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 – 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 State of Andhra Pradesh represented
by its Chief Secretary, Tirupathi Urban Development Authority represented by its ViceChairman 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 the suburbs
of Tirupathi town which is a world renowned popular pilgrim centre having everyday inflow
of tourists between one lakh to two lakhs. - Systematic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in Tirupathi
town, namely, Avilala and Peruru tanks and alienation of the Avilala tank bed land to the
Tirupathi Urban Development Authority (in short TUDA) and the A.P. Housing Board under
GOMs No. 84 Rev. dated 28.01.1994 and Peruru tank bed land to Tirumala Tirupathi
Dvasthanam (in short TTD) for housing purposes under GOMs NO. 181 Rev. dated
15.03.1991, which are impugned in Writ Petitions Nos. 8650 and 7955 of 1994 respectively. - Accordingly 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 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 groundwater 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 freshwater
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 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 was assigned such a task had visited in and around the foothills of
Tirupathi and Tirumala for the purpose of identifying sources of freshwater and suggestions
to be given for their improvement. Apart from suggestions, the team of engineers, in the
minutes of the meeting held on 26.05.1990, suggested that improvement of feeder channels
81
(Vagus) for Peruru tank and Avilala tank would 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 the gradients. In the meantime, the Government passed
GOMs NO. 181 Revenue dated 15.03.1991 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 forums 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 they are meant. However,
the Government issued GOMs NO. 84 Revenue dated 28.01.1994 authorizing the District
Collector, Chittoor to alienate 90 acres of land belonging to Avilala tank bed area to the A.P.
Housing Board. This government order further directed that 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 representation 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 the A.P. Housing Board and to TTD respectively. - Writ Petition No. 7955 of 1994 was filed assailing GOMs NO. 181 dated 15.03.1991,
in respect of alienation of Peruru tank bed land to TTD and Writ Petition No. 8650 of 1994
was filed assailing GOMs No. 84 dated 28.01.1994 alienating Avilala tank bed area to the
A.P. Housing Board. The respondents filed their counter-affidavits opposing the writpetitions. The Indian Medial Association also made a similar plea that the Government should
immediately withdraw its GOs alienating Avilala tank and Peruru tank and restore them
urgently as percolation tanks, to improve the groundwater table. This prayer was made by the
Indian Medical Association due to alarming increase of 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 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 GOMs NO. 84
Revenue Department dated 28.01.1994 stating that the same was in public interest. A counteraffidavit was also filed by Respondent 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 3 stating that the area
is fully developed. Likewise, Shri P. Kirshnaiah, the Executive Officer of TTD filed affidavit
stating that a number of dwellings 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.
82 - By the impugned and common judgment dated 28.09.2000, 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. - 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 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 Advocate-on-Record concerned. The respondent State 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. - 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 19.01.2004 and
20.01.2004 for local inspection and necessary investigations. During the visit, a detailed
discussion was held with the representatives of TUDA, TTD and members of the Intellectuals
Forum. - The Committee submitted its detailed inspection report on 21.01.2004.
- In the above background, the following questions of law arise for consideration by
this Court: - Whether the urban development could be given privacy over and above the need
to protect the environment and valuable fresh water resources? - Whether the action of A.P. State in issuing the impugned GOs could be permitted
in derogation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as also the directive principles of
State policy and fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution? - Whether the need for sustainable development can be ignored, done away with
and cause harm to the environment in the name of urban development? - Whether there are any competing public interests and if so how the conflict is to
be adjudicated/reconciled? - The inspection report of the Committee constituted under the directions of this Court
considered various issues. It is stated in the report as follows: - 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.
83 - Reported feeder channels to the tank are in fact localized drainage lines which do
not have any direct source of surface water from the nearby Tirumala hills. The tank
might have received water as overflow from Peruru tank located on the west of Avilala
tank. - The Expert Committee in its report has suggested some additional measures for
rainwater 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 rooftop
rainwater harvesting and artificial recharge for increasing the groundwater level. - 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 rooftop rainwater harvesting and artificial recharge for increasing the groundwater 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 groundwater
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 25.03.2005 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 appellant 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 M.C.
Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] held as under:
[T]he 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 responsibilities 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 the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the
courts can serve as an instrument of determining Legislative intent in the exercise of
their 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
84
natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for 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 good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources. - 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 Rep (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 para 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
environment of 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
the 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”. The
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 para 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 in 1992, to which also India is a party, adopted the notion of sustainable
development. Principle 4 of the declaration states:
85
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 Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti [(2004) 2 SCC 392] 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 the population together with consequential demands to
sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of
forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which
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]. - In the 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 the principle of sustainable development and find
a balance between the developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the
environmental degradation, that the appellant alleges.
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
the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois,
[146 US 37 : 36 L Ed 1018 (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. (L Ed p.
1018)….
The State holds 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. (L Ed p. 1033)
What this doctrine says therefore is that natural resources, which include 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.
86 - The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law by this
Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and also in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. 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 … The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to
protect the natural resources. - The Supreme Court of California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of
Alpine Country, [33 Cali 419] also known as 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
State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a nugatory 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 high
degree of judicial scrutiny on 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 be imposed by the public trust
doctrine [ibid]: - the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose,
but it must be held available for us by the general public; - the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent;
- 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 transferring 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.
87 - Further the principle of “Inter-Generational Equity” has also been adopted while
determining cases involving environmental issues. This Court in A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC 718] held as under: - 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 wellbeing, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment
for the present and future generations…..
Principle 2.- 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.’ (emphasis in original) - 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 this 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. - Article 48-A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and
improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of
the Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect
and improve the national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife 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 and also the various laws enacted by Parliament and the State
Legislatures. - 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, mismatch 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 nonsustainable situation. This policy intends to promote sustainable development of habitat in the
88
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 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 leads 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 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 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. - 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 and natural resources has
been given a status of a fundamental right and brought under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This apart, the directive principles of State policy as also the fundamental duties enshrined in
Part IV and Part IV-A of the Constitution respectively also stress the need to protect and
improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. - This Court in Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v. Bombay Suburban
Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. [(1991) 2 SCC 539] held that the Government concerned should
consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the
people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances,
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. - 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. Nowadays because of 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
89
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 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 needs 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 flats for high and
middle income families, institutions as well as infrastructure for TTD. 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 corresponds 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 have 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 study of that Committee, this Court passes the following
orders. - The appeals are disposed of with the following directions:
90
With regard to Peruru tank
(i) No further constructions to be made.
(ii) The supply channel of Bodeddulu venka needs to be cleared and revitalized. A
small check dam at Malapalli 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 foothills.
(iv) The area allotted by the 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 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 TTD must provide for rooftop rainwater
harvesting. Abstraction from groundwater 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 CGWB to
observe the impact of rainwater harvesting in the area on groundwater regime.
With regard to Avilala tank
(i) No further construction to be allowed in the area.
(ii) Each house already constructed by A.P. HB/TUDA must provide structure for
rooftop rainwater harvesting. All the storm water in the already built colonies to be
recharged to groundwater. Structures for such purposes to be designed in consultation
with 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 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 CGWB to
observe the impact of rainwater harvesting in the area on groundwater 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.
