This PIL challenged the inaction of respondents in restoring a man-made lake (koneru) allegedly closed illegally by a private respondent. The Court examined evidence showing the lake was defunct, breeding pests, and deemed its closure by the Gram Panchayat to be in public interest. The petition was dismissed.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
P.I.L.No.354 OF 2015
PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)
The petitioner in the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) complains against inaction of respondents in disposing of the representation dated 04.08.2015 filed for restoration of koneru (lake) in Kallivettu Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The averments, in brief, are that in Sy.No.260 of Kallivettu Village, in an extent of Ac.0-20 cents, a water body called ‘Kallivettu Koneru’ is in existence. According to petitioner, the extent of water body is Ac.0-20 cents. The source of inflow into koneru is rain water and chinna kaluva. The 5th respondent at the instance of her followers who are residing on the western and eastern sides of the koneru has closed the lake contrary to law and only to satisfy her followers, the petitioner with a view to seeking redressal of this grievance claims to have filed representations on 25.06.2015, 05.08.2015 and 07.08.2015. On 22.09.2015, the District Panchayat Officer directed conduct of enquiry. In spite of such proceedings, according to petitioner, there is complete inaction. Hence, the PIL.
At the request of learned Government Pleader appearing for 3rd respondent, the PIL was adjourned.
The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit and the relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
“In reply to paras 4 and 5 of the petitioners affidavit, it is submitted as per Kallivettu Village accounts the land in Sy.No.260/1 measuring extent Ac.10.86 cents is classified as Gramakantam (Village site). As seen from the FMB one small pond with an extent of 0.08 cents is marked in the middle of the village site. The said pond was personally inspected on 17.12.2015 by the Tahsildar 4th respondent and enquired the Sarpanch and villagers of Kallivettu. Field inspection and enquiry in Kallivettu village reveals that the main source of the pond is only rain water and it is not in use since long time. The villagers using the said small pond for putting garbage and other waste materials since several years resulting unhygienic conditions prevailed in the locality and the villages health adversely affected. The water in the unused pond coloured into yellowish and inspects/pests/mosquitoes developed and spread diseases in the village. The said pond is the potential health hazard of the villagers. As such, in the interest of villagers health and to improve environmental conditions in the village the Gram Panchayat of Kallivettu has closed the unused small pond with the consent of all villagers except a few people who are negative for it due to political rivalry in the village. Due to closure of unused/polluted pond the locality is clean and improved the health conditions of the villagers. Protected drinking water supply is provided in the village, hence there is no need to restore the closure pond as prayed by the petitioner. With regard to agriculture there are two main sources one is Ubbalamadugu and another one is Telugu Ganga Water sources. The other averments made by the petitioner in these paras are put to strict proof.
In reply to paras 6 & 7 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that the gram Panchayat of Kallivettu has closed the unused/polluted small pond in the middle of the village with the consent of the villagers of Kallivettu to prevent the mosquitoes/insects/pests and to improve environmental conditions in the interest of villagers health. The villages are against to restore the closed pond as it is no use to them and there is no water source for it except rain water.
It is submitted that the plea of the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2015 for restoration of the water lake (koneru) in Kallivettu Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India including Public Interest and consequently direct the respondents to restore the water lake (koneru) in Kallivettu Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal deserves no consideration. The photos of the pond, representation of the Sarpanch & villagers, statements, extract of village accounts and FMB sketch are submitted herewith for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court”.
The 3rd respondent annexed to the counter affidavit the photographs of the lake prior to closing and after closing. We have perused the material available on record and have taken note of the justification offered by the 3rd respondent for closing the water body.
The subject water body is not only a defunct but also a breeding ground for pests, insects etc. From the
photographs filed by the 4th respondent, it is clear that the residential houses are in existence in the neighbourhood of the water body. Admittedly, there is no inflow of water regularly except during rainy season. Having regard to these circumstances, we are of the view that closing the subject water tank is more in the public interest, particularly the neighbourhood residents and being the Tahsildar, the 4th respondent is also satisfied that closure of subject tank is in public interest. The PIL is filed alleging favouritism and motives to 5th respondent. We are satisfied that the PIL is without any merit and on the contrary in the larger public interest, the 5th respondent has taken appropriate decision to close the koneru.
The PIL fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
___________________ S.V.BHATT, J
Date: 25.01.2016 Lrkm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the closure of a defunct water body by the Gram Panchayat at the instance of voters is illegal, arbitrary, or a violation of Articles 14 and 21.
Whether the PIL claiming inaction and favouritism regarding the restoration of the water lake (koneru) deserves consideration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Public Interest Litigation Petitioner
District Panchayat Officer
Tahsildar
5th Respondent
DILIP B. BHOSALE
S.V. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
