THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 11229 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioner, who claims to be a Social Worker and working for the development and welfare of poor sections of I. Pandiga and Dacherla villages in West Godavari, has filed this writ petition, praying for the grant of following relief: To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order of direction, declaring G.O. Ms. No. 73, Revenue (Assn.VI) Department dt. 25.01.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and consequently direct the respondents to desist themselves from issuing mining lease in favour of any private individuals and also direct the respondents to preserve Aralamma Tank situated in R.S. No.78 to an extent of Acs.5.84 cents situated in Dacherla village, I. Pandiga Gram Panchayat limits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner states that there is a tank in Dacherla village falling under I. Pandiga Gram Panchayat in an extent of Acs. 6.84 cents in Sy. No.78. That as on today, it has a waterspread area of more than Acs. 3.00. The tank is called Aralamma Tank because on its bund, there exists Aralamma Temple. The bottom of the tank and the surrounding area is covered with rock. The tank has been catering to the drinking water needs of Dacherla and I. Pandiga and other surrounding villages. The locals also raise fish in the tank and the Gram Panchayat auctions the fishing rights. He states that he came to know through a news item published in Eenadu dated 14.05.2008 that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 73, dated 25.01.2008 de-classifying the tank from that of a “water body” to “tank poramboke”, for the purpose of quarrying black granite, road metal and other allied metals. That on enquiries, he came to know that the Government issued the said G.O., based on the proposals sent by respondent No.3, namely the District Collector, West Godavari, for de- classification of the tank, based on the resolution passed by I. Pandiga Gram Panchayat, recommendations made by the Irrigation, Mines, Panchayat Raj and R & B Departments, The petitioner contends that the issuance of impugned G.O. by the Government, based on the proposals sent by the District Collector, West Godavari, for de-classification of the tank is illegal and arbitrary because tank is not a tank poramboke. Even today the tank is covered with water. It is catering to the drinking water needs of the villagers. The Gram Panchayat auctions the fishing rights in the tank. It is issued under political compulsions. The de-classification contravenes the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and is violative of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court, which casts a duty on the authorities to protect the tanks and water bodies for preserving the environment. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned counsel for impleaded respondent No.4. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition are, namely (1) Whether G.O. Ms. No. 73, dated 25.01.2008, issued by respondent No.1-Government is in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002? and; (2) Whether in view of issuance of the said G.O. by respondent No.1-Government, the environment would get damaged, in that there would be no recharge to the ground water, resulting in causing inconvenience to the neighbouring land owners? The petitioner claims to be a public spirited person having concern for the environment. Though the petitioner states that the tank in question is being used by the villagers for drinking water purposes, he did not place any material before the Court to come to a conclusion that the tank in question is being used by the villagers as water source for their drinking needs or percolation tank for recharging the ground water. It is an admitted fact that the tank in question is classified as “unassessed waste dry”. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, indicate that the tank in question is being no longer used as a water tank. The water which is in existence in the tank is the water pumped by the neighbouring quarry owners and not the water that that got collected by rain or any other perennial source. Respondent No.1-Government issued the impugned G.O., based on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, reports of the revenue authorities and taking into consideration other aspects. The fact that the counter filed by respondent No.3-District Collector discloses that the tank in question is registered as “tank poramboke” in the revenue records, denotes that the tank is no longer being used as a water tank because it has no water spread area. It is neither the case of the petitioner nor the respondents that any lands are being cultivated under the tank. This apart, it appears that the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, is also not getting income for the benefit of the villagers. In view of this, the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, taking into consideration various aspects, including the welfare of the villagers, passed resolution for facilitating the revenue authorities to convert the tank into question as “unassessed waste dry”. The material placed before the Court indicates that based on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovur, after due enquiry submitted proposals to the District Collector, West Godavari, stating that the tank in question is “unassessed waste dry”, and the same can be utilized for generating income to the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga. Based on these proposals, the District Collector, West Godavari and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, after obtaining proper reports from the Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board and the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, submitted proposals to respondent No.1-Government, to take appropriate decision for de- classification of the tank in question from “tank poramboke” to “unassessed waste dry”, so as to make effective use of the same. Thus, it is apparent that respondent No.1-Government, taking into consideration, the above materials, issued the impugned G.O., classifying the tank in question into “unassessed waste dry”. The counter filed by respondent No.3-District Collector also indicates that there is no water storage capacity in the tank. The water that is in existence in the tank is the water pumped by the nearby quarry owners, which is not potable or useful for any purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned G.O. issued by respondent No.1- Government violated the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Tree Act, 2002. Further, according to respondent No.3-District Collector, the value of the land is Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, while the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, is getting only Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum, towards grant of lease of fishing rights in the tank, and if the land is given for quarrying purposes, the Gram Panchayat, I. Pandiga, the revenue generated by way of seigionerage tx, can be shared in the ratio of 25:50:25 amongst the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad. The structures of the temple located on the tank in question would also not get disturbed due to quarrying. As no cultivable lands are located in the vicinity of the tank in question, the question of agricultural lands of the neighbourers getting damaged does not arise. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[1] and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[2] and of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu v. District Forest Officer[3], would not assist the petitioner in any manner, because the applicability of the ratio laid down in the said cases would arise only if the existing water bodies are sought to be converted for purposes other than for which they are meant. In the case on hand, as noticed above, the tank in question has been classified as “unassessed waste dry”. There is no water in the tank and no cultivation is being carried in the vicinity by drawing water from the tank. The above facts, as is evident from the record placed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue indicates that there are no bona fides on the part of the writ petition to come before the Court espousing the cause of villagers by way of public interest litigation. The petitioner except claiming that he is a public spirited person has not filed any material to show that he has been espousing the cause of general public. In the absence of any material placed by the petitioner to show that he has been espousing the cause of general public, I am unable to accept his contention that he has filed the present writ petition in public interest. Further, the petitioner did not question the consequential proceedings issued by the Government. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 29th July, 2011 KSR [1] (1997) 3 SCC 715 [2] (2006) 6 SCC 213 [3] 2002 (3) ALT 57 (DB)