Madrasu Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

Bench Sr.No:-16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3552] AT AMARAVATI

¶2

APHC010348482025

¶3

WP(PIL) NO: 117 of 2025

Madrasu Babu

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)

¶8

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner: Dr.ANANTH S Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.N ASHWANI KUMAR, GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FORESTS, GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, Mr.PRAKASAM REDDY D

¶10

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶11

DATE : 10th December 2025

¶12

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

¶13

Heard Dr.S.Ananth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and

¶14

learned Government Pleaders for Mines for the respondents.

¶15

2. Present writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has

¶16

been instituted by the petitioner questioning the inaction of respondents, in particular, 7^th respondent Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati, in taking action against private respondents 12 and 13 for undertaking

¶17

2

¶18

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶19

illegal mining and excavation of gravel/earth from an under construction canal in the <Old Karipeta Kalava= in Matterimitta Section of Satyavedu Sub-Division, Tirupati District; further, excavation of gravel/earth from the forest land nearby, and lastly, encroachment of Mallavaripalem East Lake and storing excavated large quantities of illegally mined gravel in the said water body, resulting in destruction of the water body, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 48A of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction to the concerned respondents to stop such illegal mining, survey and estimate the extent of illegal mining undertaken both in Government lands and also in forest lands and quantify the damages and recover the same from the unofficial respondents besides restoring the subject water bodies.

¶20

3. Before instituting the Public Interest Litigation, petitioner stated to have submitted representation, dated 05.06.2025, requesting 7^th respondent to take appropriate action by highlighting the illegal mining and other aspects as mentioned therein. Petitioner has also filed various photographs along with the writ petition to emphasize that indeed mining of gravel and earth was undertaken in the vicinity, which according to petitioner, was an illegal activity, not permitted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

¶21

3

¶22

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶23

Act, 1957, besides violating Enactments concerning the protection of environment.

¶24

4. By taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court by order, dated 16.07.2025, directed the 7^th respondent Collector and District Magistrate to immediately furnish a report with regard to the issues raised in the writ petition and ascertain as to whether on account of de-silting operations any damage has been caused to the canal and also the water body, if so, to quantify such damage in terms of cost which may be incurred in rectifying the same. Further, it was also directed to ascertain whether any of the area which was otherwise a reserve forest was damaged or excavated in the process of desilting operations undertaken. A further direction was also issued to ascertain whether the gravel which was extracted from the canal bed was in any way put to use by private respondent No.12 in their construction activity in and around the area of operation permitted by the Irrigation Department.

¶25

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, the 7^th respondent has

¶26

filed report by way of affidavit on 02.09.2025 along with supporting material documents, besides various photographs depicting the latest status.

¶27

4

¶28

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶29

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the report, wherein, it is stated that, initially on the request made by the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Sri City, Tirupati, (<IIIT=) to issue No Objection Certificate for de-silting of Karipeti Kaluva to facilitate smooth flow of water during rainy season to avoid flooding and water logging in the IIIT, the jurisdictional Executive Engineer has by proceedings, dated 28.03.2024, accorded permission in favour of the IIIT to carry on desilt activity at its cost, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(a) Channel widths shall be maintained as per the Revenue records;

¶31

(b) Desilted soil shall be used for strengthening of the Channel bunds only;

¶32

(c) Desilting work shall be carried out in the presence of the officials of the Water Resources Department.

¶33

7. Before issuance of aforesaid permission, the concerned Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Section, after making physical inspection, has noted down that the total length of the Karipeta Kaluva requiring desiltation, which was assessed to be 450 meters out of stretch of 17 K.Ms. and even the average top width of the said canal before granting permission has been recorded, which stood as 40 meters as against the average top width as recorded in Fair Measurements Book, which ranged from 48 meters to 80 meters falling in Survey Nos.63, 65 and 66. Keeping in

¶34

5

¶35

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶36

view aforesaid permission and also the extent of permission granted in favour of the IIIT, in compliance with directions of this Court, inspection was carried out on 01.08.2025 by 7^th respondent Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati along with District Forest Officer, Tirupati, Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasthi, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, and District Mines and Geology Officer, Tirupati.

¶37

8. It is stated that during the physical inspection, the team of officers has made several observations by noting physical features therein. The relevant observations, as mentioned in report, read thus:

¶38

<On inspection of the Karipeti Kaluva, it is observed that:-

¶39

i) The Channel banks are formed with the desilted soil and the desilted soil was also deposited adjacent to the bank area;

¶40

ii) The Area Adjacent to the bank area is a low-lying area and water was being stagnated in that area;

¶41

iii) The stagnated water will cause erosion of the channel banks which are formed as part of desiltation of Karipeti Kaluva if that area is kept as low lying area;

¶42

iv) To have protection to the channel banks from the low laying area adjacent to the bank area soil is also deposited adjacent to the channel banks.

¶43

v) The soil so deposited adjacent to the bank area will act as protection bund to the channel bank s and it will prevent erosion of the channel banks during flood season.

¶44

vi) The soil deposited in the low lying area will also helps in reclamation of the low lying area, majority length of the Karipeti Kaluva was silted up and there is no proper width of the channel (photographs of Karipeta Kaluva after desiltation in Sri City area enclosed)."

¶45

9. The report also states that the quantities of desilted soil have

¶46

been quantified as 28405.50 cubic meters. Further, the soil used for

¶47

6

¶48

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶49

strengthening banks and deposited adjacent to the channel was quantified as 318898.75 cubic meters. Therefore, considering the average shrinkage allowance for the soil to be around 18% and in the present case, the same translates to be around 11.23%, was stated to be within the limits. Therefore, it was concluded that desilted soil has been used for channel banks and to protection banks and not used or diverted for any other private use. Further, the cost of desiltation undertaken by the IIIT has been assessed at Rs.21,02,291/- (Desiltation rate Rs.74.01 per cubic meter).

¶50

10. With respect to the aspect of excavation of gravel/earth from forest land and encroachment of Mallavaripalem East Lake, the report has made following observations:

¶51

< 1. Mallavaripalem East Lake and Old Karipeta Kaluva :

¶52

i) These sites are located more than 2 kilo meters away from nearest reserve forest boundary.

¶53

ii) Since the location falls outside the forest jurisdiction, no forest violation is involved.=

¶54

11. Similarly, even the District Forest Officer in his report has made the following observations:

¶55

“2. Areas adjoining reserve forests:

¶56

i) No mining activity was observed within reserve forest areas; Eucalyptus plantation raised by APFDC around the alleged sites have prevented any encroachment or mining activity.

¶57

No evidence of recent mining activity was noted in adjoining lands either;

¶58

The area in question was previously leased to Ayurvet Limited and EBARA Corporation around 2013-14. During that period, soil excavation up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 meters was carried out

¶59

7

¶60

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶61

to level the land for company setup. However, the projects were not taken forward, and the site has since remained under the maintenance of Sri City authorities.

¶62

This observation is corroborated by Google Earth satellite imagery from 2014 onwards.

¶63

No fresh environmental damage or forest law violations have been observed in recent times.=

¶64

12. In sum and substance the report submitted by the team of officers

¶65

who visited the subject site ultimately unanimously resolved that there was no damage caused on account of desilting in the permitted area of Karipeta Kaluva and further that the excavated soil/gravel from the canal bed was used only for bund strengthening and excess soil has been dumped adjacent to low lying lands, without the same being diverted for use by the unofficial respondent No.12 in their construction activity in and around the area of operations permitted by the Irrigation Department, and finally, that the activity undertaken was 2 k.ms. away from the forest land, and that none of the forest land has been affected in any way. In the process of preparing report, the team of officers has not only taken photographs, but also recorded video graphs and used drones to capture the activity undertaken in the subject area and ultimately have come to conclusion that there was no illegal activity as such undertaken in any manner.

¶66

13. Having gone through the report and also the supporting material documents annexed thereto, we are satisfied that the desilting activity undertaken by the IIIT was clearly in consonance with the prior

¶67

8

¶68

HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.117 of 2025

¶69

permission granted and subject to the conditions stipulated therein and nothing adverse has been found to come to conclusion that there was illegal excavation of gravel/earth and diversion of the same for use by unofficial respondent No.12 besides altering and damaging the canal and the water body nearby. Petitioner has not come up with any fresh material either to disbelieve the findings recorded in the report, nor that any activities are undertaken really to be in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and other environmental laws. The entire basis for initiation of this Public Interest Litigation is the representation, dated 05.06.2025, and some photographs annexed to the writ petition.

¶70

14. We, therefore, close the Public Interest Litigation. No order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

¶73

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶74

cs

Madrasu Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madrasu Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prl. Secy., Ind. & Comm. & 2 Ors. Vs H.B. Nadipi Lakshmanna & Ano.

Challa Guru Prasad, Vs Bollampalli Krishnaiah

Ghodkar Mansi Vs the State of Ap

Cherukuneedi Sravan Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Vs Ap Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Baggidi Gopal, Vs The State, rep. by the Principle Secretary to Govt. of A.P.