IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25204 of 2005 Between: The Gram Panchayat, Illavara @ Nethivaripalem Village, Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District, Rep., by its Sarpanch. … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 5&6: Sri Prabhakar Bommana This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25204 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to allow the villagers to cultivate the Kunta Poramboke lands admeasuring Ac.27.06 cents and Ac.3.63 cents in Sy.No.305/1 known as “Voora Cheruvu” and “Butchanna Kunta” respectively in Illavaram Village, Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner is a Gram Panchayat of Illavaram Village of Prakasam District. In the affidavit filed by its then Sarpanch, it is averred that the Kunta Poramboke lands described above, which are vested under the Gram Panchayat, were encroached by some of the villagers, who ﬁled O.S.No.12 of 2002 on the ﬁle of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur and the petitioner Gram Panchayat ﬁled O.S.No.227 of 2002. It is further averred that under Government Memo No.50150/Aen-1(1)98-1 dated 02.09.1998 the Government prohibited conversion of tank and tank beds into ayan for alienation and in another circular dated 01.12.1998, the Commissioner categorically stated that no cultivation should be allowed in the tank bed lands under any circumstances. It is further averred that the said memos were further clariﬁed in Memo No.24140/ASN-1(1)/03-3 dated 22.08.2003 to the eﬀect that water sources including projects, reservoirs, tanks, kuntas, streams, ponds, lakes, rivers, canals etc., and vagu, vanka, river porambokes come under water bodies and attract the ban imposed by the Government. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is stated that the abovementioned lands were proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste of Ilavara (Nethivaripalem) Village, which is stated to be in their occupation for over 20 years, that no water is found over the area in question, that the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole vide his letter dated 03.11.2005 stated that there are no symptoms of Kunta on the ground and that necessary action may be taken for conversion of the Kunta into ayan. With reference to the statement of the petitioner regarding the proposals of conversion, it is stated that the conversion proposals were submitted to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer only for an extent of Ac.27.89 cents in Sy.No.305/1, but not for Sy.No.289 and that Sy.No.289 is a Kunta poramboke and no proposals were submitted for the said survey number. Heard Sri G. Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents and perused the record. There is no need to over emphasize the need for preserving water bodies. I n Intellectuals Forum, Thirupathi vs State of A.P. & others [1] with reference to the attempts on the part of the authorities to convert a tank into house sites the Supreme Court held as under: “The responsibility of the State to protect the environment is now a well-accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that in international law, gave rise to the principle of “state responsibility” for pollution emanating within one’s own territories [Corfu Channel Case. ICJ Reports (1949) 4]. This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm Convention), to which India was a party. The relevant clause of this Declaration in the present context is Paragraph 2 which stated: “The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, ﬂora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the beneﬁt of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.” Thus, there is no doubt about the fact that there is a responsibility bestowed upon the Government to protect and preserve the tanks, which are an important part of the environment of the area. Sustainable Development The respondents, however, have taken the plea that the actions taken by the Government were in pursuance of urgent needs of development. The debate between the developmental and economic needs and that of the environment is an enduring one, since if environment is destroyed for any purpose without a compelling developmental cause, it will most probably run foul of the executive and judicial safeguards. However, this court has often faced situations where the needs of environmental protection have been pitched against the demands of economic development. In response to this diﬃculty, policy makers and judicial bodies across the world have produced the concept of “sustainable development”. This concept, as deﬁned in the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report) deﬁnes it as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. Returning to the Stockholm Convention, a support of such a notion can be found in paragraph 13, which stated: “In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and improve environment for the beneﬁt of their population.” Subsequently the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, passed during the Earth Summit of 1992, to which also India is a party, adopts the notion of sustainable development. Principle 4 of the declaration states: “In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.” It is true that the tank is a communal property and the State authorities are trustees to hold and manage such properties for the beneﬁts of the community and they cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission which will infringe the right of the Community and alienate the property to any other person or body.” With the explosion of population and the urbanization, the water bodies are allowed to be decimated threatening the very existence of the human beings. The need of the hour is therefore to protect the water bodies in whichever form they are. In the considered view of this Court, protection and preservation of a water body is far more important than allowing a section of people either to use it for agricultural purpose or residential purpose. From the pleadings of the respondents, it is seen that so far, proposals for conversion of land in Sy.No.305/1 have not been approved and that they are pending and no proposals have been sent for conversion of Ac.3.63 cents in Sy.No.289. In view of the urgent need to preserve the water bodies, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the issue in detail. If there is any possibility of revival of the tank in Sy.No.305/1, which is admittedly classiﬁed as Kunta poramboke, he shall take necessary and appropriate steps to revive the tank. If respondent Nos.5 and 6 and others are found to be in occupation of the said land, he shall provide alternative lands to them in order to save the water body. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2008 ES [1] AIR 2006 SC 1350