Allowed

Konda Varamma v. The District Collector

Telangana HC5 Nov 2012WP/29406/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined the conversion of classified grazing land into sites for government housing in Kavali Town. It criticized the disregard for Directive Principles concerning animal husbandry and environment protection, noting the depletion of grazing grounds due to political expediency.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings converting land set aside; District Collector directed to prevent future misuse of grazing land and call for explanation from Tahsildar.

Konda Varamma Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29406 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Till recently, the Government and in particular, the Revenue and Forest Departments used to ensure that a perfect mechanism is maintained in the matter of land use. Forests were protected with utmost care. Even where the lands are classified as revenue, a decent balance used to be maintained between agricultural lands, water bodies, grazing porambokes and lands for other communal uses. However, not only the politicians, but also the bureaucrats contributed to the disturbance of the balance. The result is that irrigation tanks, their ayacuts, substantial extents of forests have disappeared. The policies that are followed would indicate that the cattle and the grazing lands have no relevance. The place that is specifically assigned to the mute animals appears to be the slaughter houses. The spreading of concrete jungles has become the order of the day. The present case is an example that indicates the trend.

¶4

Maddurupadu Village is in the neighbourgood of Kavali of Nellore District. Very long ago, an extent of Acs.30.72 cents of land in Survey No.596 was classified as jungle poramboke. Recognising the need to provide grazing land, the classification was changed way back in the year 1917, as grazing poramboke. As in any other township, there is expansion in Kavali Town also.

¶5

Recently, the Government came forward with a scheme to provide about 65 lakhs houses as a measure of translating the election promise, without even verifying as to whether the land for such a big scheme is available or whether there is genuine necessity at all. It is not without reason that largescale irregularities involving thousands of crores of rupees have taken place and umpteen number of cases are pending.

¶6

Though house sites were provided in adequate number, the local politicians were not satisfied with that. Their eye fell upon the grazing land which was earmarked for mute animals. They naturally felt that no votes can be expected from the cattle whereas the allottees of the grazing land would be an assured vote bank. The pliable officials of the Revenue Department have bent, if not crawled, in straightaway converting the grazing land and earmarking it for house sites.

¶7

The petitioner, who was a member of M.P.T.C., made an effort to prevent such an onslaught. Not being successful in her effort, she has approached this Court. She submits that there is considerable livestock in the village as well as in Kavali Town, and no grazing land would be available if the existing one is converted into house sites. She further pleads that vast extent of grazing land is being converted into house sites only to satisfy the agenda of politicians and that there is no justification for the respondents in taking such steps.

¶8

The Tahsildar, Kavali Mandal, respondent No.3 herein,

¶9

filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He admits that the land was earmarked as grazing poramboke way back in the year 1917, but was converted into house sites in the recent past. He contends that the cattle in Kavali, which is estimated about 4000, can have its feed in the neighbouring forest.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶11

It is a matter of record that the land in Survey No.596 is classified as grazing poramboke even during British regime. The Board Standing Orders and various enactments provide for preservation of such lands. In case the Government needed any land for providing amenities to the citizens, it is always open to it, to acquire the same by initiating proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. However, the political and executive wings of the Government have adopted a dubious way of implementing public policy by utilising the places that were earmarked for common-good.

¶12

Recently, this Court has come across an instance where an irrigation tank with water-spread area of Acs.70.00 in Ongole virtually disappeared on account of such indiscriminate allotments. Nobody appears to be having any concern for the ecological balance.

¶13

There are several instances, wherein the State enacts laws, which have the effect of curtailing the rights of the citizens, and shelter is taken under the Directive Principles of

¶14

State Policy, or Fundamental Duties, enshrined under Part-IV and IVA of the Constitution of India, when the constitutional validity of such laws is questioned. However, when it comes to the question of implementation of the provisions of those parts, particularly where it involves protection of environment and the animals, hardly any interest is shown. Articles 48 and 48A, occurring in the Directive Principles of State Policy read,

¶15

“48. Organisation of Agriculture and animal husbandry:The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

¶16

48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life:- The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the Country.”

¶17

Similarly, Clause (g) of Article 51-A, occurring in

¶18

Fundamental Duties reads,

¶19

51A. Fundamental Duties:- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India,--

¶20

xx xx

¶21

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

¶22

The attempt made by the respondents to convert the grazing land into house sites; is a clear negation of the directive under the Constitution of India. The indifference on the part of the State in this regard reached such a stage that, while cattle sheds are becoming empty, slaughter houses are working with full capacity. The growth of the carnivorous tendency in our

¶23

State can be exemplified from the fact that, even donkeys are being stolen, for their flesh. Recently, a news appeared to the effect that donkeys of the washer-man in Kurnool District are stolen and are slaughtered in and around Chirala. For all these developments, while in some cases, the State is a mute spectator, in others, it is an indirect promoter. In the ultimate analysis, as an eminent jurist, Nani Palkhivala observed once, ‘even while the standard of living is improving, there a steep fall in the standard of life’.

¶24

This Court is compelled to observe that the Tahsildar, who filed the counter-affidavit, has rendered himself unfit to hold any public office, when he stated that the existing cattle can graze in the neighbouring forest land and the land earmarked for grazing purpose can be utilised for the house sites. The District Collector, Nellore, respondent No.1 herein, ought to have taken disciplinary action against the official who ever has made such a proposal. Even now, he can call for explanation from the person, who submitted the proposals for conversion of the land and initiate or recommend disciplinary action to the authorities concerned, so that such thoughtless, illegal and arbitrary steps will not be taken in future. The petitioner deserves to be complemented for the interest she has shown in preserving the grazing land.

¶25

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and all the proceedings that are issued converting the land in Survey No.596 are hereby set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that no land

¶26

which is earmarked for grazing, and water bodies is used for any purpose including the house sites. He shall call for explanation from the Tahsildar, who initiated proposals for conversion of the grazing land in Survey No.596 and take necessary action. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

¶28

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶29

Dt.05.11.2012. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl

Konda Varamma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konda Varamma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganisetty Sominaidu, S/o Late Atchanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

Chinnamuru Mastanaiah Vs The Tahasildar

J.Praveen Kumar, Vs The District Collector

Hafez Syed Ahmed, Vs The District Collector

Devalapalli Jayamma Vs District Collector

S.J. Sugunakar Vs The District Collector