Kommera Ravinder Reddy, vs The State Of Tenlangana And 5 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1378 Tel

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                  W.P. No. 5026 of 2023
Between:
Kommera Ravinder Reddy
                                                ... Petitioner
                            And

The State of Telangana and others
                                              ... Respondents

        JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 24.03.2023


        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers       :     yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?           :   yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?     :    yes



                                    ___________________
                                    SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                            Wp_5026_2023
                                2                                  SN,J




       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                    W.P. No. 5026 of 2023
%     24.03.2023

Between:


# Kommera Ravinder Reddy
                                                  ..... Petitioner
And


$ The State of Telangana and others
                                               .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioners   : Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud
^ Counsel for the Respondents1 to 4: G.P. for Irrigation
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.5 G.P. for Revenue
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Sri P.V..Bhanu Prakesh


? Cases Referred:
1. 2021 (5) ALD 545 (AP)
2. (2013) 4 SCC 465
3. (2001) SCC 734
                                                             Wp_5026_2023
                                3                                   SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P. No. 5026 of 2023
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Ponnam

Ashok Goud, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Irrigation

appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4, learned Asst.

Govt. Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 5th Respondent,

and learned counsel Sri P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash appearing on

behalf of the 6th Respondent.

2. The main prayer sought for by the Petitioner is as

follows :

"to declare the inaction of the respondents in allowing the illegal excavation, dumping of soil at tank submergence area and trying to encroaching the Oora Cheruvu at Madhapur Village, Ganneruvaram Mandal, Karimnagar District by the 6th respondent, his henchmen and local politicians without considering the representation dated 13.02.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to stop the illegal excavation and encroachments in OoraCheruvu at Madhavpur Village, Ganneruvuaram Mandal, Karimnagar District.

                                                            Wp_5026_2023
                               4                                   SN,J

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner is a resident of Madhavpur Village,

Ganneruvuaram Mandal, Karimnagar District and the said

village is consists of a water tank namely OoraCheruvu in

Sy.No. 542 and the same is used by the villages for agriculture,

fishing and many other purpose.

b) One Mr. Madgula Ravinder Reddy (6th respondent

herein), along with his henchmen and local politicians have

hatched a plan to encroach the OoraCheruvu for their personal

gains without permission from competent authorities and

started excavating soil from OoraCheruvu and dumping the

same on the other side of the Dam.

c) Assistant Engineer of Irrigation, Ganneruvuaram visited

the site and submitted the report to the 4th respondent and 4th

respondent in turn had addressed a letter dated 09.02.2023

stating that the villager are illegally excavating the soil in

Shikam Area and are dumping the same in submergence area

and further requesting the 5th respondent to take necessary

action.

                                                              Wp_5026_2023
                                5                                    SN,J




d)    Inspite of bringing the issue to the notice of 5th

respondent on 09.02.2023, no action had been taken so far.

Respondent despite having full knowledge of the illegal activity,

neither tried to stop nor took any action on such illegal

excavation of OoraCheruvu. Further, the letter issued by the 4th

respondent is a formal letter to project that the respondents

are action upon the excavation.

e) The 6th respondent, having the brains and brawn had

been influencing the respondents in excavating the sand from

OoraCheruvu on the pretext of wanting to construct the Sri

Rama Temple.

f) The petitioner once again made a representation to the

4th respondent bringing to into the notice the illegal action of

the 5th respondent but no action till date had been taken.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

4. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter of the

Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division No.4,

LMD Colony, Karimnagar, addressed to the Tahsildar,

Ganneruvaram Mandal, Karimnagar District reads as

under :

Wp_5026_2023 6 SN,J

"It is to inform that, the Assistant Engineer, Ganneruvaram during his site visit on 07.02.2023 of the Oora Cheruvu, Madhapur (V) it is observed that the villagers have illegally excavating the soil inshikam area and dumping the same soil in the tank submergence area. He has stopped the work and instructed the villagers not to commence the work further. But the work is again started on 09.02.2023.

In this regard, it is requested the Tahsildhar, Ganneruvaram mandal kindly look into the above matter immediately.

This is submitted for favour of information and necessary action."

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION :

5. The main grievance of the Petitioner who is

resident of Madhapur Village, Ganneruvaram Mandal,

Karimnagar District is that the 6th Respondent is a

politically influenced person and is trying to encroach

the Ooracheruvu at Madhapur Village, Ganneruvaram

Mandal, Karimnagar District and when the 6th

Respondent and henchmen and local politicians started

excavating the soil from the said tank and dumping the

same on the other side of the tank dam and when the

same was brought to the notice of the official Wp_5026_2023 7 SN,J

Respondents herein the Assistant Engineer,

Ganneruvaram conducted personal inspection and

submitted his Inspection Report to the 4th Respondent

herein who in turn vide his letter dt. 09.02.2023

addressed to the 5th Respondent (extracted above)

referred to the said Inspection done by Asst. Engineer,

Ganneruvaram on his site visit on 07.02.2023 of the

Ooracheruvu, Madhapur Village, and observed that the

villagers are illegally excavating the soil in Shikam area

and dumping the same soil in the tank submergence area

and therefore he had stopped the work and instructed

the villagers not to commence the work further but the

work again started on 09.02.2023 and therefore he had

requested Tahsildar, Ganneruvaram Mandal to look into

the matter immediately. The said letter dt. 09.02.2023

vide Letter No. No.DEE/ISD4/LMD/KMNR/224 had been

acknowledged by the office of the 5th Respondent on

10.02.2023 itself, but however, there had not been any

action in stopping the illegal encroachment and

excavation of soil from the Ooracheruvu/tank situated at

Madhapur Village, Ganneruvaram Mandal, Karimnagar Wp_5026_2023 8 SN,J

District. The Petitioner's further case is that though the

Petitioner submitted representation dt. 13.02.2023 to

the 2nd Respondent herein yet there has been no action

to save the Ura pond in Madhapur Village of

Ganneruvaram Mandal.

6. The learned Asst. Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf

of the 4th Respondent and also learned Asst. Govt.

Pleader appearing on behalf of the 5th Respondent

submit that the writ petition could be disposed of

directing the 2nd and 5th Respondents to consider the

Petitioner's representation dt. 13.02.2023 in accordance

to law by fixing a reasonable period.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

unofficial Respondent No.6, takes preliminary objection

in so far as the maintainability of the present writ

petition is concerned in particular pertaining to the locus

of the petitioner and further pleads that the present writ

petition is not in the nature of the public interest

litigation hence need not be entertained and needs to be

dismissed.

                                                               Wp_5026_2023
                                9                                     SN,J




7.     The    learned    counsel    appearing     on    behalf      of

unofficial Respondent No.6 further places reliance on

two judgements of the Apex Court which are listed

hereunder :

a) (2001) 4 SCC 734 in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. &

Others, in particular, Para 2 reads as under:

"Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas- corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when Wp_5026_2023 10 SN,J

it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.

b) (2013) 4 SCC 465 in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan

v. State of Maharastra & Others, in particular, paras 9,

10 and 17 and contends that the relief under Article 226

of the Constitution is based on the existence of the right

in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. Paras

9, 10 and 17 read as under:

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.

Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of Wp_5026_2023 11 SN,J

such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).

10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361).

17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. Locus standi of respondent no.5

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the Judgement

dated 08.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.16274 of 2021 of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mula Maheswara & Wp_5026_2023 12 SN,J

Another and contends that the writ petition is

maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is a

local resident of the village and further that it is the duty

of the Respondents to take steps to remove

encroachments of the water body and in case of

Respondents failing to discharge their duty in protecting

water body person aggrieved by inaction may approach

High Court by impleading the said encroachers.

9. This Court opines that it is the obligation of the

State to protect and improve the environment, to protect

the water pollution and to protect lakes, rivers, tank

beds in terms of Articles 48(a) and 51-A(g) of the

Constitution of India.

9. Article 51(a) deals with fundamental duties.

According to Article 51-A(g) it shall be the duty of every

citizen of India to protect and improve the natural

environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life

and to have compassion for living creatures. Thus Article

48(a) and Article 51-A(g) obligates the State to protect

the environment and make every endeavour to protect Wp_5026_2023 13 SN,J

lakes, rivers etc., to maintain the ecological balances.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala

Devi reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215, observed as follows:

"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."

10. This Court opines that the protection of

environment is a human right and the Petitioner who is a

resident of the said village Madhapur, Ganneruvaram

Mandal, Karimnagar District, has an individual duty to

protect and preserve the environment and therefore the

plea of the learned counsel for the Respondent in so far

as the locus of the Petitioner is concerned cannot be Wp_5026_2023 14 SN,J

sustained and the two judgments relied upon by the

counsel for unofficial Respondent No.6 are not applicable

to the facts of the present case.

11. Taking into consideration the above referred facts

and circumstances and the view taken by the Apex Court

in the judgement reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215 in Hinch

Lal Tiwari V Kamala Devi (referred to and extracted

above) and also the view taken in the Judgment dt.

18.08.2021 in WP No.16274/2021 by the A.P. High Court

in Mula Malleswara Rao & Another v. State of A.P. &

Others reported in 2021 (5) ALD 545 (AP) relied upon by

the counsel for the Petitioner which squarely applies to

the facts in the present case and duly considering, the

contents of letter No. No.DEE/ISD4/LMD/ KMNR/ 224,

dated 09.02.2023 of the 4th Respondent herein

addressed to the 5th Respondent (extracted above)

which clearly bring on record the fact of excavation of

the soil in Shikam area of the Ooracheruvu, Madhapur

Village and dumping of the same soil in the tank

submergence area and the fact that the work, though

was stopped on the day of inspection i.e. on 07.02.2023, Wp_5026_2023 15 SN,J

but yet the said work commenced again on 09.02.2023,

and therefore, this Court opines that the writ petition

should be allowed as prayed for. The Respondents No.2

to 5 are directed to take appropriate action and stop the

illegal encroachment and excavation of soil from the

Ooracheruvu/tank situated at Madhapur Village,

Ganneruvaram Mandal, Karimnagar District duly

considering Petitioner's representation dt. 13.02.2023

within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the

copy of the order duly taking into consideration the

contents of the letter dt. 09.02.2023 vide Letter

No.DEE/ISD4/LMD/KMNR/224 addressed by the 4th

Respondent to the 5th Respondent herein. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Dated: 24.03.2023 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked b/o kvrm