Petitioners challenging house demolition citing encroachment on government land were dismissed. Court held authorities acted against encroachment in river bed area.
No order as to costs.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No. 7043 OF 2011.
DATED 18th March, 2011.
BETWEEN M.Sadanand and anr
…Petitioners
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary ( Revenue Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad and anr.
….Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No. 7043 OF 2011.
ORDER:
The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of the house site admeasuring 202 square yards in Plot Nos.78, 79 (Parts) and 80 respectively situate in Sy.Nos.76, 77 and 78 co-relating to Town Sy.Nos.11, 12/1 and 12/2 in Ward No. 166, Block-A, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad District. It is the case of the petitioners that since the date of purchase of the aforesaid subject land, they are residing therein by constructing small houses.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on 03.03.2011 the third respondent demolished part of the houses constructed by the petitioners in the aforesaid
subject land, without issuing any prior notice. It is further submitted that that the third respondent is threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the subject properties without following the due procedure laid down by law.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on written instructions from the Tahsildar, Amberpet Mandal, submits that the petitioners are trying to encroach upon the government land which fell in part of Moosi River Flood Level (MLF) by way of dumping the earth. She further submits that if such encroachments are allowed in the Moosi river bed area, the same would consequently lead to the floods in the vicinity during the rainy season and the drainage system of twin cities will also be greatly affected.
After hearing the learned Counsel on either side, it is obvious that as the petitioners are trying to encroach upon the government land in the Moosi river bed area by way of dumping earth, the officials of the third respondent have demolished the part of the petitioners’ subject houses which fell under the purview of the alleged encroachment.
The Apex Court in one of its authoritative pronouncements observed that without removal of encroachments, the water bodies/canals/river beds under encroachments can hardly be rejuvenated. It is, therefore, essential for the State Government, the Urban Development Authorities and local bodies, as the case may be, to exercise their statutory powers to remove the existing encroachments
and take measures to prevent encroachments. These authorities, therefore, can be directed to prepare an authenticated record in the form of videography, photography and panchanamas of the existing encroachments and take urgent steps to remove them in accordance with law.
The Apex Court dealing with similar subject matter, in catena of decisions, observed that it is not only the duty of the State (Executive), but also the duty of the Court to protect the environment and water bodies like canals, rivers etc.,. A Division Bench of this Court in Ramakrishna Rao Vs. HUDA, {2001 (4) ALD 758} observed :
“ Protection of the environment is not only the duty of the citizens but also the obligation of the State and its all other organs including the courts. The enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfillment guaranteed by Articles 21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature’s gift without which life cannot be enjoyed fruitfully. The slow poisoning of the atmosphere caused by the environmental pollution and spoliation should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The legitimate duty of the Courts as the enforcing organs of the constitutional objectives to forbid all actions of the state and the citizens from upsetting the ecological and environmental balance. It is trite to state that hygienic environment is an integral fact of the right to healthy life and it would not be possible to live with human dignity without a human and healthy environment.”
In Patanjali Vs. A.P.P.C.B, {2001(5) ALT 315}, a Division Bench of this Court is of the same view. It is palpable from the written instruction of the respondent authorities that they have not interfered with the peaceful
possession of the petitioners over the subject land and they have only demolished the encroachment part. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.
-JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
Dated 18th March, 2011. Msnro
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioners have any merit in challenging the demolition of their houses alleged to be encroachments on government land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramakrishna Rao Vs. HUDAReferred¶19
{2001 (4) ALD 758}
Patanjali Vs. A.P.P.C.B.Referred¶21
{2001(5) ALT 315}
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Sadanand and anr.
Government of Andhra Pradesh
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
