Dismissed

Chidipi Nakula Suresh v. the District Collector

NGT16 Feb 2026Original Application No. 26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant alleged general encroachments and quarry operations near waterbodies and sought a hydrological study. The Tribunal rejected the application as the pleadings were generalized and lacked specific details about violators, preventing a targeted survey.

What did the court decide?

Original Application rejected with liberty to file a fresh application with specific details.

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.1:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 16^th day of February, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.26 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Chidipi Nakula Suresh

¶8

S/o Abbulu R/o D.No. 3-32, Chenakondepudi Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

...Applicant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. The District Collector Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District – 533 124.

¶12

2. The Tahsildar Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District – 533 287.

¶13

3. The Tahsildar Korukonda, East Godavari District – 533 289.

¶14

4. The District Panchayathi Officer Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶15

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer Rajamahendravaram,

¶16

East Godavari District – 533 104.

¶17

6. The Extension Officer

¶18

(Panchayathi Raj & Rural Development) Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District – 533 287.

¶19

7. The Executive Engineer

¶20

Water Resource Department Godavari Central Division, Amalapuram, Amalapuram Rural, Andhra Pradesh – 533 213.

¶21

8. The Central Pollution Control Board

¶22

Rep. by its Chairman “Parivesh Bhawan”, East Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032.

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

9. The Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board

¶25

Rep. by its Chairman D.No.33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamalavari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada – 520 010.

¶26

10. The Assistant Director of Mining and Geology O/o. Department of Mining and Geology, Rajamahendravaram – 533 287.

¶27

11. The Member Secretary

¶28

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Andhra Pradesh.

¶29

...Respondent(s)

¶30

For Applicant(s): M/s. Anupama Yeluri & Hema Srinivas Kommoju. For Respondent(s): Ms. C.P. Kavitha Renjini represented Mr. K. Ravindranath for State of A.P.

¶31

CORAM :

¶32

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

1) The applicant, who is a practicing advocate, has filed this Original Application, alleging encroachments, laying of roads, operation of quarries near different waterbodies in various gram panchayats of Seethanagaram Mandal and seeking a direction to constitute a Joint Committee to carry out a scientific, hydrological and environmental impact study and to conduct a detailed survey of all waterbodies in the village of Seethanagaram Mandal, identify all encroachments and unauthorized activities including brickkiln, roads and quarry related structures and if found to be inconsistent with environmental norms or siting criteria, to take appropriate action.

¶35

2) The applicant has been applying and attempting to obtain information under the RTI Act, 2005, seeking village-wise details of tanks throughout Seethanagaram. According to him, the replies revealed only paper instructions and memos issued and did not mention about the encroachments. Furthermore, it is alleged that the brick kilns are being operated near the

¶36

Page 2 of 4

¶37

waterbodies in Singavaram Village, close to the main water canal pipeline and they are said to be operating without permission.

¶38

3) According to the applicant, though in the reply obtained under the RTI Act the 2^nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Seethanagaram Mandal, stated that memos and instructions were issued to the Village Revenue Officers (VROs) and Village Surveyors to identify and remove illegal structures encroaching upon the tanks, such structures were not removed.

¶39

4) The applicant also obtained information under the RTI Act regarding the list of encroachments under URA Cheruvu in Raghudevapuram. It is further alleged that surveys were conducted for only 4 to 5 water bodies, whereas about 29 water bodies remain unsurveyed. The applicant has also alleged that quarry operations are being carried out within the prohibited distance from the water body.

¶40

5) With the above allegations, the captioned Original Application is filed, seeking directions mentioned therein.

¶41

6) The applicant is not clear about the relief that is sought for. He has bundled up all the facts in one and is seeking relief for restoring the waterbodies on the allegations mentioned above.

¶42

7) It is a generalized averment that all the waterbodies are encroached in various Grama Panchayats of Seethanagaram Mandal. After obtaining the village-wise details of the tanks, the applicant could have been more specific about the relief sought for regarding the removal of encroachments. Though it is alleged that there is a quarry operation, polluting the water body in Sy. No.241 of Nagampalli Village and Sy. No.110 of Bodleddupalem Village, the applicant is not clear about as to who is operating the same and whether the Consent or Environmental Clearance or Mining Lease was issued to them.

¶43

8) In such kind of generalized statements, the Court cannot issue directions to the authorities to make a random survey and submit a report. The burden is on the applicant to be specific

¶44

Page 3 of 4

¶45

about the reliefs sought for and provide appropriate details in the pleadings.

¶46

9) It is to be noted that the applicant has admitted that the relevant details are not available. He has further admitted that the authorities have already initiated action under the Andhra Pradesh WALT Act, 2002.

¶47

10) With regard to the operation of the quarry and brick kilns, unless the applicant clearly specifies who is operating them and provides the particulars of the project proponent, the respondents cannot be directed to make a wild goose chase.

¶48

11) In view of the foregoing, the above Original Application [O.A. No.26 of 2026 (SZ)] is rejected , with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application by providing specific details of the encroachments or illegal activities, along with further particulars of the alleged violators and supporting documents.

¶49

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶50

O.A. No.26/2026 (SZ) 16^th February, 2026. Mn.

¶51

Page 4 of 4

Chidipi Nakula Suresh v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidipi Nakula Suresh v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Krishnaji Vatkar vs Union of India through Secretary

President Municipal Committee Thathri vs

Santosh Ningappa Burje vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

M/S Medical Pollution Disposal Committee vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Daulat Ram S/O Shri Kuldeep Gena vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector Ajmer

In Re News Item Titled Hyderabad Trees Razed Across 20 Acres at Rajendranagar Students Protest Against Deforestation Appearing in Telangana Today Dated 06.07.2025 vs Telangana Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary and Others

K Hariharan vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

News Item Titled Experts Are Alarmed as 350 Turtles Was Ashore Dead Till January 15 Published in the Newspaper the New Indian Express Chennai E Edition Dated 16 01 2025 vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

K. Balamurugan vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

Chandra vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee

V Veerabadiran vs District Collector

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Suo Motu Base on the News Item Published Dt 9TH October 2023 in the Hindu Titled Bengaluru Cracker Godown Blast Toll Rises to 14 Three Held vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board