The High Court allowed the writ petition questioning the illegal allotment of tank bed land as house sites. The Court held that such assignment violates community resource protections and directed the cancellation of the pattas.
Cancellation of the pattas issued and direction to ensure tank bed lands are duly protected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8066 of 2001
Between:
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 8066 OF 2001
ORDER:
The petitioner, President of the Vakadu Water Tank Users Association, has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in granting pattas to villagers of Vakadu in Tummagunta Tank Poramboke, for an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.340 of Vakadu, Vakadu Mandal, Nellore District, as contrary to the provisions of Board Standing order No.15. He also questions the action of the respondent in not canceling the house site pattas inspite of the recommendation of the M.R.O. dated 18.5.2000 and the representation dated 9.4.2001 addressed to the respondents, as arbitrary and illegal.
The contention of the petitioner, in short, is that tank bed lands were being assigned as house sites. This fact is not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is, however, contended that the said tank is not an irrigation source and, since it is not being put to use, it was assigned as house sites. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the assignees have not been arrayed as respondents to this writ petition though they are necessary parties, and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned Government Pleader, however, fairly states that, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.10269 of 2001 dated 24.4.2001, possession of the plots have not been handed over to the assignees and that the assignment itself has been kept in abeyance. Since the assignment was
kept in abeyance, and possession was not delivered to the assignees, I see no reason to non-suit the petitioner on the ground that the assignees are not arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.
This Court, while making the interim stay absolute, relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court, in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi[1] , that tank bed lands should not be assigned. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, observed thus:
“….It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites…..”
Since the land assigned is, admittedly, tank bed land, assignment of such land as house site pattas is illegal. The respondents shall forthwith cancel the pattas issued and ensure that the tank bed lands are duly protected.
The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
ASP
[1] AIR 2001 SC 3215
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ against the assignment of tank bed lands as house sites contrary to Board Standing Order No.15.
Whether the writ petition is invalid due to non-joinder of assignees as respondents.
Whether tank bed lands must remain protected as community resources under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala DeviRelied on¶18
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
President of the Vakadu Water Tank Users Association
Respondent No.
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
