of the supply channel for maintenance of the Avilala tank and it has not been  practicable either to restore it as irrigation tank or even as a percolation tank any longer .   However, as a part of the development of a satellite township, it is proposed to provide  lung spaces, water harvesting structures in an extent of 18 acres of land benefiting the  people in Sy. No. 18/1 of Avilala village and Rajiv Nagar area by TUDA and A.P.  Housing Board. After obtaining approval from the State Government, TUDA announced the  scheme to the public on 18.3.2001, 26.3.2001 and 30.3.2001 by giving wide publicity in  the newspaper and inviting applications for participating in the auction.  The plots were  allotted to the public in a public auction as per the orders of the Government vide G.O.  Ms. No. 84 Revenue (Assn.IV) Deptt. Dated 28.1.1994.  The auction was conducted on  13th, 14th and 15th April, 2001 and plots were allotted to the successful bidders  immediately i.e. before the issue of status quo order of this Court.  TUDA has already  taken up plans of action to provide in the new township partly with the amounts  received from open auction: It is also seen from the reply affidavit filed by TUDA that a comprehensive  scheme name "HARITA" has been jointly promoted by Forest Department, TTD and  TUDA at a cost of Rs.24.83 crores to be implemented in five years from 2000 to 2005.  The scheme had already commenced and massive plantation programme was  taken up by planting 16 lakhs trees during the year 2000-2001 apart from other  schemes that have been envisaged in the plan. The National Remote Sensing Agency, Department of Space, Government of  India in their report titled "Land use Land cover monitoring in TUDA area with special  reference to Avilala tank and environs Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh" has conducted  detailed study with the help of satellite imageries on Avilala tank over a period of time.   In its report, it is stated that the tank in earlier days i.e. earlier to 1970 was drained  mostly by natural springs located in the head of the region of the catchment.  Over a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18  

period of  time, the spring got dried up due to various geological factors with no source  of surface flow.  Also the small streams which were draining to the tank were disturbed  and occupied, with the result the tank remained dry with part of it covered with scrub  since 1976 onwards. It is also stated in the report that as per the satellite image of February, 2001  there are about 232 tanks identified in TUDA area.  Most of the tanks are located  along  the foot hills of Tirumala hills and plains of Swarnamukhi river. Kalyani reservoir is the  major one in the area.  Considering the location as well as distribution about 20 tanks  are identified for conservation and future development to meet the urban water  requirement.  However, other existing tanks may also be fenced and preserved to meet  the future requirement. The TUDA along with the support of other Government Departments have been  making conscious efforts for conserving and preserving potential tanks in TUDA region  as per the recommendations of National Remote Sensing Agency and other experts in  the field.  In this direction, the TUDA has already initiated action in developing  Tiruchanoor tank in Sy. No. 253 of Tiruchanoor at a cost of Rs.30 lakhs under Phase I  Scheme which includes desilting, strengthening of bunds, landscaping of bunds and  tree plantation.  However, there is no possibility at all of restoring the abandoned Avilala   tank as per the scientific data available with TUDA which can be at best developed as a  satellite township with all facilities thus contributing to the planned urban growth of  Tirupathi and decongesting the main township. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of  Andhra Pradesh drew our attention to the detailed counter affidavit filed by the State of  A.P. through its Joint Secretary to the Government Revenue Department wherein the  Government has explained to this Court as to how the impugned G.O.’s alienating the  lands in favour of TTD, TUDA and Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for public purposes  were issued.  According to Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, there is nothing illegal in issuing in  G.Os.  It is not violating anybody’s fundamental rights.  An extent of 180 acres of  land  was tank bed land of Avilala tank.  This tank was an abandoned tank ever since 1984  as the channel source of this tank was closed due to construction of Kalyani dam and  because of lack of water this tank was no longer used for storage of water.  As it was  an abandoned tank and was no longer in existence and the land became plain and  considering the matter and report of the District Collector, the Government issued  orders in G.O. Ms. No. 691 \026 Revenue Department dated 10.7.1989 for alienating an  extent of 90 acres of land to A.P. Housing Board for the purpose of rental Housing  scheme for Government employees on payment of Rs. 1 lakh per acre by the Housing  Board and before this land was alienated a notice was published in the village calling  for objections by the Revenue authorities and no objections were received in pursuance  of the said notice.  The Ayacutdars have also consented for the alienation of the land.   Thereafter, after obtaining the opinion of the concerned Executive Engineer of the  Irrigation Department and the report of the District Collector, the above Government  Order was issued.     Concluding his arguments, he submitted that there is ample material on record  showing that these tanks were abandoned long back and they were no longer serving  as water storage tanks more particularly, as their supply channels have been dried up. On 5.12.2003, this Court passed the following order: "The Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources,  Government of India is directed to constitute a committee of  experts for the purpose of submitting a report on the question  whether the two tanks, namely, the Peruru and Avilala or either  of them can be utilized for water harvesting.  The report shall  be submitted to this Court within a period of six weeks from the  date of the communication of this order.  The Registry is  directed to forward a set of the documents, which have been  filed before this Court to the Secretary for being placed before  and considered by such Committee.  The committee will hold  local inspection.  Before it does so it shall give notice to the  concerned advocate-on-record.  The State \026 respondent will  provide such documents as may be required by the Committee  for the purpose of submitting the report.

List the matter thereafter." The Government of India constituted a Committee for the purpose of submitting  its report to this Court :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18  

The term of reference of the Committee was to submit a report on the question  whether the two tanks namely, the Peruru and Avilala or either of them can be utilized  for water harvesting.  Pursuant to this, the Committee visited Tirupathi on 19th and 20th  January, 2004 for local inspection and necessary investigations.  During the visit, a  detailed discussion was held with the representatives of   TUDA, TTD and members of  the Intellectual Forum. The Committee submitted its detailed inspection report on 21.1.2004.   The appellants submitted its objections to the report of the Committee and the  respondents supported the inspection report. In the above background, the following questions of law arise for consideration  by this Court:- 1.      Whether the Urban Development could be given primacy over and above  the need to protect the environment and valuable fresh water resources? 2.      Whether the action of the A.P. state in issuing the impugned G.Os could  be permitted in derogation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of  India as also the Directive Principles of State Policy and fundamental  duties enshrined in the Constitution of India? 3.      Whether the need for sustainable development can be ignored, do away  with and cause harm to the environment in the name of urban  development? 4.      Whether there are any competing public interests and if so how the  conflict is to be adjudicated/reconciled?  We have already referred to the directions issued to the Government of India to  constitute a Committee of Experts for the purpose of submitting a report on the question  whether the two tanks namely, the Peruru and Avilala or either of them can be utilised  for water harvesting.  The Expert Committee took into account the factors that had led to  the depletion of influx of water to Peruru Tank in the report and observed in paragraphs  3  & 4 of the Report.   According to the learned counsel appearing for the TTD, Peruru tank as a water  body had three main sources of influx of water which were as follows: 1.      Overflow of water through feeder channel from the combined Kalyani  River \026 Swarnamukhi river \026 The Kalyani river joins Swarnmukhi river  near Agasteeswara Temple.  At that point, the overflow of water in the  combined rivers as going to peruru tank through a feeder channel of  about 1.6 Km. Length.  After the construction of the Kalyani Dam on  Kalyani River in the year 1974, the flow of water from Kalyani river into  Swarnamukhi river considerably reduced.  As a result, there was no  overflow of water going to the feeder channel, which over the years has  become defunct due to its bed level being at a higher level than the  riverbed.  Since the feeder channel has become defunct and abandoned,  a road has been constructed for the temple by filling up the channel. The Expert Committee, after observing the above, in paragraph 3 of its  report under Peruru tank has opined as follows: "The revival of old feeder channel which involves  deepening of the existing channel and restoring  the channel in the initial reaches is not  considered cost effective in view of the meagre  quantity of river water availability for a very short  period." 2.      Catchment area of 42.9 sq.Kms. TTD under "Neeru Meeru"  programme, constructed 22 check dams, 9 percolation tanks,  437 rock fill dams and contour trench on a length of 1.22 km for  improving the water table and water conservation and efficient  use of rain water without wastage in the catchment area falling  under S.V. Zoological Park. The Expert Committee, after observing the above in para 4 of  its report has stated that the inflow of water into Peruru tank  has been reduced considerably due to the construction of  check dams etc.  While it is so, it is also to be noted in this  context, that on account of Kalyani Dam a water body has  come into existence in the form of Reservoir is spread over an  area of 31065 acres and holds 910 mc. Ft. Water when filled to  capacity.  Similarly, Dalavai Tank, which is created in the  Catchment area, is also a water body occupying 66.70 acres

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18  

and holds 15.79 mc. Ft. of water when full. It is pertinent to submit in this context that under the  "Neeru Meeru" programme vigorously pursued by the  Government in the entire State, construction of such check  dams, percolation tanks etc. was conceived and executed for  improving the water table and water conservation and efficient  use of rain water without wastage at considerable cost. 3.      Nakkala vanka and Bodeddulu Vanka : prior to the construction  of Dalavai tank in the catchment area, water used to flow  downstream to peruru tank through Nakkalavanka and  Bnodeddula Vanka.  After the construction of Dalavai Tank, the  flow of water through Nakkalavanka and Bnodeddula Vanka   has considerably reduced. The Expert Committee after observing the above facts in paragraphs 4 & 5 of its  report opined that the flow of water through Bodeddulla Vanka to the Peruru tank can be  restored by removing a small check dam at Malapalli which it is submitted might be  considered a retrograde step affecting other projects for water conservation.  Learned  counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid recommendation of the Expert  Committee that instead of 20 acres as presently assigned a minimum of 50 acres may  be utilised for a water body in the tank area may not be a practicable proposal.   However, the TTD would willingly and earnestly endeavour to implement the proposal if  this Court accepts and approves the Report of the Expert Committee.  In our opinion, the  Expert Committee’s report should be accepted by TTD.  Learned counsel appearing for  the TTD at the time of argument, has also brought to our notice some of the  programmes launched by TTD for sustainable improvement of the living environment.  Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel, submitted that no competing or conflicting  public interests arise in this case inasmuch as the very subject of the environment issue  has ceased to be a resource as it were.   The enquiry is, therefore, upon the very basic question i.e. whether there exist at  all a natural resource.  The research is empirical and not adjudication or prioritisation of   conflicting public interest.  A further question can also be raised i.e. even if the said  resource has deteriorated, is it possible to revive its resource.  The adjudication in both  the appeals is confined to an empirical enquiry based on scientific data.  The enquiry as  indicated above has already been done in this case.  It is in two stages.

STAGE ONE \026 Till the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which dismissed  the writ petitions. STAGE TWO \026 Enquiry at the instance of this Court pending disposal of the special  leave petitions. STAGE ONE  - Our attention was drawn to the counter affidavit dated 7.9.1994 of TUDA in  W.P.No. 8650 of 1994  which reads as under: "The tank in question as could be seen from the permanent ‘A’  Register (Re-settlement Registrar) was to be fed by (1) Ramayapalli  Kasam Kalva (2) Kasam Kalva of Vedan thapuram Agraharam (3)  Drainage water of Thummalapetta wet fields and (4) by Nadim Kalva  which are almost defaced and as such there is no scope for  accumulation of water in the tank.  It is also observed from a well  about 60 feet depth located on South-West corner of the land that no  water exists in the well.  The foreshore of the tank is almost plain.  It is  an abandoned tank and the tank is also not receiving any supply of  water due to closure of supply channels after the construction of  Kalyani Dam Reservoir. "

STAGE TWO         The Inspection report of the Committee constituted under the  directions of this Court considered various issues.  It is stated in the report as  follows: 1.      There is no tank existing in the area at present.  Remains of the  original demolished bund were seen.  The area upstream was plain  with no indications of any water storage. 2.      reported feeder channels to the tank are in fact localized drainage  lines which do not have any direct source of surface water from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18  

nearby Tirumala hills.  The tank might have receive water as over flow  from Peruru tank located on west of Avilala tank. As per the Respondents contention, the Tank in dispute has been shown in  Resettlement Register ‘A’.  For the purpose of change of classification from tank  poramboke to ayan, ‘A’ notice was published in the Avilala Village displaying the said  notices at the conspicuous places which is statutory and no objections were received  and as stated already, consent letters were given by the individual ayacutdars for the  abandonment of the tank.   Proposals for abandonment of the erstwhile tank were submitted by the  Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi with reference to the Collector’s letter No. B- 1/7089/88 dated 17.9.1988.  A notice for public response to the said proposal was  published in the village but no objections were received.  As the land was in the past  classified as a tank poramboke, technical opinion had already been obtained and the  Irrigation Department opined that there was no objection for alienation of the said  land.  The opinion is in Collectorate reference No. B-1/14157/85.  As per the report of  the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi submitted in his letter No. Roc. No.  G/2016/88 dated 6.9.1988 that the Avilala Gram Panchayat in its Resolution dated  14.8.1988 had resolved to alienate an extent of 90 acres in Sy. No. 18/3 of Avilala  village in favour of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board.   The materials placed before us  and the report of the Expert  Committee and the stand taken by the public bodies and  the rapid change in the demographic feature of the Tirupathi town and its surrounding  suburbs have necessitated the process of urbanization. The TUDA in its additional counter affidavit filed on 21.2.2002  stated that the  Tirupathi urban agglomeration as notified consists of 849 sq. Kms. with one Municipality  and 89 villages.  The total population of TUDA area is 4,88,248 according to 2001  census and the projected population by 2021 is 9,60,000.  49% of the urban  agglomeration is covered by Tirumala hills and forest area and the remaining area is  going to be developed into a Metropolis over the next 20 years, according to the present  decadal population growth of 32% for TUDA region, compared to 13% of A.P. population  growth rate as per 2001 census.  The growth of population of Tirupathi Municipal area  was highest during the decades of 1971 (83.68%) and in 1981 (75.10%) but now  stabilized at nearly 30% (2001).  But in respect of the suburbs surroundings Tirupathi,  which are fast growing recording very high population growth rates, are an indication  that TUDA area is one of the very fast developing urban agglomerations in the country.   Akkarampale (v) one of the suburbs with a population of 20,325 recorded 250% of  decadal growth between 1991-2001. Similarly Avilala (v) another suburb of Tirupathi,  where "Rajivnagar", the land in question in the present appeals, is situated, the decadal  growth rate between 1991 and 2001 was above 150%.  The population of Avilala (v)  which was 1141 in 1971, has grown to 12,058 by the year 2001, while converting most  of the agricultural lands into residential plots.  According to the report of NRSA,  Hyderabad in July 2001 on "Land Use-Land Cover Monitoring in TUDA area with special  reference to Avilala Tank and Environs, Tirupathi, A.P." the Avilala (v) along with the  tank area which has a total extent of 942.47 hectares of which residential area was  32.91 hectares in 1976-77 has now increased to 349.28 hectares in the year 2001,  which also includes institutional and industrial areas.  In respect of agricultural lands,  which was 677.78 hectares in 1976-77 has been diminished into 204.22 hectares in  2001.  The high population growth rates of Avilala (v) combined with increase in the  residential area (961%) is a clear indication that the original purpose of Avilala tank as  irrigation tank, is no more relevant in the present scenario of fast urban development in  this area. It has been further stated in the additional affidavit filed by TUDA on 21.2.2002  that the TUDA has taken up revision of its master plan with digitisation of land use along  with a comprehensive development plan of the urban agglomeration up to 2021, with  public participation.  According to the said Master plan prepared by TUDA in 1981, the  said lands of Avilala (v) are earmarked under residential zone and development of  satellite township to ease the congestion on the main city and the purpose of retaining  irrigation tank in an extent of 150 acres at Avilala near Tirupathi is no longer useful to t he  public under the circumstances explained. In the counter affidavit filed by A.P. Housing Board on 26.6.2000, it is submitted  that the A.P. Housing Board paid Rs.90 lakhs towards the cost of the land @ Rs.1 lakh  for each acre to the Government and also spent a sum of Rs. 88.43 lakhs towards  development of the land so far.  Thus, in all APHB has invested a sum of  Rs.1,78,43,000/- and the further development was stopped in view of the pendency of  the writ petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18  

The area around the property in question is fully developed.  There is a weaver’s  colony, PR Engineers Colony, Judicial Employees Plots and Colony and Balai Dairy (in  10 acres of land \026 APDDCF).  Thus, the area around the land in question is already  developed and several colonies have come up and in any event the land cannot be used  as reservoir. As per the notification, APHB has proposed about 342 HIG design, 497 MIG-2  design and 283 MIG-1 design houses with the details mentioned therein totalling about  1126 houses in the said proposed colony.  The details of number of houses to be  allotted under different categories and modes like outright sale, allotment on payment of  50%, 30% amount etc., are also mentioned in the said notification.  It also provided  reservation for various categories like 5% of houses to Legislators, 5%  to defence  people, 14% for SC, 4% for ST, 9% for OBC, 10% for retired Government employees,  1% for physically handicapped, 1% for freedom fighters and 51% for other categories.   The applicants under the above-referred notifications are the persons having no  plot or no house for their residence in Tirupathi or nearby places and as such they are in  dire need of a place of residence which is sought to be fulfilled under the above scheme  by the APHB. It is also seen from the additional counter affidavit dated 21.2.2002 filed by TUDA  that they have taken up revision of its Master plan with digitisation of land use along with   a comprehensive development plan of the urban agglomeration up to 2021, with public  participation.  According to the Master plan prepared by TUDA in 1981, the said lands of  Avilala (v) are earmarked under residential zone and development of satellite township  to ease the congestion on the main city. It was also submitted that subsequent to the filing of the present appeals,  substantial developments have taken place which can be summed up here. As stated  in the counter affidavit filed by TUDA on dt. 29.11.2001, after the dismissal of   Writ Petition No.8650 of 1994 by the High Court on dated 28.9.2000, TUDA submitted  the entire scheme of sites and services to be taken up at Rajiv Nagar at a cost of  Rs.600 lakhs to the State Government for approval vide its letter No.2148/G1/99 dated  3.12.1999.  The State Government vide G.. Rt. No. 124 M.A. dated 15.2.2001 had  approved the proposal of TUDA. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the TUDA, has placed  before us a report on Land Use Land Cover Monitoring in TUDA area with special  reference to Avilala Tank and Environs Tirupathi.  The main objective of this study was: 1.      To map and estimate the water bodies and drainage pattern within the TUDA  limits and to suggest the water conservation plan,  on a scale of 1:50,000 using  satellite and other collateral data. 2.      To monitor the changes in and around the Avilala Tank over a period from 1976- 2001 and carry out the change analysis. The report contains all meticulous details about the study area, data base,  advantages and limitations of satellite data, methodology, analysis and  observations, water resources analysis of TUDA area, land use/land cover analysis  of Avilala tank and its environs.  The report has been prepared in a meticulous  manner with reference to various plans.  Another report was also submitted with  regard to the Revitalisation of Lakes in TUDA Region which also contains many  details about the land use of TUDA Region and the conservation and preservation  of water bodies and the identification of potential tanks for conservation and the  salient proposals for revitalisation of identified tanks.  The Salient proposals for  revitalisation of tanks are as under:         On realizing the importance of restoration of tank basins towards conservation of  water and recharging of ground water, increase the storage capacity of tanks,  renovating the tank bunds as well as feeder channels, TUDA has taken over 30  tanks in its operational area for taking up the improvements.  Proposals include  removal or eviction of encroachments, desilting of tank basins, clearing of jungle,  strengthening of tank bunds, excavation of boundary trenches, widening and  excavation of feeder channels, construction of boundary pillars and compound walls  along the tank boundary.  Block plantation, programmes for development as  landscaped parks and water based entertainment units for the benefit of the public  in off shore areas of the tanks have been proposed wherever feasible and viable.   Towards protection of environment, provision for treatment system is also made in  the project to take care of entry of drainage/sullage into the tank storages.  Block  plantation on all on-shore areas of tank have been taken up as a part of Neeru  Meeru programme to prevent erosion of soils and entry of encroachments which will  have long term positive environment results.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18  

As per the estimates prepared, the total cost of the scheme works out to  Rs.993.64 lakhs for taking up the above programmes in 32 tanks spread over 32  settlements around Tirupathi town and in TUDA region.  The abstract statement  showing the details of tanks proposed for revitalization and the cost of development  is given below:

                                       (Rs. In lakhs) S.N o. Mandal No. of  tanks Cost of  development Cost of  greening/landscaping Programme Total 1. Tirupati(U)  Mandal 10 387.84 82.50 470.34 2. Tirupati(R)Mandal 10 203.10 64.90 268.00 3. Reningunta  Mandal 9 129.50 47.60 177.10 4. Chandragir  Mandal 3 71.70 6.50 78.20

Total 32 792.14 201.50 993.64       As already noticed, the Expert Committee in its Inspection Report, has gone  into various technical details about the cause for gradual reduction of inflow of water to  the Peruru tank, which is a rain-fed tank, over the last 50 years.  The Committee has  observed in its report that the reduction in the inflow of water to the tank was due to the  construction of 22 check dams, 8 percolation tanks, 437 rock fill dams and contour  trench on a length of 1.22 km for water conservation and efficient use of rain water  without wastage.  The Committee has also observed in its Report that the main supply  channel to the Peruru tank was affected due to the revival of Dalavai Tank situated at a  distance of about 2 Kms upstream in the catchment area.

The Expert Committee in its report has suggested some additional measures for  rain water harvesting by providing for a percolation tank in an area of 50 acres instead of  20 acres already earmarked for the said purpose by the Revenue authorities with roof

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18  

top rain water harvesting and artificial recharge The Expert Committee has gone into various technical and cost aspects about  the feasibility of reviving the Peruru tank.  Only after the Committee found that the tank  could not be revived in its original form, it suggested in its report for construction of  percolation tank and roof top rain water harvesting and artificial recharge for increasing  the ground water level.   A careful perusal of the report would clearly reveal that the Committee has given  its suggestions only after taking into account various possibilities in recharging the  ground water level.  It is not proper in doubting the correctness of the Committee’s report  as contended by the appellants.  The Committee, in our view, has gone into the details  about the revival of the feeder channel to the Peruru tank from Swarnamukhi river and  having regard to the impracticability of restoring the same as feeder channel had  suggested an alternative which in their view, is feasible and beneficial. It is evident from the report of the Expert Committee that the Members of the  Expert Committee have taken technical aspects as contained therein and the  objections of the appellant in this regard are untenable.  The Government of Andhra  Pradesh has also taken various steps pursuant to the directions given by this Court  which could be seen from the additional affidavit dated 25.3.2005 filed by the State of  Andhra Pradesh. We have given our thoughtful and careful consideration to the sensitive issues  raised in the appeals by the appellants and countered by the respective respondents  with reference to the pleadings, the documents, annexures filed and judgment of the  High Court.  We have also carefully perused the report submitted by the Expert  Committee and also considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsel.   In our opinion, the nature of the question in this case is twofold. Firstly, the  jurisprudential issues. In the event of conflict between the competing interests of  protecting the environment and social development, this Court in the case of M.C.  Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997(1) SCC 388, in paragraph 35 held as under: "The issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle  between those members of the public who would preserve our  rivers, forests, parks and  open lands in their pristine purity and  those charged with administrative responsibility, who under the  pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex  society find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open  lands heretofore considered inviolate to change.  The resolution  of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not for  the Courts.  If there is a law made by Parliament or the State  Legislatures, the Courts can serve as an instrument for  determining legislative intent in the exercise of powers of  judicial review under the Constitution.  But, in the absence of  any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public  trust cannot abdicate the natural resource and convert them  into private ownership or commercial use.  The aesthetic use  and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment  and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be  eroded for private, commercial or any                                   other use unless the Courts find it necessary, in good faith, for  the public and in public interest to encroach upon the said  recourses."        

The responsibility of the state to protect the environment is now a well-accepted  notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in international law, gave rise to the prin ciple  of "state responsibility" for pollution emanating within one’s own territories [Corfu  Channel Case, ICJ Reports (1949) 4]. This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the  United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm  Convention), to which India was a party. The relevant Clause of this Declaration in the  present context is Paragraph 2, which states:  "The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora  and fauna and especially representative samples of natural  ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future  generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate. "

Thus, there is no doubt about the fact that there is a responsibility bestowed upon the  Government to protect and preserve the tanks, which are an important part of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18  

environment of the area.  Sustainable Development The respondents, however, have taken the plea that the actions taken by the  Government were in pursuance of urgent needs of development. The debate between  the developmental and economic needs and that of the environment is an enduring  one, since if environment is destroyed for any purpose without a compelling  developmental cause, it will most probably run foul of the executive and judicial  safeguards. However, this court has often faced situations where the needs of  environmental protection have been pitched against the demands of economic  development. In response to this difficulty, policy makers and judicial bodies across the  world have produced the concept of "sustainable development". This concept, as  defined in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development  (Brundtland Report) defines it as "Development that meets the needs of the present  without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs".  Returning to the Stockholm Convention, a support of such a notion can be found in  Paragraph 13, which states:  "In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and  thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated  and coordinated approach to their development planning so as to  ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and  improve environment for the benefit of their population. " Subsequently the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, passed during the  Earth Summit at 1992, to which also India is a party, adopts the notion of sustainable  development. Principle 4 of the declaration states:  "In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental  protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process  and cannot be considered in isolation from it. " This court in the case of Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti,  [2004 (2) SCC  392, Para 27] was pleased to expound on this. Their Lordships held: "This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and  social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on  the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat.  Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in  population together with the consequential demands to sustain the  population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down  of forests, filling up of lakes and the pollution of water resources and  the very air that we breathe. However there need not necessarily be a  deadlock between development on the one hand and the  environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment  should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can  be sacrificed at the altar of the other. " A similar view was taken by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.  Union of India, [1996 (5) SCC 281, Para 31] where their Lordships said:  "While economic development should not be allowed to take place at  the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environmental  destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve  ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other  developments.  Both development and environment should go hand  in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost  of environment and vice versa, but there should be development  while taking due care and ensuring the protection of the environment.   " The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions of this court  in the cases M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), (1997) 2 SCC 653,  State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products,(1995) 3 SCC 363 and  Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 664.  In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an  intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local  ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable  development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the  respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appelants allege.  Public Trust Doctrine Another legal doctrine that is relevant to this matter is the Doctrine of Public Trust. This   doctrine, though in existence from Roman times, was enunciated in its modern form by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18  

the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Company v. People of the State  of Illinois, [146 US 537 (1892)] where the Court held:  The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State  in their character as sovereign, in trust for public uses for which they  are adapted.  [\005] the state holds the title to the bed of navigable waters upon a  public trust, and no alienation or disposition of such property by the  State, which does not recognize and is not in execution of this trust is  permissible.  What this doctrine says therefore is that natural resources, which includes lakes, are  held by the State as a "trustee" of the public, and can be disposed of only in a manner  that is consistent with the nature of such a trust. Though this doctrine existed in the  Roman and English Law, it related to specific types of resources. The US Courts have  expanded and given the doctrine its contemporary shape whereby it encompasses the  entire spectrum of the environment.  The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law by this  Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath , (supra)  and also in M.I. Builders v.  Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464.  In M.C. Mehta, Kuldip Singh J., writing for  the majority held:  [our legal system] includes the public trust doctrine as part of its  jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of all natural resources which are by  nature meant for public use and enjoyment. [\005] The state as a trustee is  under the legal duty to protect the natural resources. [Para 22]

The Supreme Court of California, in the case of National Audubon Society v.  Superior Court of Alpine Country, 33 Cal.419 also known as the Mono Lake case  summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:  Thus the public trust is more than an affirmation of state power to use public  property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to  protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and  tidelands., surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the  abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust. This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the Stat e  with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not  exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the  state holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a   high degree of judicial scrutiny upon any action of the Government, no matter how  consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To  properly scrutinize such actions of the Government, the Courts must make a distinction  between the government’s general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the  special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public  resources, [Joseph L. Sax "The public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law:  Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review, Vol.68 No.3 (Jan.1970) PP 471- 566)]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an  authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to  imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]:  1.      the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it   must be held available for use by the general public; 2.      the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent 3.      the property must be maintained for particular types of use. (i) either traditional  uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.  In the instant case, it seems, that the Government Orders, as they stand now, are  violative of principles 1 and 3, even if we overlook principle 2 on the basis of the fact  that the Government is itself developing it rather than transfering it to a third party for  value.  Therefore, our order should try to rectify these defects along with following the  principle of sustainable development as discussed above.

Further the principle of "Inter-Generational Equity" has also been adopted  while determining cases involving environmental issues.  This Court in the case of  A.P.  Pollution Control Board vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 718 in paragraph  53 held as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18  

"The principle of inter-generational equity is of recent  origin.  The 1972 Stockholm Declaration refers to it in principles  1 and 2.  In this context, the environment is viewed more as a  resource basis for the survival of the present and future  generations.  

Principle 1 -  Man has the fundamental right to freedom,  equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of  quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears  a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment  for the present and future generations\005\005

Principle 2 \026 The natural resources of the earth,  including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna and especially  representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be  safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future  generations through careful planning or management, as  appropriate."

Several international conventions and treaties have recognized the above  principles and, in fact, several imaginative proposals have been submitted including the  locus standi of individuals or groups to take out actions as representatives of future  generations, or appointing an ombudsman to take care of the rights of the future  against the present (proposals of Sands and Brown Weiss referred to by Dr. Sreenivas  Rao Permmaraju, Special Rapporteur, paras 97 and 98 of his report).

The principles mentioned above wholly apply for adjudicating matters  concerning environment and ecology.  These principles must, therefore, be applied in  full force for protecting the natural resources of this country.  

Art. 48-A of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall endeavour to  protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.   Art.51A of the Constitution of India, enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of  India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including forests, lakes,  rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.  These two Articles are not  only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of the  State to apply these principles in making laws and further these two articles are to be  kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights  guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of  India and also the various laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature.    

On the other hand, we cannot also shut our eyes that shelter is one of the basic  human needs just next to food and clothing.  Need for a National Housing and Habitat  Policy emerges from the growing requirements of shelter and related infrastructure.  These requirements are growing in the context of rapid pace of urbanization, increasing  migration from rural to urban centres in search of livelihood, mis-match between  demand and supply of sites and services at affordable cost and inability of most new  and poorer urban settlers to access formal land markets in urban areas due to high  costs and their own lower incomes, leading to a non-sustainable situation.  This policy  intends to promote sustainable development of habitat in the country, with a view to  ensure equitable supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices.

The World has reached a level of growth in the 21st Century as never before  envisaged.  While the crisis of economic growth is still on, the key question which often  arises and the Courts are asked to adjudicate upon is whether economic growth can  supersede the concern for environmental protection and whether sustainable  development which can be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and  conserving the natural resources for the benefit of the humanity and future generations  could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or compelling human necessity.  The  growth and development process are terms without any content, without an inkling as to  the substance of their end results.  This inevitably leaves us to the conception of growth  and development which sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure ‘our  common future’.  In pursuit of development, focus has to be on sustainability of  development and policies towards that end have to be earnestly formulated and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18  

sincerely observed.  As Prof. Weiss puts it, "conservation, however, always takes a back  seat in times of economic stress."  It is now an accepted social principle that all human  beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well  being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and  preserved in such a way that present as well as the future generations are aware of  them equally.

The Parliament has considerably responded to the call of the Nations for  conservation of environment and natural resources and enacted suitable laws.

The Judicial Wing of the country, more particularly, this Court has laid down a  plethora of decisions asserting the need for environmental protection and conservation  of natural resources.  The environmental protection and conservation of natural  resources has been given a status of a fundamental right and brought under Art. 21 of  the Constitution of India.  This apart, the Directive Principles of State Policy as also the   fundamental duties enshrined in Part IV and Part IVA of the Constitution of India  respectively also stresses the need to protect and improve the natural environment  including the forests, lakes, rivers and wild-life and to have compassion for living  creatures.

This Court in Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group and Ors. Vs.  Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 539 held that the  concerned Government should "consider the importance of public projects for the  betterment of the conditions of living people on one hand and the necessity for  preservation of social and ecological balance and avoidance of deforestation and  maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the  light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by  various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a balance between the  two conflicting objectives."    However, some of the environmental activists, as noted in the "The  Environmental Activities Hand Book’ authored by Gayatri Singh, Kerban Ankleswaria  and Colins Gonsalves, that the Judges are carried away by the money spent on projects  and that mega projects, that harm the environment are not condemned.  However, this  criticism seems to be baseless since in Virender Gaur & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &  Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 577, this Court insisted on the demolition of structure which have  been constructed on the lands reserved for common purposes and that this Court did  not allow its decision to be frustrated by the actions of a party.  This Court followed the  said decision in several cases issuing directions and ensuring its enforcement by  nothing short of demolition or restoration of status quo ante.  The fact that crores of  rupees was spent already on development projects did not convince this Court while  being in a zeal to jealously safeguarding the environment and in preventing the abuse of  the environment by a group of humans or the authorities under the State for that matter.

The set of facts in the present case relates to the preservation of and restoration  of status quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in existence since the time of  Srikrishnadevaraya, The Great, 1500 A.D., where the cry of socially spirited citizens  calling for judicial remedy was not considered in the right perspective by the Division  bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh despite there being overwhelming evidence  of the tanks being in existence and were being put to use not only for irrigation purpose  but also as lakes which were furthering percolation to improve the ground water table,  thus serving the needs of the people in and around these tanks.  The Division Bench of  the High Court, in the impugned order, has given precedence to the economic growth by  completely ignoring the importance and primacy attached to the protection of  environment and protection of valuable and most cherished fresh water resources. No doubt, the wishful thinking and the desire of the appellant- forum , that the  Tanks should be there, and the old glory of the tanks should be continued, is laudable.   But the ground realities are otherwise.  We have already noticed the ground realities as  pointed out by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, TUDA and TTD in their reply to the  Civil appeals by furnishing details, datas and particulars.  Now a days because of the  poverty and lack of employment avenues, migration of people from rural areas to urban  areas is a common phenomenon. Because of the limited infrastructure of the towns, the  towns are becoming slums.  We, therefore, cannot countenance the submissions made  by the appellant in regard to the complete restoration and revival of two tanks in the  peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.  We cannot, at the same time, prevent the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18  

Government from proceeding with the proper development of Tirupathi town.  The two  Government Orders which are impugned have been issued long before and pursuant to  the issuance of the Government Orders, several other developments have taken place.   Constructions and improvements have been made in a vast measure.  Because of  spending crores and crores of rupees by various authorities, the only option now left to  the appellant and the respondents is to see that the report submitted by the Expert  Committee is implemented in its letter and spirit and all the respondents shall cooperate  in giving effect to the Committee’s report.   It is true that the tank is a communal property and the State authorities are  trustees to hold and manage such properties for the benefits of the community and they  cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission which will infringe the right of the  Community and alienate the property to any other person or body.   Taking into account all these principles of law, and after considering the  competing claims of environment and the need for housing, this Court holds the  following as per the facts of this case. The Respondents have claimed that the valuable right to shelter will be violated  if the impugned Government Orders are revoked. On the facts of the present case, it  seems that the respondents intend to build residential blocks of flat for High and Middle  income families, institutions as well as infrastructure for the TTDS. If the proposed  constructions are not carried on, it seems unlikely that anyone will be left homeless or  without their basic need for shelter. Therefore, one feels that the right to shelter does  not seem to be so pressing under the present circumstances so as to outweigh all  environmental considerations.  Another plea repeatedly taken by the respondents correspond to the money  already spent on developing the land. However, the decision of this case cannot be  based solely upon the investments committed by any party. Since, otherwise, it would  seem that once any party makes certain investment in a project, it would be a fait  accompli and this Court will not have any option but to deem it legal.  Therefore, under the present circumstances, the Court should do the most it can  to safeguard the two tanks in question. However, due to the persistent developmental  activities over a long time, much of the natural resources of the lakes has been lost, and  considered irreparable. This, though regrettable, is beyond the power of this court to  rectify.  One particular feature of this case was the competing nature of claims by both  the parties on the present state of the two tanks and the feasibility of their revival. We  thought that it would be best, therefore, if we place reliance on the findings of the expert   committee appointed by us which has considered the factual situation and the feasibility  of revival of the two tanks. Thus in pursuance of a study of that committee, this Court  passes the following orders.  The appeals are disposed of with the following directions:  With regard to Peruru tank: (i)     No further constructions to be made.  (ii)    The supply channel of Bodeddula Vanka needs to be cleared and revitalized.  A small check dam at Malapali to be removed to ensure the free flow and  supply to the tank.  (iii)   Percolation tank to be constructed and artificial recharge to be done to  ensure the revival of the tank, keeping in mind its advantage at being  situated at the foot hills.  (iv)    The area allotted by Mandal Revenue Office for construction of the tank to be  increased to a minimum of 50 acres. Percolation tank with sufficient number  of recharge shafts to be developed to recharge the unsaturated horizons up  to 20 m. The design of the shafts etc. to be prepared in consultation with the  CGWB. The proposed percolation tank to be suitably located along the bund  keeping in view the inlets, irrigation sluices and surplus water.  (v)     Feasibility and cost estimation for the revival of the old feeder channel for  Swarnamukhi River should be carried and a report to be submitted to the  Court.  (vi)    Each house already constructed by the TTD must provide for roof top rain  water harvesting. Abstraction from ground water to be completely banned.  No borewell/ tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.  (vii)   Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with the  CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on ground  water regime.  With regard to Avilala tank:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18  

(i)     No further construction to be allowed in the area.  (ii)    Each house already constructed by the APHB/ TUDA must provide structure  for roof top rain water harvesting. All the storm water in the already built  colonies to be recharged to ground water. Structures for such purposes to be  designed in consultation with the CGWB.  (iii)   No borewell/ tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.  (iv)    An area of 40 acres presently reserved for the Government should not be  developed in any way that may lead to concretization of the ground surface.  Recharge structures to be constructed for rainwater harvesting.  (v)     Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with the  CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on ground  water regime.  We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered  by all the counsel appearing in this case which made our job easier. The appeals are disposed of accordingly \026 no costs.