T SURYAMOHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sri T. Suryamohan Reddy claiming to be the public spirited person, resorted Lo file the Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the work i.e., laying road on Komativani Cheruvu (Lingisetty Tank), Madanapalle Town. Chittoor District by deterioration of water body as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider his representation, dated 17.09.2018.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and a resident of Isakanuthivaripalli, Kondamarripalle Post, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District; in the midst of Madanapalle Town, Chittoor District, a tank named as Komativani Cheruvu (Lingisetty Tank) was located. As per the revenue records, the said tank was located in an extent of Ac.43.73 cents in Bandameeda Kammapalle Revenue village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District; major part of the tank was unauthorizedly occupied and an extent of Ac.20.00 cents was left as tank. Recently the bund was developed and beautified by laying a road to reduce the traffic, which is called as "Sri Potti Siramulu Tank Bund". It is the further case of the petitioner that he came to know that the respondents intentionally and illegally encroached into Komativani Cheruvu (Lingisetty Tank), in the guise of formation of roads by abusing their official powers, at the instigation of some realtors, and politicians, laid road of 200 feet width and one kilo metre length covers nearly Ac.4.00 cents of tank and thus part of the tank was encroached; the tank is only source for storage of water, consisting of 50 to 60 channels connecting to the tank. On account of storage of water in the tank, the ground water level is increasing and the municipality also dug many public bore wells around the water tank for supply of water to the public. On account of action of the respondents major part of the tank is closed, due to dumping of mud for formation of road. It is also contended that there is no requirement of such road and on enquiry he came to know that no permission was obtained from the municipal authorities and revenue authorities for laying the road, the authorities also did not issue any proceedings.

(3.) It is further contended that the Apex Court while dealing with the issue regarding the need to protect the water bodies by the State in Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and others, 2006 2 ALT 67 (SC) it is succinctly held that 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 principle of "state responsibility" for pollution emanating within one's own territories (Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports (1949) 4) thus the State has to take responsibility to maintain water bodies and the Articles 48-A and 51 A(g) of the Constitution of India made it clear that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life.