Allowed

M. Anuradha and 4 others v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/21801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Development restrictions on lands in Vattinagulapally outside the lakes' catchment area were challenged. Accepting the State's categorical stand, the Court held G.O.Ms.No.69 inapplicable and directed that the lands receive the same development regulations as adjoining lands. The writ petitions were allowed and the implead application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

G.O.Ms.No.69 held inapplicable to the petitioners' lands; the same development regulations applicable to adjoining lands were to apply.

M. Anuradha and 4 others Vs State of Telangana… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICESATISHCHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:21801} 21s82 AND^{218180F 2022} AND LA.NO.3 0^{F 2022 lN w.P.NO.2158 20F 2022}

¶8

wP NO.21801^{oF 2022:}

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

1, tr,4. Anuradha.^{W/o L4 SubbaRaju,Age--62 years Occ- Housewife' Villa No'} ' i;,"p;";l;-za, xolJpei'srz-rr,laii Ro,d-^Near Zresta Goldfish Villas, kokap"i, nlngareddy^{District, Hyderabad^- 500 075}

¶11

z x. nlonir<a, Wo^{r. *iii"ri-,'n,'JAge-sz vears'occ- Business'R/o Plot No'} 664, Road^{No. ss, r'i;ai'lfiCnr-rn-oilid-LJbiiee'Hills,Shaikpet'Hvderabad}

¶12

1. K: A;;lt;. oio^{x. s'tiniurl iao Rge-2.5} .vqql'^{occ- Student'FUo Plot No'} " b'0,i,'n"iJ rrr". os. NeJiilicnf"no.h"ug, jubitee Hills. shaikpet, Hyderabad 4. S. Srid;;i wlo^{xrisnii nge- sr} vlart,^{occ- Housewife' Fl/o 11' Pace S.partan} TNRHB Extn, l,logappiiitlsi'^{l'lr"g'ppair' Ambattur' Tiruvallur' TamilNadu-} 600 037

¶13

600 037

¶14

s. k.^{"ULmafatha, W/o Late Keshava Rao, Age- 85 vears Occ- Housewife'R/o} Flat No. 205,^{Sai K;;;D;l;;;'Ap"t'"ni",Sri NagarColonv'Hvderabad -} 500 073

¶15

...PEITIoNERS

¶16

AND

¶17

l.StateofTelangana,Rep.byitsChiefSecretaryTelanoanaSecretariat5th Ftoor, Burguta nrra^{iilirn,ia'n* [nJ*"., lri ++, Hitirort,Adarsh Nagar,} Hyderabad, Telangana⁵⁰⁰⁰⁶³

¶18

s(ate of TeianganS,^{Oepirtment of MunicipalAdministrationand Urban _}

¶19

6il"ropri,nt R"p. oviG sbeciit cnier Se'cretarv Telanqana Secretariat Sth Froli, durgura ni.u'r<ii.r,ii^{nJJehiuun, NH44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nasar'} Hyderabad, Telangana⁵⁰⁰⁰⁶³

¶20

Hyderabad, Telangana⁵⁰⁰⁰⁶³

¶21

t Hi,derabad N/etroooiitJn Development^{Authority(HMDA, Rep by its} . " ilti;ilii;n'6or-ritso*r. Swdrna Javanti cclmplex' S^anjeeva Reddy flugiiSriniuuta^{Nagar, Ameerpet'Hyderabad- 500038}

¶22

...RESpoNDENTS

¶23

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be} pleaSedtoissueanappropriateWrit,Directionororder'particularlyoneinthe nature of Mandamus

¶24

¶25

¶26

a.To declare that the application of G.O. lv1s.No. 69 daled 1210412022 to the lands of the Petitioners which fall outside the catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes is illegal and arbitrary and consequently

¶27

b.To declare that the Petitioners land be subject to the same developmental regulations as the ad.ioining lands (i.e. Kokapet SEZ, Financial District and Neopolis)

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased To direct the Respondents to produce all records^pertaining to the delineation of non-catchment area inVattinagulapally village

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct that the proposed rules and regulatory measures under G.O. Ms.No.69 dated 1210412022 will not be applicable to the Petitioners' lands^pending disposal of this Petition

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. SHRAVYA REDDY PATLLOLA

¶33

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶34

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶35

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI Y. RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA

¶36

WPNO: 21582 OF 2022

¶37

Betwee n:

¶38

Agni Agritech Pv,t. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot No.1B, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, lvladhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 08'1 Rep. by Authorised Representative G.t,4.Subhani

¶39

Nimbha Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot No.18, iLabs Centre , Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative M. Gopala Chakravarthi

¶40

Scorpio Bio Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot No.18, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, [Vladhapur, Hyderabad,

,.,/".r

Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative I/. N. S. S. N. Raju

¶45

4 Skan^da Aerospale Pfi. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, plot No.1B, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, Ivladhapur, llyderabad, Telansana - s00 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative O y.i.T?NBll.*.

¶46

AND

¶47

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat Sth Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad. Telangana 500063

¶48

2 State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat 5th Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063

¶49

.) Hyderabad lvletropolitan Development Authority (HIUDA, Rep. by its IVletropo_litan Commissioner Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva' Reddy

¶50

Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038

¶51

4 T. Pradeep Kumar Reddy S/o. Sidiram Reddy, Occ: Advocate, R/o.sravanthi Nagar, Varsbakari Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶52

(Respondent No. 4 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 29.04.2022 vide l.A.No.3 ol 2022 in W.P.No.21582 ol 2022)

¶53

-..RESPONDENTS

¶54

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus.

¶55

a.To declare that the application of G.O. Ms.No. 69 daied 12.04.2022 to the Iands of the Petitioners which fall outside the catchment area of osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes is illegal and arbitrary and consequenfly

¶56

b.To declare that the Petitioners land be subject to the same developmental regulations as the adjoining Iands (i.e. Kokapet SEZ, Financial District and Neopolis)

¶57

l,A NO: 1 OF 2022

¶58

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce all records pertaining to the delineation of non-catchment area in Vattinagulapaily village

¶59

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶60

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct that the proposed rules and regulatory measures under G.O. lr/s.No.6g

ll u ii

l : l

dated 12.O4.2O22 will not be applicable to the Petitioners' lands, pending d isposal of this Petition

¶66

lA NO: 3 OF 2022:

¶67

Between:

¶68

T. Pradeep Kumar Reddy S/o. Sidiram Reddy, Occ: Advocate, Rl/o.Sravanthi Nagar, Varsbakari Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ....lMPLEAD PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT No. 4

¶69

AND

¶70

'1 . Agni Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot No.'18, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, lr/adhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by Authorised Representative G.t\4.Subhani

¶71

Nimbha Biotech P!,t. Ltd., Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot No.1B, ilabs Centre , Software Units Layout, Madhapur,^-Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative l,4. Gopala Chakravarthi

¶72

Scorpio Bio Solutions P!t. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, PIot No.'18, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative M. N. S. S. N. Raju

¶73

9kanda Aerospace P,(. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot No..1B, iLabs Centre, Software Units Layout, I,4adhapur, Hyderabad, retangana^_ 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised ReprBe,ilEl![".,fi,_H r.e!|N8i]u*,

¶74

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat Sth Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063

¶75

Slate of Telangana, Department of lvlunicipal Administration and Urban Develqlment tep. by its Special Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat sth Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063

¶76

H.yderabad Metropolitan Deveiopment Authority (HlVDA, Rep. by its Metropolitan Commissioner Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva- Reddy Nagar, srinivasa Nasar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

¶77

:ig8g8fir.rrs/RESpoNDENrs

¶78

Petition under Section 16-A of Writ Rules praying that jn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased implead the proposed Respondent as Respondents No,4 in the present w.P.No.215B2 of 2022 as well as in the l.A.'s in the Writ petition for proper adjudication of the case in the interest of justice

¶79

Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI MANOJ REDDY KESHI REDDy

¶80

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶81

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION &

¶82

¶83

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶84

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRIY. RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA

¶85

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI CHIKKUDU PRABHAKAR

¶86

WP NO: 21818 OF 2022

¶87

Betwee n :

¶88

1 (. -Syrygnalayana, S/o Late Pulliah Age. 90 years, Occ. Business, R/o g-2293l12lA-1219, Road No.36, Near tclcl Bank; Jubitee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033

¶89

2 (. Aqulya, D/o K. Srinivas Rao Age. 25 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o plot No, 664, Road No. 33, Near MCRHRD Road, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶90

3 K Hemalatha, W/o Late Keshava Rao, Age. 85 years, Oci. Hbusewife, R/o Flat No 205, Sai Kiran Deluxe Apartmenls, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderatiad - 500 073

¶91

4 Q, !f{ev1,^{W/oKrishnaAge. 51 years, Occ. Housewife, Rt/o Fl, pace} Spartan lryRHq^{Extn, N/ogappairEast,Mogappair,Ambattur, Tiruvallur,} Tamil Nadu600 037

¶92

5 K. Radhika, W/o K. Srinivasa Rao Age. 52 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o plot No. 664, Road No. 33, Near MCRHRD, Road, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet. Hvderabad

¶93

6 K. Srinivas Rao, S/o K. Surayanarayana Age. 57 years, Ocb. Business, Rl/o Plot No. 664, Road No. 33, Near II4CRHRD Roa-d, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶94

7 K. Aishwarya, D/o K. Srinivas Rao Age. 30, Occ. Housewife, R/o plot No. 664, Road No. 33, Near MCHRD Road, Jubitee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad - SOd 033

¶95

B M. Anuradha, W/o M. Subba Raju, Age.62 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Villa No. 24, Private 28, Kokapet SEZ Mein Ro!d, Near Zresta Goldfish Villas, Kokapet, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad - S00 075 ...'E,,.NERS

¶96

AND

¶97

State oJ Telang!na, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat sth Floor, Burgula Rama Krishn-a-Rao Bhavan, NH ++, HitIfort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063

¶98

2 State.of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Developmen.t [eO bV 1ts Special Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat 5th Floor, Burgula Rama Krishn^a-Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063

¶99

3 H.yderabad Metropo.litan Development Authority HMDA, Rep. by its Metropo_litan Commissroner Swarna Jayanti Ccimplex, Sanibevi Reddv

¶100

Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038

¶101

...RESPONDENTS

¶102

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, Direction or order, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus

¶103

¶104

a. To declare^{that the application of G O Ms No 6g dated 12'04'2022to} the lands of^{the Petitloners whichfall outsidethe catchment areaof Osmansagar} and Himayatsagar^{lakes as illegal and arbltrary and consequently} b. To declare^{that the Petitionersland be subiect} to the same developmental^{regulationsas the adjoining lands (i'e Kokapet} SEZ, Financial District and^NeoPolis)

¶105

Petition und^{er Section 151 CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to direct} that the^{proposedrules and regulatory measuresunderG O- Ms No 69 dated} l2,o4.2o22willnotbeapplicabletothePetitioners,landspendingdisposalofthis Petition

¶106

IA NO:2O^F2022

¶107

Petition under^{Section15'1 CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto direct} the Respondents^{to produce all recordspertainingto the delineationof non-} catchment area^{in Vattinagulapally village pending the disposalof the writ petition} Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI G' BHEEMA CHARY}

¶108

Counsel^{for RespondentNo. 1: THE ADVOCATE GENERALFOR} GP FOR GENERAL^{ADMINISTRATION}

¶109

counserf orRespondentNo'2:l?t$'-',ff .i$,lir|=r\t$,f,t-,'.?[o,o** URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶110

Counsel for^{Respondent No' 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERALFOR} SRI Y. RAMA^{RAO, SC FOR HMDA}

¶111

The Court^{made the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶112

¶113

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶114

WRIT PETITION Nos.2 18O1 2L582 and 21-ALa OF 2022 and I.A.No.3 of 2O22 in W.P.No.21582 ot 2022

¶115

COMMON ORDERi eer e llon'bLe^the Cluef Justice^{Satistr ClwndraShclrma)}

¶116

Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy \rere involved in the present cases, the writ petitions analogously heard and by a common order, they are^being disposed of by this Court.

¶117

The facts of W.P.No.2180 1 of 2022 are as follows:-

¶118

The petitioners before this Court have filed the^present writ petition stating that they are the owners of lands in survey Nos.173, 192, 193,225-228,230-233,240^{and 243} in Vattinagulapally Vil1age, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrcit.

¶119

The petitioners have stated that the Government^of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.111,^{M.A., dated} 08.03. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as^{'G.O.Ms.No.1 1 1') for} the protection of catchment area of Himayatsagar^and Osmansagar lakes in Hyderabad to ensure that^the

\ \

rainwater flows into the lakes. G.O.Ms.No.111^prohibits establishments in the catchment^area of^{the lakes upto 10} kilometers from the Full Tank Level^{(FTL).The petitioners} have further stated that instead of identifying^{the precise} contours of the catchment area of the^{two lakes,the} Government had prepared a list ol 84^villages falling^within 10 kilometers and declared that G.O.Ms.No.111^{would apply} to all 84 villages in their entirety. The^{Government did not} make any attempt to demarcate the catchment^{area in each} village and in those circumstarces, even the area u'hich^rvas not the catchment area and it^{was part} of those^{84 viilages} became the subject matter of the restrictions^imposedon account of G.O.Ms.No.111. The^petitioners have^further stated that Vattinagulapally Village is situated on^the northern side of Osmansagar and Himayatsaga-r and^{is one} of the 84 villages identified by the Governmentⁱⁿ G.O.Ms.No.l11 and it has^got a unique^geographyand drainage pattern as compared to other^villagesin G.O.Ms.No.111. It has been further stated that^{a prominent} ,^{ridge is subdividingthe area of VattinagulapallyVillageand} the water on the western side of the ridge^flowsinto

¶126

)

¶127

\ i

¶128

Osmansagar lake, whereas the water on the eastern side of the ridge flows into an existing storm water drain and thereafter into the Musi river downstream of Osmalsagar lake. It has been further stated that the storm water drain does not form part of the catchment area of either Osmansagar or Himayatsagar 1ake.

¶129

4 . The petitioners have further stated that in the close proximitl, to petitioners' land, the Government has alloi,ved commercial development on three sides of petitioners' land and the Government has allowed the commercia-l development in the surrounding areas on the premise that the storm water from these development does not flow into Osmansagar or the Himayatsagar 1ake, but rather flows into a storm water drain which in turn joins the Musi river downstream of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar 1akes. The petitioners have given details of certain development activities/commercial development carried out on three sides of the petitioners' land and they are as under:-

¶130

No.	Location (from	Nature of Development	Distance	from
	PetitionersProperty)		Osmansagar (FTL}	Lake
	SouthWestern	Neopolis (State Government	500 metresto	Ikm

-1

( I

I		developedandallotted Plots^for commercial and residential development.Construction^of buildrngsof^morethan^20floorsis on tIt l
I] I	SouthernSide	KokapetSEZ(State^Government developmentand allotted^propertyto various entitiesforcommercial^and residentiaidevelopment^withmore than20 floors	700metresto3 kms
111	SouthernSide	OuterRing Road^{(8-LaneExpressu'ay} constructedb theHMDA	l5kms
	South Easte.n	Puppalaguda Government property develo mcrll Land - (State isauctioningthe for commercial	3.5kms
tt	NorthernSide I	GovernmentAllotted^Land Commercial Development^(Q withovcr10floorbuilding commercialdevelopment) for Cit)' for I	4kms
vl	North EasternSide	ProposedConsulateofUSA^(Land Allorted Governmen	4kms
\NI	EasternSide	FinancialDistrict^(StateCovernment developedandallottedto^leading companieswhich^{haveconstmcted} commercialandresidential^with morethan20 floors	4.5 kms

¶136

¶137

The petitioners have^given large^{numberof examples} of adjoining Iands, which are^{close to the petitioners' 1and,} where commercial activities are^{going on. The petitioners} have further stated that even^{the buildings having more} than twenty floors have^{been constructedon the adjoining} iand or on the land which is in^{close proximity of the} petitioners' land. The petitioners further^{stated that other} land owners in non-catchment area^{also made several} representations to the Government to exclude^{the areas in} Vattinagulapally Village which do not^{form partof}

¶138

¶139

catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes from the purview of G.O.Ms.No.111 and a Committee was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.149, M.A, dated 28.03.2006 to determine the extent of land in Vattinagulapally Village which falls outside the catchment area of two lakes and identify the survey numbers of the same. The Committee was comprising of the following members:-

¶140

" 1 . Special Chief Secretary to Govemment of A.P., Department of Revenue (Sri V.P.Jasuhari, I.A.S.,)

¶141

Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Department of Environment, Forests, Science and Technolory (Sri T.Chatterjee, I.A.S.,)

¶142

Secretary to Government of A.P., Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Sri S.P.Singh, LA.S.,)

¶143

Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Pollut ion Control Board (APPCB; (Sri Rajeswar Tiwari, I.A.S.,)

¶144

Malaging Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Suply arrd Sewerage Board (Sri Jawahar Reddy, I.A.S.,)"

¶145

The petitioners have further stated that the said Committee decided to engage an expert body on the subject, i.e., the Environmenta-i Protection Training and Research^l Institute (EFrfRi), which is an autonomous institution set

Ll-

upon in 7992 by^{the Governmentof Andhra Pradesh and} the Government of^{India. The Committeehas submitted} va-rious reports on^{environmenta1issues includingthe} protection of Hussain^{Sagar iake and pollution control in} Hyderabad. The report^{of the said Committee has been} looked into and reference^{of cases in RamakrishnaRao v'} Principal Secretary^{to Government of A.P.,} [2001^{(5) ALD} 299 (DB)l and D.Achyutanand^{v. Union of India} [2004^SCC Online AP 1445^{(DB)l has beenfurnished by the petitioners'} The petitioners have^{further stated that the Committee} constituted vide^{G.O'Ms.No.149,M.A., dated28'03'2006} formulated the terms of^{reference,which was referred to} EPTRI and is reproduced^{as under:-}

¶151

"To deiineate the watershed^{of the catchment al'ea} of Osman Sagar Lake^{covering VattinagulapalliVillage} administrative area^{and assess the area outside the} Catchment area."

¶152

The EPTRI conducted^{exhaustivehydrological and} topographical survey,^{examined Governmentmaps,} ,^{topographicalmaps, drainage maps and satellite data of the} / I viilage area and finally submitted^{a Report on 31.05'2006' It}

¶153

¶154

¶155

has been further stated that the Report^{of the Committee} u,as accepted. Meaning thereby, it has been stated^{that the} demarcation done by the^{EPTRI was accepted and the} petitioners' land is not part of catchment area^{as per the} EPIRI Committee Report. The^{petitionershave further} stated that a writ^{petition, i.e., W.P.No.9386of 2007 was} a-lso filed in respect of protection of catchment^{area around} Osmansagar and Himayatsagar^{lakes keeping in view the} provisions of G.O.Ms.No.111 and various orders^were passed from time to time, It has been further^{stated that on} 07.04.2O7O, based upon the^{EPTRI Report, the Government} had filed I.A., in W.P.No.93B6 of^{2OO7for exclusion of land} parcels identified by the EPIRI in^{respect of} Vattinagulapally Village from the^{catchment area of} Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes^{and after filing of the} said I.A., the Government has^{not taken any stepsto} exciude the non-catchment^{area. The petitionerskept on} representing in the matter and^{another application i.e',} I.A.No.1 of 2Ol7 in W.P.No.9386^{of 2OO7 was filed and this} Court was informed that a High^{PoweredCommittee (HPC</sup> . ,\ has been constituted to^{look into various aspectsof}}

F"_

tt-

G.O.Ms.No.l11'^{The HighPowered Committeehas been} constituted on^{account of order, dated 19'12'2018 passed} by the National^{Green Tribunalin O'A'No'53 1 of 2018 and} all construction^{activities inrespect of area in} G.O.Ms.No.111was^{barred till HPC submitsits Report' The} petitioners have^{further stated that finally this Court on} 26.08.2027 has^{passeda detailed and exhaustiveorder in} W.P.Nos.9386 and^{18896 of 2OO7 and W'P' (PIL)No'64 of} 2O2l and the^{same is reproducedas under:-}

¶160

"I.A.No.1^{of 2010} PMP .No.10 152^{of 2o 10)} &

¶161

I.A.No.1 of 2OL7^{(wPtlf P.fo. tS5O7 of 2O 17)} IN W.P.No.9a 86^of2OO7

¶162

¶163

This order is in^{continuationof the orderpassed} yesterday wherein, it^{was pointed out to Mr'} 'l' Ramachandra Rao,^{learned AdditionalAdvocate General} that the five^{terms of reference, subjectmatter of} G.O.Ms.No.839^{dated07. i2.2016 vn'hereunder the High} Powered Committee^{was constituted to submitits Report} within 45 days, did^{not coverthe terms of reference} drawn by the^{Municipal AdministrationaldUrbal} Development Department,^{StateGovernment that had} commissioned^{EPTRito conducta survey "to delineate} the u.tatershed. of^{the catchmentarea of Osmansagar Lake} coueing Vattinagulapaltg^{Vtllage AdministratiueArea and} assess the area^{outside the catchment area"}

¶164

¶165

¶166

We may note that the Report submitted by the EPTRI in May, 2006 states in ciear terms that,,Based on the representations receiued bg the Gouernment to relo-x the restictions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.l 1 1 of M.A 1996 tuith regard to areas which is not Catchment area Watershed of Osman Sagar Lake, the Gouemment desired EPTRI to examine "the extent of administratiue area of Vattinagulapallg Village, Ranga Reddg district which fatls outside the tuatershed- after d.etineating the watershed. boundaryi' ". The findings recorded in the Report have been encapsulated in para 2.6 in the following words:2,6. Project Findings

¶167

The drainage pattern tn the studA urea, Vattinogulapalli uillage administratiue area with land parcel tnformatton and topographic proJile of the studg are now in GIS layer form. Keeping the direction of the JloLU, topography, the uLatershed boundary is now delineated. The delineated utaterslrcd boundary is presented in ftgure 9.

¶168

The land parcel boundaies are nou.t ouerlayed on the topographic features and as well on delineated tuatershed boundary. A small hill range is subdiuiding the drainage area in the studg area u.therein the southem flou.ts are joining Osman Sagar Lake ond Northern Jlotus are draining tnto Nakka Vagu catchment ond drainage afier the hiLl range is draining down in to Musi Riuer i,e., down stream of OsmcLn Sagar Lake. Tlrc delineated uatershed boundary uith land parcel information is presented in f.gure^10.

¶169

¶170

The satellite dctto as captured bg Quick Bird Satellite and presented by Google Earth agency on u.teb coueing. Vattinagulapalli uitlage area is presented in figure I l. As^I

r,-

t.L

seen from the image,^{mining actiuitgis taking place this} smatl hilt range.^{This hosgreaterimpact on the drainage} pattern in the study area.^{Ang damageto this idgeutill} facititate^{the mouementof surfaceJlotttsinto the Osman} Sagar Lake uhich^{results into enuironmentalimpact on the} water^qualitA of^{the tackThis ridge area has to be} protected.

¶175

From the aboue^{ouerla!)onal:].sis,itis} found^{thot the} follouing^{land.parcels listed in table1 (otherthan the idge} area) in Vattinaqtlaptli^uitlage falls^{in the drainagearea} that drains into^{Musi nuer i.e'' dotun streamof Osman} Sagar Lake ond same^{is presentedin} ftgure^12'

¶176

Tnhle I

¶177

PARCEL NO PARCEL NA P,4 RC I.:L NO
173 245
t76 206 231
207 235
t79t80 I 248 236
181 209 237
209 238
183 210 2 39
t81 211 210
/ 8.t 212 211
186 2t3 212
187 213 213
188 2 1,1 241
189 216 245
190 217 246
t9l 218 247
192 219 248
193 220 219
194 221 254
I95 222 25 t
196 223 252
197 221
198 225 251
198 226 2i -i
t99 227 256
200 228 25i
20l 229 2iE
202 230 259
203 231 264
241 232 5t2
I

-----7

(

It is apparent from a reading of the Report of the EPTRI that ali the g7 parcels of land mentioned in Table I above and highlighted in a map mentioned at figure 12, are a part of the non-catchment area arld. quaJify for being declared as falling outside the watershed boundary. 4. As noted in our earlier ord.ers, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.839 dated OT.t2.2O16, issued by the Municipa.l Administration arrd Urban Development Department, a High powered Committee was constituted to examine G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 0g.03.1996 with five specific terms of reference assigned. Strictly speaking, none of the five terms of reference dea_l lvith the singular terms of reference submitted by the very sarne Department to the EpTRI for a Report, which was limited to delineating the watershed of the catchment area of Osman Sagar Lake covering Vattinaguiapaliy Village Administrative Area and assessing the area outside the catchment a_::ea_

¶183

¶184

Be that as it may, as learned Additional Advocate General has repeatedly been stating that though there is no plausible explalation available for the inaction on tJ.e part of the High powered Committee in submitting a Report over the past four years and seven months, in accordance with the terms of reference arrd though the State Government has for reasons best known to it, given an open-ended mandate to the High powered Committee to continue functioning without fixing any cut off date, if the Committee and the Govemment are granted a reasonable time, a Report shall be submitted to the State Government w:thin four weeks, it is directed as follows:(i) .. The High^powered Committee shall submit a Report to the State Government within four weeks

¶185

¶186

¶187

reckoned from 13.08.2021,^{the date on which such a} request was made before^{this courtthrough alaffidavit} frled in this regard by^{the Principal Secretaryto} Government, Municipal^{Administration andUrban} Development Department.

¶188

(ii) While submitting the said^{Report, the High} Powered Committee sha1l^{specihcalll'deal u"iththe} second Report submitted^{by the EPTRIin Ma1', 2006 and} give its findings thereon, specifically^{in the contextof} excluding the non-catchment^{area, from G.O.Ms.No 111} dated 08.03.1996, as^{delineated by the EPTRI and} forming a part of^{VattinagulapallyVillage.}

¶189

(iii) The Report of the High Powered^{Committee shall} be uploaded on the^{website of theMunicipal} Administration ald Urban^{DevelopmentDepartment} contemporaneous to being^{submitted to theState} Government.

¶190

(iv) The State Government sha-lI^{examine the said} Report, particuiarly the aspect^{of exclusion of the non-} catchment area, as declared^{by the EPTRI in Table 1 of} its second Report of May,^{2006 and take a decision} thereon by the end of September,^{202 1 which sha1l also} be uploaded on the website^{of theMunicipal} Administration and Urban^{DevelopmentDepartment} within two days.

¶191

(v) The Chairperson of the High Powered^Committee shall file an affidavit within^{one week from today} undertaking inter alia to abide^{by the conditions and the} timelines recorded hereinabove.

¶192

¶193

(vi) In the event the Report is not submitted^{by the} High Powered Committee^{withinthe timelineas recorded} above, no further extension shall^{be given and the}

¶194

¶195

-7

¶196

Committee shall stand automatically disbanded on 12.09.202L In that eventuality, those parties who claim that their land rs covered in the parcels enumerated in Table 1 of the EPTRI Report of May, 2006, sha-11 be entitled to approach the court for appropriate relief. 6. List on 04. 10.2021 for further orders.,,

¶197

B. The petitioners' contention is that liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach this Court if the Report is not submitted by the Committee upto tO.Og.2O2l , and therefore, they have approached this Court for implementation of the EPTRI Report.

¶198

¶199

Another important aspect of the case is that recently the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.69, MA & UD, dated 12.04.2022 and modified the restrictions in G.O.Ms.No. 11 1 to protect the water quality of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes and the Government has constituted a Committee to frame guidelines and detailed regulations for protecting the quality of two water bodies. The petitioners'contention is that as per the EpTRI Report, which is the Report submitted by the expert body on the subject, the area which is subject matter of the present writ petitions, forms part of non-catchment area of

¶200

¶201

Vattinagulapally Village and^{does not flow into Osmansagar} or Himayatsagar lakes and^{therefore, the petitioners'land} cannot be subjected to^{provisionsof G.O.Ms.No.69,dated} 12.04.2022 aiso. The^{petitionershave prayed for the} following reliefs.

¶202

"For the reasons^{aJoresaid,itis humbly prayed} that this Honble Court^may be^{pleased to issue aI} appropriate writ, direction or order,^{particularlyone in} the nature of mandamus:-

¶203

(a) to declare that the application^of G.O.Ms.No.69, daLed L2.O4.2022,^{lo the lands of the} petitioners which fall outside the catchment^{area of} Osmansagar and Himayatsagar^{lakes as i1lega1 and} arbitrary ald consequentlY,

¶204

(b) to declare that the^petitioners' Iand^be subject to the same developmental^{regulations as the} adjoining lands^(i.e., Kokapet SEZ,^{FinancialDistrictand} Neopolis),

¶205

(c) and pass such other order(s)^{as this Honble} Court deems fit and proper in the^{extraordinarv} circumstances of the case and^{in the interestof justice."}

¶206

This Court has directed the^{State Governmentto file a} counter alfidavit and the Special Chief^{Secretary has filed} the affidavit in the matter. Paragraph^{5 of the affidavitis} reproduced as under:-

,i )

It is sultmitted that Government have received representations from various individua_ls with a request to exclude the areas located in Vattinagulapally Village which are not fa.lling in catchment area water shed of Osmansag;rr la_l<e from the purview of G.O.Ms.No. l l l MA dated 08.03.1996. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has referred the matter to Environment Protection Training arrd Research Institute (EIrfRI) and requested to delineate the catchment a-rea in Vattrnagulapally village. Accordingly EPIRI has conducted an exhaustive hydrologrcal and topographical study and submitted that there is a well deiined ridge line (i.e., hill range) running through the Vattinagulapally village which divides the village into two distinct zones and EPTRI demarcated the land into catchment and non_ catchment areas. As per EpTRI report the following Survey Numbers of Vattinagulapally village falls in non_ catchment area that drains into Musi River i " downstream of Osmal Sagar Reservoir.

¶211

	villagename Vattinaguiapally		Survey falling catchme 173,178 216to 5t2	Num in ntar to 260	bers Non- ea 214, and	I
11.	ThelearnedAd	diti	onalAdvoca	te	General,	on
lnstru	ctions,hasstated	in	openCourtt	ha	tthearea	in
quest	ionfallsinnon-catc	hm	entareathat	dra	insintoM	usi
River,	1.e downstream	of	Osman Saga	rR	eservoir.T	he

¶212

1(r

¶213

iearned^{AdditionalAdvocate General has categoricallystated} that the^{area which is subject matter of the presentwrit} petiti.ons,^{as per the EPTRI Report' is falling outsidethe} catchment^{area of Osmansagarand Himayatsagarlakes'He} has stated^{that the stand of the State Government is that} the area^{fa1Is outside the catchment area of Osmansagar} and Himayatsagar^{lakes and the petitioners' land shall be} subject^{to the same developmentregulations asare} applicable^{to the adjoiningiands which are not subject to} G.o.Ms.No.1^{1 1, dated 08'03'1996'}

¶214

¶215

1.2. In^{the light of the categorical stand of the State} Government^{before this Court that the lands ofthe} petitioners^{a-re falling outside the catchment area of} Osmansagar^{and Himayatsagarlakes' the questionof} application^{of G'O'Ms'No'69' dated l2'O4'2022to the land} of the^{petitioners does not arise and the petitioners'iand} shall^{certainly besubj ected tosame development} regulations^{applicableto the adjoininglands' as stated in} the open^{Court, by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General'}

¶216

¶217

i3. Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for the petitioner in implead application, i.e., I.A.No.3 of 2022 in W.P.No.215B2 of 2022" He has drawn the attention of this 1n Court towards the order, dated 26.08.2021, passed W.P.Nos.93B6 and 18896 of 2007 and W.P. (PIL) No.64 of 202 1. His main thrust is to ensure preservation of lakes in que stion.

¶218

¶219

14 . In the considered opinion of this Court, the concern shown by the learned counsel is genuine one and it is the bounden duty of this Court as well as ail citizens of this country to ensure that the lakes are not dried up, they are kept intact and the catchment area is not disturbed. However, the facts of the present writ petitions reveal that Vattinagulapally Village has a unique geography and AS 1n drainage pattern compared to other villages G.O.Ms.No.111. There is a prominent ridge subdividing the area of Vattinagulapally Village and the water on the western side of the ridge flows into Osmansagar 1ake, whereas the lr,'ater on the eastern side of the ridge flows into an existing storm water drain and thereafter into the Musi

¶220

¶221

river downstream of^{Osmansagarlake' The area in question} as per the EPTRI^{Report is not at all underthe catchment} area and therefore,^{after hearingthe learned counsel for the} implead^{petitioner, the I.A.No.3 of 2022 in W'P'No'21582of} 2022 stands^disPosedof.

¶222

With the aforesaid,^{the writ petitions are allou'ed} Miscellaneous applications,^{pending ifan1', shall stand}

¶223

closed. There shall^{be no order as to costs}

¶224

//TRUE^COPY// ^,38i['s[lBit]iH sEcrroN^8J''t'*

¶225

To,.Il?f l}"4:;3'Ri?h?.ft.i9]l^{312[Yi{,iJ^:,fl lPe:ii",.:?:fl 'lft:Sth,Floor'

¶226