*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +W.P.No.17555 OF 2009 %14.12.2009 #Shahzadi Showkat Jahan Begum. ..Petitioner Vs. $Hyderabad Metro Development Authority and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Venu Madhav ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.Surender Rao <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17555 of 2009 ORDER: It has become almost common, if not fashion, for everyone to assert that, phenomenal development has taken place over the past few decades, particularly in places like Hyderabad. The facts of the present case demonstrate the truth, or otherwise of such claims. Meer Alam Tank abutting Hyderabad city was an identified source of drinking water for more than a century. The civil and mechanical works carried out for the tank during Nizam time would make even the modern engineers to wonder. It is stated that the water of the tank was so pure and mineral rich, that whenever Nizam had to go outside the Hyderabad, he used to carry the water of that tank, along with him. Such an excellent source of drinking water facility, however, was made to disappear; thanks to the ability, efficiency and foresight of our modern administrators. The existing status of the tank would be presented a bit later. The petitioner states that she got an extent of 1190 square yards of land in survey Nos.33 and 34, Block Nos.B and 13, Talab Bagh, Mirsagar Village, Hyderabad, under a compromise decree in O.S.No.18 of 1962 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and possession is said to have been delivered to her on 24.08.1989. It is stated that a compound wall and a small room was constructed upon the site, and that on 10.08.2009, the respondents have damaged the wall, to a substantial extent. The petitioner submits that she was able to prevent the further damage. She further submits that the respondents have no authority to proceed against her property and that the action of the respondents is illegal and high-handed. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit. The claim made by the petitioner over the land, is denied. According to them, the petitioner is trying to encroach the tank-bed area of Mera Alam Tank and that when she made an attempt to construct a wall, it was demolished. Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner acquired the property partly under the decree and partly through other methods. He contends that, in case the respondents felt that they have any claim vis-à-vis the land, they were under obligation to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, and there is absolutely no basis for them to demolish the wall high- handedly. Sri M.Surender Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, except making vague reference to certain Court’s proceedings, the petitioner has not stated, as to how she acquired the title in respect of a tank-bed land. He contends that the 1st respondent and other Government agencies have initiated steps for removing the encroachments. The petitioner has placed before this Court, a copy of the memorandum of compromise filed in I.A.No.1533 of 1985 in O.S.No.18 of 1962, and the copy of order said to have been passed on 29.03.1966. The compromise was recorded only to the extent of claim of some of the parties, without leading to any final decree. In a partition suit, what becomes executable is, only a final decree. Without there being a final decree, a panchanama was drawn by the Receiver- cum-Commissioner. It is not known as to on what basis the Commissioner has drawn such a panchanama, without there being any specific order from the Court. These, however, are different aspects. Assuming that the petitioner acquired right vis-à-vis the land, the fact remains that in every proceedings the land was described as Talab Bagh, Meer Alam Tank. Not only there are specific legislations, but also several precedents to the effect that, even where an individual is granted patta over the sub-mercible part of a public tank, it cannot be put to any other use, much less it can be filled, effecting the capacity of the tank, or quality of water. The counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is instructive and it presents the horrible state of affairs, that is existing vis-à-vis the Meer Alam Tank. It reads: “The Mir Alam tank is a historical tank which laws the source of drinking water supply to Hyderabad city till 1964. This tank had an original water spread area of about 400 acres and part of it has already been encroached by various slums which has come around the water body. This tank is now polluted with untreated sewage inflows, solid waste dumping, washing clothes, animal washing and vehicle washing etc. and at present the water is not even useful for animal consumption.” This is the status, which a famous drinking water source has acquired after independence. It is rather a matter of shame that the assistance of a foreign country, which is smaller than India in every respect, viz., Netherlands, is became necessary to make an attempt to restore the tank. In the words of the 1st respondent, “The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority has taken up the work of Development and Beautification of lakes under Green Hyderabad Environment Programmee with grants from the Government of Royal Netherlands.” It is not out of place to mention that hundreds of tanks, which were in and around the city of Hyderabad, either have disappeared or have become dumping yards, or were reduced to the size of an uncovered nala. It appears that more than its intention to protect the tank, the funds sanctioned by a foreign country, appear to have made the 1st respondent to evince some interest in that direction. Compared to a stage where it remained a mute spectator for such onslaught on the resources, its semblance of activity, irrespective of the force behind it; is commendable. The petitioner cannot claim any right to make construction over any part of tank-bed land. It is not even mentioned that she has obtained permission from any authority, to undertake such a construction. The Writ petition does not merit any consideration, and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-12-2009. L.R. copy to be marked. GJ