Holding

The State, as trustee of public natural resources, must protect the tanks under the public‑trust doctrine and sustainable development, and therefore the impugned Government Orders cannot stand.

Summary

The Intellectuals Forum filed writ petitions challenging Government Orders that alienated the bed lands of the historic Peruru and Avilala tanks in Tirupati to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority and the A.P. Housing Board for housing projects. The High Court dismissed the petitions, prompting the appellants to seek special leave before the Supreme Court, which also directed a committee of experts to assess the feasibility of water‑harvesting and restoration of the tanks. The Court examined whether urban development could outweigh the State's constitutional duty to protect the environment, the applicability of Articles 14, 21 and the Directive Principles, and the relevance of the public‑trust doctrine and sustainable development. Relying on the expert committee’s findings that the tanks could not be fully revived but could be conserved through percolation tanks, rain‑water harvesting and groundwater recharge, the Court held that the State, as trustee of public natural resources, must prioritize environmental protection over mere housing needs. It further observed that the right to shelter, while important, did not justify the destruction of the tanks, and that prior investments could not dictate the outcome. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and issued detailed directions for the preservation and partial restoration of both tanks. The appeal was disposed of with these directions and no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether urban development can be given primacy over the need to protect the environment and fresh water resources.
Whether the Government Orders alienating tank bed lands violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Whether the principle of sustainable development can be ignored in favor of urban development.
Whether competing public interests exist and, if so, how they should be reconciled.
The applicability of the public‑trust doctrine to the tanks and the State’s duties as trustee.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.21, s. Art.48A, s. Art.51A

Subjects

environmental lawpublic trust doctrinesustainable developmentwater resourcestank preservationright to shelterinter‑generational equityurban developmentgroundwater recharge

Judgment

INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI A
- -'y v.
'
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 23, 2006

[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B

., Environmental Protection:
-i
Sustainable Development-Public Trust Doctrine-Public Tanks-Pre-
historic tanks-Preservation and restoration of-Government Orders directed c
handing over of the tank bed areas of Peruru and Avila/a tanks to Tirupathi
Urban Development Authority (TUDA)-Writ petitions challenging said
Government Orders dismissed-Main grievances of the petitioners were
systematic destruction ofpercolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks and
alienation of tank bed lands for housing purposes-Committee of experts
submitted a report on the question whether the two tanks, namely, the Peruru
D
and Avila/a or either of them could be utilized for water harvesting-
~ Environment and need for housing-Competing claims of-Aqjudicating/ ·
, ?
reconciling of-Held: The responsibility of the State to protect the environment
is now a we/I-accepted notion-Intention for development would not be enough
to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources-However, shelter is E
one of the basic human needs just next to food and clothing-Tank is a
communityproperty and the State authorities are trustees to hold and manage
such-properties for the benefits of the community--Base.d on the findings of
the Committee of experts directions in respect of Peruru and Avila/a tanks
issued.
F
-I Doctrines:
I

Doctrine of Public Trust-Explained.

The appellants filed two writ petitions before the High Court
challenging the Government Orders passed by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh by which the District Collector was directed to hand over the tank
G
bed areas of Avilala and Peruru tanks to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam
l (TTD) and to A.P. Housing Board.
i
I
The main grievances of the appellants were systematic destruction
419 H
i
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in Tirupathi Town,
namely, Avilala and Peruru Tank a11d alienation of the Avilala Tank bed
land to Tirupathi Urban Development Authority (TUDA) and A.P.
Housing Board and Peruru Tank bed land to TTD for housing purposes.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence the appeal.

B The Government of India was directed by this Court to constitute a
committee of experts for the purpose uif submitting a report on the question
whether the two tanks, namely, the Peruru and Avilala or either of them
could be utilized for water harvesting. Pursuant to this the Committee
submitted its report.
c The following questions arose before this Court :-

(I) Whether the Urban Development could be given primacy over
and above the need to protect the environment and valuable fresh water
resources?
D (2) Whether the action of the A.P. State in issuing the impugned
Government Orders could be permitt1:d in derogation of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India as also the Directive Principles of State
Policy and fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution of India? .
'

(3) Whether the need for sustainable development can be ignored,
E
done away with and cause harm to the environment in the name of urban
development?

(4) Whether there are any competing public interests and if so how
the conflict is to be adjudicated/reconciled?
F
Disposing of the appeal, the Cout1

HELD: I. I. The responsibility of the State to protect the environment
is now a well-accepted notion in all wuntries. It is this notion that,
international law, gave rise to the principle of "state responsibility" for
G pollution emanating within one's own territories. (448-F)

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997) 1 SCC 388, referred to.

Corfu Channel Case, !CJ Reporrs (1949) 4 and United Nations ~
Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm
H Convention), referred to.
r
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI 1·.STA TE OF A.P. 421
1.2. Thus, there is no doubt about the fact that there is a A
·"1
I responsibility bestowed upon 'the Government to protect and preserve the
tanks, which are an important part of the environment of the area.
(448-H; 449-AI

2. The debate.. between the developmental and economic needs and
that of the environment is an enduring one, since if environment is B
destroyed for any purpose without a compelling developmental cause, it
.., will most probably run foul of the executive and judicial safeguards.
--1 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
c
development". (449-B-C]

Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996( 5 SCC 281, MC. Mehta
v. Union ofIndia (Taj Trapezium Case), (199712 SCC 653, State ofHimachal
Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (199513 SCC 363 and Narmada Bachao D
Ando/an v. Union of India, (2002] 10 SCC 664, relied on.
-~
/-; Essar Oil v. Ha/ar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004] 2 SCC 392, referred to.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987
(Brundtland Report), Rio Declaration of Environment and Development, E
1992 and Union Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
. Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm convention), referred to.

- 3. Merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough
to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. The principle of
sustainable development should be followed and a balance be found F
between the developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the
environmental degradation, that the appellants allege. [450-F]

4. The Doctrine of Public Trust says that natural resources, which
include lakes, are held by the State as a "trustee" of the public, and can
be disposed of only in a manni,r that is consistent with the nature of such G
.;.
a trust. Though this doctrine existed in Roman and English Law, it related
to specific types of resources. The US Courts have expanded and given
-t' the doctrine its contemporary shape whereby it encompasses the entire
spectrum of the environment. [451-C-D]
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997( I sec 388 and M./. Builders v.
Radhely Shyam Sahu, (1999( 6 SCC 464, relied on. •'

lllionois Central Railroad Company v. People of the State of Jllinois,
146 US 537 (1892), referred to.

B 5.1. The judgment in National Audubon Society's case is an
articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the
State with regard to public trust. Formulated From a nugatory angle, the
doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a 'f'
public trust. However, when the St~1te holds a resource that is l'reely ....
C available of the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial
scrutiny upon any action of the Government, no matter consistent with
the existing legislations that attempt to restrict such free use. To properly
scrutinize such actions of the Government, the Courts must make a
distinction between the Government':1 general obligation to act for the
public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may
D have as a trustee of certain public res•ources. (451-F, H; 452-A-C)

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court uf Alpine Country 33 Cal
419, referred to.

5.2. The following three types of restrictions on Governmental
. '

E authority are often thought to be imposed by the public Trust Doctrine:-

(a) the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a
public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;

(b) the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent. •
F
(c) the property must be maintained for particular types of use, (i)
either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form or
resources. (452-C-El

Joseph L. Sax: ''The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law:
G
Effective Judicial Intervention'', Mi~hingan Law Review, Vol. 68 No. 3
(Jan. 1970) pp. 471-566, referred to.

5.3. In the instant case, the Government Orders, as they stand now, "
are violative of principles I and 3, even if this Court overlooks principle 2
H on the basis of the fact that the Government is itself developing it rather
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF A.P. 423
than transferring it to a third party for value. [452-E-F] A
'7
5.4. Therefore, the principle of sustainable development should be
followed while trying to rectify these defects. [452-F-G)

6.1. Article 48-A and 51-A are not only fundamental in the
governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of the State to apply
these principles in making laws and further these two articles are to be
B
kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental
"'f right guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
-~ the Constitution of India and also the various laws enacted by the
Parliament and the State Legislature. (453-F-G)

A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof M V. Nayudu, [1999] 2 sec 718,
c
referred to.

6.2. On the other hand, this Court cannot also shut its eyes that
shelter is one of the basic needs just next to food and clothing. Need for a
National Housing and Habitat Policy emerges from the growing
requirements of shelter and related infrastructure. These requirements are
D
growing in the context of rapid pace of urbanization, increasing migration
.. ..,
' . from rural to urban centres in search of livelihood, mismatch between
deemed and supply of sites and services at affordable cost and inability
of most new and poorer urban settlers to access formal land markets in
urban areas due to high costs and their own lower incomes, leading to a E
non-sustainable situation. This policy intends to promote sustainable
development of habitat in the country, with a view to ensuring equitable
supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices.
(453-H; 454-A-B)

7.1. The World has reached a level of growth in the 21st Century as F
-1 never before envisaged. While the crisis of economic growth is still on, the
key question which often arises and the Courts are asked tot adjudicate
upon is whether economic growth can supersede the concern for
environmental protection and whether sustainable development which can
be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and conserving
G
the natural resources for the benefit of the humanity and future
generations could be ignored in the grab of economic growth or compelling
l human necessity. The growth and development process are terms without
y
any content, without an inkling as to the s_ubstance of their end results.
'
This inevitably leaves one to the conception of growth and development
which sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure 'our H
t
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A common future'. It! pursuit of devr.lopment, focus has to be on
sustainability of development and p0Uc1ies towards that end have to be
earnestly formulated and sincerely observed. [454-C-E]

7.2. It is now an accepted social principle that all human beings have
a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their
B well being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources
are conserved and preserved in such a way that present as well as the
future generations are aware of them equally. [454-E-F]

8.1. The Parliament has considerably responded to the call of the
C Nations for conservation of environmt:nt and natural resources and
enacted suitable laws. (454-F-G)

8.2. The Judicial Wing of the country, more particularly, this Court
has laid down a plethora of decistons asserting the need for environmental
protection and conservation of natural resources. The environmental
D protection and conservation of natural rt:sources has been given a status
of a fundamental right and brought undt:r Art. 21 of the Constitution of
India. This apart, the Directive Principles of State Policy - also the
fundamental duties enshrined in Part IV arid Part IV A of the Constitution
of India respectively also stresses the need to protect and improve the
. '

natural environment including the forests., lakes, rivers and wild-life and
E to have compassion for living creatures. 1454-G-H; 455-AJ

Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group v. Bombay Suburban
Electricity Supply Co. Ltd, [1991) 2 SCC 539, referred to.

9.1. The set of facts in the present ca.se relates to the preservation of
F and restoration of status quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being
in existence since the time of Srikrishnadcvaraya, The Great, 1500 A.O.,
where the cry of socially spirited citizens calling for judicial remedy was
not considered in the right perspective by the High Court despite there
being overwhelming evidence of the tanks being in existence and were
G being put to use not only for irrigation p111rpose but also as lakes which
were furthering percolation to improve the ground water table, thus
serving the needs of the people in and around these tanks. The High Court,
in the impugned order, has given precedence to the economic growth by
completely ignoring the importance and primacy attached to the protection
of environment and protection of valuable and most cherished fresh water
H resources. (455-F-H; 456-AJ
INTELLECTUAL:S FORUM, TIRUPATHI >.STATE OF A.P. 425

..
_ ,,. 9.2. No doubt, the wishful thinking and the desire ofthe appellant-
forum, that the Tanks should be there, and the old glory of the tanks
A

should be continued~ is laudable. But the ground realities are otherwise.
Nowadays because of the poverty and lack of employment avenues,
migration of people from rural areas to urban areas is a common
phenomenon. Because of the limited infrastructure of the towns, the towns B
are becoming slums. The submissions made by the appellant in regard to
the complete restoration and revival of two tanks cannot be countenanced
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. At the same time, the
Government cannot be prevented from proceeding with the proper
development of Tirupathi town. The two Government Orders which are
impugned have been issued long before and pursuant to the issuance of C
the Government Orders, several other developments have taken place.
Constructions and improvements have been made in a vast measure.
Because of spending crores and.crores of rupees by various authorities,
the only option now left to Committee is implemented in its letter and spirit
·and all the respondents shall cooperate in giving effect to the Committee's
report. (456-B-El D
9.3. 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 E
property to any other person or body. (456-FI

10.1 The Respondents have claimed that the valuable right to shelter
will be violated if the impugned Government Orders are revoked. On the
facts of the present case, it seems that the respondents intend to build.
residential blocks of flat for High and Middle income families, institutions F
as well as infrastructure for the TTDS. If the proposed constructions are
not carried on, it seems unlikely that anyone will be left homeless or·
without their basic need for shelter. Therefore, one feels that the right to
shelter does not seem to be so pressing under the present circumstances
so as to outweigh all environmental considerations. (456-G-H; 457-A)
G
10.2. Another plea repeatedly taken by the respondents correspond
to the money already spent on developing the land. However, the decision
of this case cannot be based solely upon the investments committed by any
party. Since, otherwise, it would seem that one any party makes certain
investment in a project it would be afait accompli and this Court will not H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A have any option but to deem it legal. (457-8(
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1996( 2 SCC 577, relied on.

Gayatri Singh, Kerban Ankleswaria and Colins Gonsalves: "The
Environmental Activities Hand Book·', referred to.
B
10.3. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the Court should
do the most it can to safeguard the two tanks in question. However, due
to the persistent developmental activitil:s over a long time, much of the
natural resources of the lakes have been lost, and considered irreparable.
This, though regrettable, is beyond the power of this court to rectify.
c (457-C(

11. One particular feature of this (:ase was the competing nature of
claims by both the parties on the present state of the two tanks and the
feasibility of their revival. It would be best, therefore, if reliance is placed
on the findings of the expert committee, appointed by this Court which
D has considered for factual situation an<il the feasibility of revival of the
two tanks. (457-D-El

12. The following directions are pa:ssed:- .'
With regard to Peruru tank :
E
(i) No further constructions to be made.

(ii) The supply channel of Bodeddula Vanka needs to be cleared and
revitalized. A small check dam at Mala(lali to be removed to ensure the
F free flow and supply to the tank.

(iii) Percolation tank to be constructed and artificial recharge to be
done to ensure the revival of the tank, keeping in mind its advantage at
being situated at the foot hills.

(h') The area allotted by Mandal R<:venue Office for construction of
G the tank to be increased to a minimum of SO acres. Percolation tank with
sufficient number of recharge shafts to be developed to recharge the
unsaturated horizons up to 20 m. The design of the shafts etc. to be \
prepared in consultation with the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB). .(

The proposed percolation tank to be suitably located along the bound
H keeping in view the inlets, irrigation sluices and surplus water.
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF AP 427

(v) Feasibility and cost estimation for the revival of the old feeder A
•'-r· channel for Swarnamukhi River should be carried out and a report to be
submitted to the Court.

(vi) Each house already constructed by the TTD must provide for
roof top rain water harvesting. Abstraction from ground water to be
completely banned. No borewell/tubewell for any purpose to be allowed B
in the area.

"'I' (vii) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation
--f with the CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area
on ground water regime.
c
With regard to Avilala tank :

(i) No further construction to be allowed in the area.

(ii) Each house already constructed by the APHB/TUDA must
provide structure for roof top rain water harvesting. All the storm water D
in the already built colonies to be recharged to ground water. Structures
-~
for such purposes to be designed in consultation with The CGWB.
/ I
(iii) No borewell/tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.

(iv) An area of 40 acres presently reserved for the Government E
should not be developed in any way that may lead to concretization of
the ground surface Recharge structures to be constructed for rainwater
harvesting.

(v) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with F
the CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on
-....\ ground water regime. (457-F-H; 458-A-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1251 of2006.

From the Final Common Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2000 of Andhra G
Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 7955 and 8650 of 1994.

G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. W. Khan, K.P. Kylashanatha Pillai, S.
Byrapaneni for the Appellant.

V.R. Reddy, P.P. Rao, Jai<leep Gupta, Anoop G. Chaudhary, Ms. I. H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (:1006] 2 S.C.R.

A Madhavi, B. Sridhar, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagair, K. Ram Kumar, Suman Jyoti ~ ,.
Khaitan, P.S. Sudhir, Ms. A. Mathew, Ms. D. Vijan, N.K. Verma, D. Rama
Krishna Reddy, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ch. L. Sarveswar, Mrs: Sudha
Gupta, V. Sridhar Reddy, R. Nedumaran, P.S. Narasimha, A.K. Lala, (for
P.S.N. & Co.), Ms. June Chaudhary, Manoj Saxena, A. Meharia, S. Muralidhar,
S. Potaraju, N. Rohit and John Mathew for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.,,
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. ~

The present matter raises two kinds of questions. Firstly, at a
c jurisprudential level, it falls on this court to lay down the law regarding the
use of public lands or natural resources, which have a direct link to the
environment of a p!)rticular area, by the Government. Secondly, this court
should decide, on the facts of the present. case, the order to be passed with
respect to two tanks in the Tirupathi area Peruru, and Avilala.
D The above two appeals were filed by a registered society called, the
Intellectuals Forum, against the respondents herein. The contesting parties
are the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary, Tirupathi
Urban Development Authority represented by its Vice-Chairman and the
.'" '

A.P. Housing Board represented by its Vice-Chairman and Housing
E Commissioner.

The present case relates to the preservation of and restoration of status
quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in existence since the time
of Srikrishnadevaraya, 1500 A.D.

F The tanks are called 'Avilala Tank' and 'Peruru Tank· which are situated
in suburbs of Tirupathi Town which is a world renowned popular pilgrim
centre having every day in-flow of tourists between one lakh to two lakhs.

GRIEVANCE:

G Systematic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks
in Tirupathi Town, namely, Avilala and Peruru Tank and alienation of the
Avilala Tank bed land to Tirupathi Urban Development Authority {In short,
TUDA) and A.P. Housing Board under G.O. Ms. No. 84 Rev. dated 28.1.1994
and Peruru Tank bed land to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (In short,
TTD) for housing purposes under G.O. Ms. No. 181 Rev. dated 15.3.1991,
H
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPA THI v.STATE OF A.P. {LAKSHMANAN. J] 429
which are impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 8650 of 1994 and 7955 of 1994 A
~r
respectively.
,
According to the appellant, the cry of socially spirited citizens calling
for judicial remedy was not considered in the right perspective by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh despite there being over-whelming
evidence of the tanks being in existence and were being put to use not only B
for irrigation purpose but also as lakes which were furthering percolation to
improve the ground water table, thus serving the needs of the people in and
around these tanks. It was submitted that the High Court has given precedence
~ to the economic growth by completely ignoring the importance and primacy
attached to the protection of environment and protection of valuable and
most cherished fresh water resources. The Government without considering
c
the well planned development of Tirupathi town alienated the Tank bed lands
in favour of some governmental agencies for valuable consideration. It was
further submitted that since Tirupathi is in the draught prone region called
Rayala Seema, there is always shortage of water and the District machinery
is constantly put on alert for devising schemes for the purpose of improving D
the existing water resources. An Engineering Team which is assigned such
a task had visited in and around the foot-hills of Tirupathi and Tirumala for
~ the purpose of identifying sources of fresh water and suggestions to be given
f ' for their improvement. Apart from suggestions, the team of Engineers, in the
minutes of the meeting held on 26.5, 1990, suggested that improvement of
E
feeder channels (Vagus) for Peruru tank and Avilala tank would improve the
percolation of all the surrounding areas and that there is enough potential for
the tanks to get enough water if the feeder channels are improved. It was also
submitted by representation that the Commissioner of Land Revenue to retain
Peruru tank and Avilala tank, since retention of water in the said tanks would
improve the water table which is already very low in the surrounding wells F
and also to the east of the tanks before of gradients. In the meantime, the
Government passed G.O.Ms, No, 181 Revenue dated 15.3.1991 alienating an
extent of 150 acres of land which belongs to the tank bed area of Peruru tank
to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (In short, TTD). The members of the
appellant's forum as also the various other socially spirited citizens have
written letters to various authorities of the Government requesting the said
G
authorities including the Chief Minister not to alienate the tank bed areas of
both the tanks for housing or for any other activity except for the purpose for
i which it is meant. However, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 84-
~ Revenue dated 28.1.1994 authorizing the District Collector, Chittoor to alienate
90 acres of land belonging to Avilala tank bed area to A.P. Housing Board. H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006 I 2 S. C.R.

A This Government order further directed that the TUDA should provide a
Master plan for the entire area of 170 acres so as to ensure integrated .. '·
development of Avilala tank area.

Since, there was no response to the representations made, the appellant
filed two writ petitions in the High Court challenging the Government Orders
B passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by which the District Collector,
Chittoor was directed to hand over the tank bed areas of Avilala tank and
Peruru tank to TTD and to A.P. Housing Board.

Writ Petition No. 7955 of 1994 was filed assailing G.0. Ms. No. 181
C dated 15.3.1991, in respect of alienation of Peruru tank bed land to TTD and
Writ Petition No. 8650 of 1994 was filed assailing G.O. Ms. No. 84 dated
28.1.1994 alienating Avilala tank bed area land to A.P. Housing Board. The
respondents filed their counter affidavits opposing the writ petitions. The
Indian Medical Association also made a similar plea that the Government
should immediately withdraw its G.Os. alienating Avilala tank and Peruru
D tank and restore them urgently as percolation tanks, to improve the ground
water table. This prayer was made by th(: Indian Medical Association due to
alarming increase of the toxic contents like Fluorides and other salts in the
underground water due to steep fall in the underground water table level. A
feasibility report on Peruru tank was prepared by Sri Venkateswara University
' .
College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Tirupathi. Several
E other individuals filed affidavits supporting the cause of the appellant.
A counter affidavit was filed by the Government, Revenue Department,
in Writ Petition No. 8650 of 1994 whereby the said respondent justified the
issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 84-Revenue Dept. dated 28.1.1994 stating that the
F same was in public interest. A counter affidavit was also filed by respondent
No.3, the Law Officer of the Housing Board stating that the Housing Board
has invested Rs.88.43 lakhs towards dev,elopment of land and thus the Board
has invested in all a sum of Rs. 1, 78,43,000/- and prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition. An additional counter affidavit was also filed by respondent
No.3 stating that the area is fully developed. Likewise, Shri P. Krishnaiah,
G the Executive Officer of the TTD filed affidavit stating that a number of
dwelling have come up in the entire area and the prayer in the writ petition
could not be granted and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

By the impugned and common judgment dated 28.9.2000, the Division
Bench of the High Court finding no illegality or irregularity in the action of
H
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPA THI v.STATE OF A P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 431

the respondents dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the dismissal A
of the writ petitions, the appellant has filed these appeals by way of special
leave petitions.

We heard Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-Forum, Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for
the TIO, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. D. B
Ramakrishna Reddy, Mr. P. S. Narasimha, learned counsel and Mr. Anoop
G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the respective parties.

Elaborate arguments were advanced by the respective counsel appearing
for the parties to this action. We have been taken through the entire pleadings, C
documents and annexures filed along with the appeals and also the report
submitted by the Expert Committee and the objections filed by the parties to
the said report.

Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
made the following submissions: D
I. The High Court has failed to appreciate that in the light of over-
--\ whelming evidence with regard to the Tank beds being put in
f • use for irrigation, drinking purpose, and being used as'percolation
tank_s to improve the groundwater table and quality of
underground water in the neighbouring areas and many villages E
including Tirupathi town, the High Court committed error in
holding that the water tanks in issue are now non-existent.
2. The High Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion
that the urban development could be given primacy over and
above the need to protect the environment and valuable fresh F
water resources.
-l,
3. The High Court is not correct in holding that if the Government
is not permitted to use the lands ·in question properly it will
ultimately go into 'the hands of land grabbers and anti-social
elements and they will be converted into slums and that such G
lands will be used as dumping grounds.

4. The High Court has failed to notice the fact that the need for
1 sustainable development cannot be ignored, could not do away
with and could not cause harm to the environment in the name
of urban development and that certain acts of omissions and H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A commissions on the part of the respond~nts in not taking proper
measures for the preservation of the Peruru tank, the flow of
water into the tank is reduced every year as most of its feeder
channels are either spoiled or closed by unauthorised encroachers.
5. The respondents have failed to take necessary measures to remove
B the encroachments and repair the feeder channels and as a result,
the natural flow of water into the tank during the rainy season is
reduced. On account of :·eduction in the water catchment area
due to encroachments, tht: quantity of water collected in the tank
is getting drastically depleted year by year and that the water
' .
table in the neighbouring area of the tank including a colony is
c going down and even the ground water available is becoming
more and more saline with high fluoride content every year and
becoming unfit for drinking purposes.
6. It was submitted that th•! respondents are under constitutional
obligation to protect the environment. The tanks in question is a
D public property in which each and every ayacutdar has got a
property right and this right cannot be taken away by the
Government to their detriment and that the communal property
cannot be diverted for the purpose of construction of houses to
section of people.
' .
E
Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for TTD submitted
that TTD gave its own land to Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam and
in lieu of the land so given by it, the State Government under G.O. Ms. No.
18 l-Revenue dated 15.3.1991 has given Ac.150 m Perur tank to TTD. TTD
took possession of the said land on 19.3.1993. In 1984 itself, the tank bed
F became barren and there is no water supply to the tank. The agricultural
lands which were dependent on the tank water which was used only for
agricultural purposes, therefore, became housing colonies. There is no source
of water now to the tank and it is not possible to store water in the tank.
Tirupathi is a growing town whose population is going up constantly
G demanding more and more house sit•!S and housing accommodation for the
growing town population. The pilgrim inflow is also steadily growing requiring
more facilities. An agricultural tank which has become dry by 1984 itself and
which is no longer capable of being used for agricultural irrigation purposes
as it gets no water any more being surrounded by the expanding town, roads
and built up areas cannot anymore be maintained as a tank in its original
H form. There are other tanks and dams and water supply schemes being
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 433
undertaken in Tirupathi having regard to their feasibility. The High Court has A
considered these aspects also, he submitted.

TTD is one of the well known Devasthanams in the country which is
undertaking projects of general public welfare consistent with its policy. It is
doing everything possible in Tirupathi and in Tirumala where the World
famous Sri Venkateswara Swami Temple is situated, to preserve and improve B
the natural environment. The tank in question Le. Peruru tank cannot be
maintained as a tank in the present situation and it has ceased to be a tank
long ago except in name. It has been obtained by it in lieu of its own land
it has given for a public purpose of a women's university and requires it for
its own optimum use. The objection sought to be taken by the appellant as C
a public interest objection is without any merit or substance as far as Peruru
tank is concerned on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for A.P. Housing Board,
submftted that S.No. 18/1 of Avilala village is on the outskirts of Tirupathi
town measuring about 187 acres was classified as Avilala tank Poramboke. D
The said tank was abandoned as far back as in the year 1992. The Tank area
was bulldozed and the entire land was levelled. The cultivation particulars of
f • the Ayacut in this tank reveals that no' lands were being irrigated from the
water derived from this tank right from the year 1395 F i.e. the year 1984
A.O. The feeder source for Avilala tank namely (i) Ramayapalli Kasarkaluwa
(ii) Kasarkaluwa of Vedantpuram Agraharam and (iii) drainage water of E
Timlagunta wet fields (iv) Nadinvaka-all these sources got defaced and
there has been no scope for accumulation of water in the tank. It was also
observed that even after sinking that well to a depth of about 60 feet, the land
was not receiving any water from any ground resources after construction of
Kalyani Reservoir. Therefore, proposal for abandonment of tank was submitted F
by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi to the District Collector in the
years 1988 and 1992. Thereafter, public notices were issued inviting objections
but no objections were filed by anyone. Thereafter a technical opinion was
given by the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department in favour of the
alienation of the said land to an extent of 98 acres. Even the Gram Panchayat
had passed resolution on 14.8.1988 proposing to alienate 98 acres in S.No. G
18/3 carved out S.No. 18/1 of Avilala Village in favour of A.P. Housing
Board. The Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 691 dated
i
'i 18. 7 .1989 alienating 98 acres of land for the purpose of constructions of
house under the rental housing scheme for the Government employees. the
said land has been levelled in the year 1992 after taking possession. The H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A Housing Board has undertaken infrastructural facilities by laying of B.T.
Roads, electrical lines, digging bore wells apart from levelling and plotting •
the land and a sub-station 33 K.V. capacity has been established by the A.P.
Electricity Board.

It was submitted that the A.P. Housing Board paid Rs. 90 lakhs towards
B the cost of the land @ Rs. I lakh for each acre to the Government and also
spent a sum of Rs. 88.43 lakhs towards development of the land so far. Thus,
in all A.P. Housing Board has invested a sum of Rs.1,78.43,000/- and the
further .development was stopped in view of the pendency of the writ petition.
..
The A.P. Dairy Development Corporation has established Balaji Dairy
C in a portion of the land under reference by spending over Rs.8 crores. All
these amounts were spent by the Government from its own expenditure from
out of public funds. Apart from the above, the Land Acquisition proceedings
were initiated for laying of approach road and compensation thereafter has
been paid by the Revenue Department.
D
Mr. P.S. Narasimha further submitted that the laudable objective of
maintenance of ecology, environment and preservation of water resources are
subject to the vagaries of nature and in the realm of technical matter, there
cannot be judicially manageable standard for granting any relief.

E Arguing further, he submitted that there are many factors and reasons
attributing to depletion of ground water taole due to the expanding urbanization
and increasing the non-agricultural activities. All such activities have not the
sanction of the law supported by legislative mandate under the A.P. Urban
Areas Development Act. The administration has been entrusted with the
responsibility of ensuring equitable urban growth by balancing ecological
F and environmental interest and in the instant case, the administration has
taken all the proceedings and attending precautions to act in larger public
interest in general for which the appellant cannot have any grievance.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for TUDA filed
G a detailed reply to the appeal. He invited our attention to the elaborate and
detailed reply affidavit filed by them. It is seen from the affidavit that the
proposals for abandonment of the erstwhile tank were submitted by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi with reference to the Collector's letter.
No. B-117089/88 dated 17.9.1988. A notice for public response to the said
proposal was published in the village bui no objections were received. As the
H land was in the past classified as a tank poramboke, technical opinion had
INTELLECTUALS FORUM. TIRUPATHI r.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 435
already been obtained and the Irrigation Department opined that there was no A
objection for alienation of the said land. As per the report of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Tirupathi submitted in his letter No. Roe. No. G/2016/88,
.... dated 6.9.1988 that the Avilala Gram Panchayat in its resolution dated
14.8.1988 had resolved to alienate an extent of 90.00 acres in Sy. No. 18/3
(carved out from 18/1) of Avilala village in favour of A.P. Housing Board. B

In the above circumstances, the Government have alienated 90 acres of
• l land in Sy. No. 18/3 carved out from Sy. No. 18/1 in favour of A.P. Housing
A· Board for construction of houses under rental housing scheme for Government
employees vide G.O. Ms. No. 691 dated 10.7. 1989 of the Revenue (Assn.
IV) Department. The District Collector, Chittoor in his letter No. BI /15246/ C
90 dated 14.7.1992 addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue
Department has informed that the Ayacutdars have also given their consent
for abandonment of the erstwhile tank and to treat the Ayacut as dry land
since' the tank does not have any water source.

After the Government have alienated an extent of 90 acres of land to D
A.P. Housing Board and 1.12 acres to A.P.S.E.B. and 5 acres towards
- ...., compensation for private lands acquired for approach road, there remains a
• • balance of 96 acres of land. Accordingly the Revenue Divisional Offic~r,
Tirupathi in his letter G/5234/92 dated 16.9.1992 addressed the District
Collector that the balance land available can be better utilized by handing it
over to various agencies for developmental purposes, because of its proximity E
to Tirupathi town and adjoining residential colonies like Vaikuntapuram,
Bairagipatteda etc. There has been a substantial growth in population of
Tirupathi town coupled with physical expansion of the town and consequent
conversion of agricultural lands into pucca residential area and layouts. The
population of Tirupathi is growing day by day and to cater to the growing F
demand for housing this authority had requested the Government for alienation
of 90 acres of land for sites and services programmes. Accordingly, the
Government in G.O. Ms. No. 84-Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, dated
28.1.1994 alienated 90 acres of land in Sy. No. 17/1 of Avilala in favour of
this authority. Based on t!J.e Government Orders and proceedings of the District
Collector, Chittoor in D.O. Toe. No. B/1/15246/92 dated 3.3.1994, the Manda! G
Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Manda! has handed over the possession of
I 65.19 acres of land on 18.4.1994 to this authority.
'i
Mr. Gupta further submitted that the Urban Development Authorities
. are bound to regulate the massive urban growth and migration of people with H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A appropriate development plans to prevent formation of slums and consequent
urban decay. Accordingly, the TUDA has taken up development of new
Satellite townships around Tirupathi to relieve congestion of the existing

B
township and one such satellite town is Rajiv Nagar being developed in the
land many years back was under the then .~xisting Avilala tank in Sy. No. 18/
I.
-
As it is evident from the joint inspection of the Joint Collector, Chittoor,
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Chittoor, etc. on dated 4.4.1992, there
has been no source of the supply channel for maintenance of the Avilala tank
..
and it has not been practicable either to restore it as irrigation tank or even
C as a percolation tank any longer. However, as a part of the development of
a satellite township, it is proposed to provide lung spaces, water harvesting
structures in an extent of 18 acres of land benefiting the people in Sy. No.
18/1 of Avilala village and Rajiv Nagar area by TUDA and A.P. Housing
Board.

D After obtaining approval from the Stat<! Government, TUDA announced
the scheme to the public on 18.3.2001, 26.3.2001 and 30.3.2001 by giving
wide publicity in the newspaper and inviting applications for .participating in
the auction. The plots were allotted to the public in a public auction as per
the orders of the Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 84 Revenue (Assn.IV)
..
Deptt. Dated 28.1.1994. The auction was conducted on 13th, 14th and 15th
E April, 2001 and plots were allotted to the suc:cessful bidders immediately i.e.
before the issue of status quo order of this Court. TUDA has already taken
up plans of action to provide in the new township partly with the amounts
received from open auction:

F It is also seen from the reply affidavit filed by TUDA that a
comprehensive scheme name "HARITA" has been jointly promoted by Forest
Department, TTD and TUDA at a cost of Rs.24.83 crores to be implemented
in five years from 2000 to 2005.

The scheme had already commenced and massive plantation programme
G was taken up by planting 16 lakhs trees during the year 2000-200 I apart
from other schemes that have been envisaged in the plan.

The National Remote Sensing Agency, Department of Space,
Government of India in their report titled "Land use Land cover monitoring f

in TUDA area with special reference to Avilala tank and environs Tirupathi,
H Andhra Pradesh" has conducted detailed study with the help of satellite
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUl'A Hll v.STATE OF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 437

,,....., imageries on Avi la la tank over a period of time. In its report, it is stated that A
the tank in earlier days i.e. earlier to 1970 was drained mostly by natural

-
springs located in the head of the region of the catchment. Over a period of
time, the spring got dried up due to various geological factors with no source
of surface flow. Also the small streams which were draining to the tank were
disturbed and occupied, with the result the tank remained dry with part of it
covered with scrub since 1976 onwards.
B

~ , It is also stated in the report that as per the satellite image of February,
~ 2001 there are about 232 tanks identified in TUDA area. Most of the tanks
are located along the foot hills of Tirumala hills and plains of Swarnamukhi
river. Kalyani reservoir is the major one in the area. Considering the location
as well as distribution about 20 tanks are identified for conservation and
c
future development to meet the urban water requirement. However, other
existing tanks may also be fenced and preserved to meet the future requirement.

The. TUDA along with the support of other Government Departments
have been making conscious efforts for conserving and preserving potential D
tanks in TUDA region as per the recommendations of National Remote Sensing
--i, Agency and other experts- in the field. In this direction, the TUDA has already
f • initiated action in developing Tiruchanoor tank in Sy. No. 253 ofTiruchanoor
at a cost of Rs.30 lakhs under Phase I Scheme which includes desilting,
strengthening of bunds, landscaping of bunds and tree plantation. However,
there is no possibility at all of restoring the abandoned Avilala tank as per E
the scientific data available with TUDA which can be at best developed as
a satellite township with all facilities thus contributing to the planned urban
growth of Tirupathi and decongesting the main township.

Mr. An.oop G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State of Andhra Pradesh drew our attention to the detailed counter affidavit
F
filed by the State of A.P. through its Joint Secretary to the Government
Revenue Department wherein the Government has e.xplained to this Court as
to how the impugned G.O.'s alienating the lands in favour of TTD, TUDA
and Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for public purposes were issued.
According to Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, there is nothing illegal in issuing in G
G.Os. It is not violating anybody's fundamental rights. An extent of 180
acres of land was tank bed land of Avila la tank. This tank was an abandoned
i
·1 tank ever since 1984 as the channel source of this tank was closed due to
construction of Kalyani dam and because of lack of water this tank was no
longer used for storage of water. As it was an abandoned tank and was no
H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) 2 S.C.R.

A longer in existence and the land became plain and considering the matter and
report of the District Collector, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. ... ' (

No. 691 Revenue Department dated 10.7.1989 for alienating an extent of90
acres of land to A.P. Housing Board for the purpose of rental Housing scheme
for Government employees on payment of R:;. I lakh per acre by the Housing
Board and before this land was alienated a notice was published in the village
-
B calling for objections by the Revenue aut',1orities and no objections were
received in pursuance of the said notice. The Ayacutdars have also consented
for the alienation of the land. Thereafter, after obtaining the opinion of the
concerned Executive Engineer of the lrriga1ion Department and the report of
' .
the District Collector, the above Government Order was issued.
c Concluding his arguments, he submitted that there is ample material on
record showing that these tanks were abandoned long back and they were no
longer serving as water storage tanks more particularly, as their supply channels
have been dried up. On 5.12.2003, this Court passed the following order:

D "The Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India
is directed to constitute a committee of experts for the purpose of
~ubmitting a report on the question whether the two tanks, namely,
the Peruru and Avilala or either of them can be utilized for water
• I
harvesting. The report shall be submitted to this Court within a period
of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. The
E Registry is directed to forward a set of the documents, which have
been filed before this Court to the Secretary for being placed before
and considered by such Committee. The committee will hold local
inspection. Before it does so it shall give notice to the concerned
advocate-on-record. The State respondent will provide such documents
as may be required by the Committee for the purpose of submitting
F
the report.

List the matter thereafter."

The Government of India constituted a Committee for the purpose of
G submitting its report to this Court :
The term of reference of the Committee was to submit a report on the
question whether the two tanks namely, the Peruru and Avii ala or either of
them can be utilized for water harvesting. Pursuant to this, the Committee r
visited Tirupathi on 19th and 20th January, 2004 for local inspection and
H necessary investigations. During the visit, a detailed discussion was held·with
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TI RU PA THI v.STATE OF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J J 439

the representatives of TUDA, TTD and members of the Intellectual Forum . A

• The Committee submitted its detailed inspection report on 21.1.2004.

The appellants submitted its objections to the report of the Committee
and the respondents supported the inspection report.
B
In the above background, the following questions of law arise for
consideration by this Court:-
•. 1
--.Jr I. Whether the Urban Development could be given primacy over
and above the need to protect the environment and valuable
fresh water resources? c
2. Whether the action of the A.P. state in issuing the impugned
G.Os could be permitted in derogation of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India as also the Directive Principles of State
Policy and fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution of
India? D
3. Whether the need for sustainable development can be ignored,
--<, do away with and cause harm to the environment in the name of
i . urban development?
4. Whether there are any competing public interests and if so how
the conflict is to be adjudicated/reconciled? E
We have already referred to the directions issued to the Government of
'>
India to constitute a Committee of Experts for the purpose of submitting a
report on the question whether the two tanks namely, the Peruru and Avilala
or either of them can be utilised for water harvesting. The Expert Committee
took into account the factors that had led to the depletion of influx of water F
to Peruru Tank in the report arid observed in paragraphs 3 & 4 of the Report.

According to the learned counsel appearing for ·the TTD, Peruru tank
as a water body had three main sources of influx of water which were as
follows:
G
I. Overflow of water through feeder channel from the combined
Kalyani River-Swamamukhi river-The Kalyani river joins
~
1
Swarnmukhi river near Agasteeswara Temple. At that point, the
overflow of water in the combined rivers as going to peruru tank
through a feeder channel of about 1.6 Km. Length. After the
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A construction of the Kalyani Dam on Kalyani River in the year
1974, the flow of water from Kalyani river into Swamamukhi
river considerably reduced. As a result, there was no overflow of
water going to the feeder channel, which over the years has
become defunct due to its bed level being at a higher level than
the riverbed. Since the feeder channel has become defunct and
B abandoned, a road has been constructed for the temple by filling
up the channel. The Expert Committee, after observing the above,
in paragraph 3 of its report under Peruru tank has opined as ' .
follows:

"The revival of old feeder channel which involves deepening
c of the existing channel and restoring the channel in the initial
reaches is not considered cost c~ffective in view of the meagre
quaptity of river water availability for a very short period."
2. Catchment area of 42.9 sq.Kms. TIO under "Neeni Meeru"
programme, constructed 22 check dams, 9 percolation tanks, 437
D rock fill dams and contour trench on a length of 1.22 km for
improving the water table and water conservation and efficient ,..
use of rain water without wastage in the catchment area falling
under S.V. Zoological Park.
The Expert Committee, after observing the above in para 4 of its
E report has stated that the inflow of water into Peruru tank has
been reduced considerably due to the construction of check dams
etc. While it is so, it is also to be noted in this context, that on
account of Kalyani Dam a water body has come into existence
in the form of Reservoir is spread over an area of 3 l065 acres
F and holds 9 l 0 me. Ft. Water when filled to capacity. Similarly,
Dalavai Tank, which is created in ~he Catchment area, is also a
water body occupying 66.70 acres and holds 15.79 me. Ft. of
water when full.
It is pertinent to submit in this context that under the "Neeru
G Meeru" programme vigorously pursued by the Government in the
entire State, construction of such check dams, percolation tanks etc.
was conceived and executed for improving the water table and water
conservation and efficient use of rain water without wastage at f
considerable cost.
H 3. Nakkala vanka and Bodeddulu Vanka : prior to the construction
INTELLECTUALS FORUM. TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 44 J

~-
of Dalavai tank in the catchment area, water used to flow A
' "
downstream to peruru tank through Nakkalavanka a~d
Bnodeddula Vanka After the construction of Dalavai Tank', the
flow of water through Nakkalavanka and Bnodeddula Vanka has
considerably reduced.

The Expert Committee after observing the above facts in paragraphs 4 B
& 5 of its report opined that the flow of water through Bodeddulla Vanka to
_., i
the Peruru tank can be restored by removing a small check dam at Malapalli
..Ji
which it is submitted might be considered a retrograde step affecting other
projects for water conservation. Learned counsel further submitted that in
view of the aforesaid recommendation of the Expert Committee that instead
of 20 acres as presently assigned a minimum of 50 acres may be utilised for
c
a water body in the tank area may not be a practicable proposal. However,
the TTD would willingly and earnestly endeavour to implement the proposal
if this Court accepts and approves the Report of the Expert Committee. In our
opinion, the Expert Committee's report should be accepted by TTD. Learned
counsel appearing for the TTD at the time of argument, has also brought to D
our notice some of the programmes launched by TTD for sustainable
-~ improvement of the living environment.

' >
Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel, submitted that no competing or
conflicting public interests arise in this case inasmuch as the very subject of
the environment issue has ceased to be a resource as it were. E
The enquiry is, therefore, upon the very basic question i.e. whether
there exist at all a natural resource. The research is empirical and not
adjudication or prioritisation of conflicting public interest. A further question
can also be raised i.e. even if the said resource has deteriorated, is it possible
to revive its resource. The adjudication in both the appeals is confined to an F
empirical enquiry based on scientific data. The enquiry as indicated above
has already been done in this case. It is in two stages.

STAGE ONE -Till the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
which dismissed the writ petitions.
G
STAGE TWO-Enquiry at the instance of this Court pending disposal
j of the special leave petitions.
1
STAGE ONE--Our attention was drawn to the counter affidavit dated
7.9.1994 of TUDA in W.P.No. 8650 of 1994 which reads as under:
·' H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006 I 2 S.C.R.

A "The tank in question as could be seen from the pennanent ·A' Register
(Re-settlement Registrar) was to be fed by (I) Ramayapalli Kasam
Kalva (2) Kasam Kalva of Vedan thapuram Agraharam (3) Drainage
water of Thummalapetta wet fields and (4) by Nadim Kalva which
are almost defaced and as such there is no scope for accumulation of
water in the tank. It is also observed from a well about 60 feet depth
B located on South-West comer of the land that no water exists in the
well. The foreshore of the tank is almost plain. It is an abandoned
tank and the tank is also not receiving any supply of water due to
closure of supply channels after the 1;onstruction of Kalyani Dam
Reservoir. "

C STAGE TWO
The Inspection report of the Committee constituted under the directions
of this Court considered various issues. It is stated in the report as follows:

I. There is no tank existing in the area at present. Remains of the
D original demolished bund were s·een. The area upstream was
plain with no indications of any water storage.
2. reported feeder channels to the tank are in fact localized drainage
lines which do not have any direct source of surface water from
••
the nearby Tirumala hills. The tank might have receive water as
E over flow from Peruru tank located on west of Avilala tank.

As per the Respondents contention, the Tank in dispute has been shown
in Resettlement Register 'A'. For the purpos(: of change of classification
from tank poramboke to ayan, 'A' notice was published in the Avilala Village
F displaying the said notices at the conspicuous places which is statutory and
no objections were received and as stated already, consent letters were given
by the individual ayacutdars for the abandonment of the tank.

Proposals for abandonment of the erstwhile tank were submitted by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi with reference to the Collector's letter
G No. B-1/7089/88 dated 17.9.1988. A notice for public response to the said
proposal was published in the village but no objections were received. As the
land was in the past classified as a tank porarnboke, technical opinion had
already been obtained and the Irrigation Department opined that there was no
objection for alienation of the said land. Tht: opinion is in Collectorate
reference No. B-1/14157/85. As per the report of the Revenue Divisional
H Officer, Tirupathi submitted in his letter No. Roe. No. G/2016/88 dated
,
.~
'

..
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHJ v.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J] 443
6.9.1988 that the Avilala Gram Panchayat in its Resolution dated 14.8.1988 A
· had resolved to alienate an extent of 90 acres in Sy. No. 18/3 of Avilala
village in favour of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. The materials placed
before us and the report of the Expert Committee and the stand taken by the
public bodies and the rapid change in the demographic feature of the Tirupathi
town an!l its surrounding suburbs have necessitated the process of urbanization.
B
The TUDA in its additional counter affidavit filed on 21.2.2002 stated
that the Tirupathi urban agglomeration as notified consists of 849 sq. Kms .
.!.. 1
with one Municipality and 89 villages. The total population of TUDA area
J
is 4,88,248 according to 2001 census and the projected population by 2021
is 9,60,000. 49% of the urban agglomeration is covered by Tirumala hills and
forest area and the remaining area is going to be developed into a. Metropolis
c
over the next 20 years, according to the present decadal population growth
of 32% for TUDA region, compared to 13% of A.P. population growth rate
as per 2001 census. The growth of population of Tirupathi Municipal area
was highest during the decades of 1971 (83.68%) and in 1981 (75.10%) but
now stabilized at nearly 30% (200 I). But in respect of the suburbs surroundings D
Tirupathi, which are fast growing recording very high population growth
--( rates, are an indication that TUDA area is one of the very fast developing
,J > urban agglomerations in the country. Akkarampale (v) one of the suburbs
with a population of 20,325 recorded 250% of decadal growth between 1991-
2001. Similarly Avilala (v) another suburb ofTirupathi, where "Rajivnagar",
the land in question in the present appeals, is situated, the decadal growth
E
rate between 1991 and 2001 was above 150%. The population of Avilala (v)
which was 1141 in 1971, has grown to 12,058 by the year 2001, while
converting most of the agricultural lands into residential plots. According to
the report of NRSA, Hyderabad in July 2001 on "Land Use-Land Cover
Monitoring in TUDA area with special reference to Avilala Tank and Environs, F
.---:... Tirupathi, A.P." the Avilala ( v) along with the tank area which has a total
extent of 942.47 hectares of which residential area was JZ.91 hectares in
1976-77 has now increased to 349.28 hectares in the year 2001, which also
includes institutional and industrial areas. In respect of agricultural lands,
which was 677.78 hectares in 1976-77 has been diminished into 204.22
hectares in 2001. The high population growth rates of Avilala (v) combined
G
with increase in the residential area (961 %) is a clear indication that the
original purpose of A vilala tank as irrigation tank, is no more relevant in the
-~ present scenario of fast urban development in this area.

It has been further stated in the additional affidavit filed by TUDA on H
J
444 SUPREME COl:RT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A 21.2.2002 that the TUDA has taken up revision of its master plan with
digitisation of land use along with a comprehensive development plan of the
urban agglomeration up to 2021, with public participation. According to the
said Master plan prepared by TUDA in 1981, the said lands of Avilala (v)
are earmarked under residential zone and d<:velopment of satellite township
B to ease the congestion on the main city and the purpose of retaining irrigation
tank in an extent of 150 acres at Avilala near Tirupathi is no longer useful
to the public under the circumstances explained.

In the counter affidavit filed by A.P. Housing Board on 26.6.2000, it
. .
is submitted that the A.P. Housing Board paid Rs.90 lakhs towards the cost
C of the land @ Rs. I lakh for each acre to the Government and also spent a
sum of Rs. 88.43 lakhs towards development of the land so far. Thus, in all
APHB has invested a sum of Rs.1,78,43,000/- and the further development
was stopped in view of the pendency of the writ petition.

The area around the property in question is fully developed. There is
D a weaver's colony, PR Engineers Colony, Judicial Employees Plots and Colony
and Balai Dairy (in IO acres of land-APDDCF). Thus, the area around the
land in question is already developed and several colonies have come up and
in any event the land cannot be used as reservoir. ...
As per the notification, APHB has proposed about 342 HIG design, 497
E MIG-2 design and 283 MIG- I design houses with the details mentioned
therein totalling about 1126 houses in the said proposed colony. The details
of number of houses to be allotted under different categories and modes like
outright sale, allotment on payment of 50%, 30% amount etc., are also
mentioned in the said notification. It also provided reservation for various
F categories like 5% of houses to Legislators, 5% to defence people, 14% for
SC, 4% for ST, 9% for OBC, 10% for retired Government employees, 1% for
physically handicapped, 1% for freedom fighters and 51 % for other categories.

The applicants under the above-referred notifications are the persons
having no plot or no house for their residence in Tirupathi or nearby places
G and as such they are in dire need of a place of residence which is sought to
be fulfilled under the above scheme by the APHB.

It is also seen from the additional counter affidavit dated 21.2.2002
filed by TUDA that they have taken up mvision of its Master plan with
digitisation of land use along with a compre;1ensive development plan of the
H urban agglomeration up to 2021, with public participation. According to the
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI vcSTATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 445

A
~

Master plan prepared by TUDA in 1981, the said lands of Avilala (v) are
-·Y earmarked under residential zone and development of satellite township to
ease the congestion on the main city.

It was also submitted that subsequent to the filing of the present appeals,
substantial developments have taken place which can be summed up here. As
stated in the counter affidavit filed by TUDA on dt. 29.11.2001, after the B
dismissal of Writ Petition No.8650 of 1994 by the High Court on dated
28.9.2000, TUDA submitted the entire scheme of sites and services to be
"· 1 taken up at Rajiv Nagar at a cost of-Rs.600 lakhs to the State Government
·* for approval vide its letter No.2148/Gl/99 dated 3.12.1999. The State
Government vide G .. Rt. No. 124 M.A. dated 15.2.2001 had approved the
proposal of TUDA.
c
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned sl!nior counsel appearing for the TUDA,
has placed before us a report on Land Use Land Cover Monitoring in TUDA
area with special reference to Avilala Tank and Environs Tirupathi. The main
objective of this study was: D
I. To map and estimate the water bodies and drainage pattern within
-4 the TUDA limits and to suggest the water conservation plan, on
~ , a scale of I :50,000 using satellite and other collateral data.
2. To monitor the changes in and around the Avilala Tank over a
E
period from 1976-200 I and carry out the change analysis.

The report contains all meticulous details about the study area, data base,
advantages and limitations of satellite data, methodology, analysis and
observations, water resources analysis of TUDA ~rea, land use/land cover
analysis of Avilala tank and its environs. The report has been prepared in a F
meticulous manner with reference to various plans. Another report was also
submitted with regard to the Revitalisation of Lakes in TUDA Region which
also contains many details about the .land use of TUDA Region and the
conservation and preservation of water bodies and the identification of potential
tanks for conservation and the salient proposals for revitalisation of identified
tanks. The Salient proposals for revitalisation of tanks are as under: G

On realizing the importance of restoration of tank basins towards
conservation of water and recharging of ground water, increase the storage
t capacity of tanks, renovating the tank bunds as well as feeder channels,
TUDA has taken over 30 tanks in its operational area for taking up the H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A improvements. Proposals include removal or eviction of encroachments,
desilting of tank basins, clearing of jungle, strengthening of tank bunds,
excavation of boundary trenches, widening and excavation of feeder channels,
construction of boundary pillars and compound walls along the tank boundary.
Block plantation, programmes for development as landscaped parks and water
based entertainment units for the benefit of the public in off shore areas of
B the tanks have been proposed wherever feasible and viable. Towards protection
of environment, provision for treatment system is also made in the project to
take care of entry of drainage/sullage into the tank storages. Block plantation
on all on-shore areas of tank have been taken up as a part of Neeru Meeru
programme to prevent erosion of soils and entry of encroachments which will
C have long term positive environment results.

As per the estimates prepared, the total cost of the scheme works out
to Rs. 993 .64 lakhs for taking up the above programmes in 32 tanks spread
over '2 settlements around Tirupathi town and in TUDA region. The abstract
statement showing the details of tanks proposed for revitalization and the
D cost of development is given below:

(Rs. In lakhs)
S.No. Manda I No. of Cost of Cost of Total
tanks development greening/
E landscaping
Programme

I. Tirupati (U) 10 387.84 82.50 470.34
.
2. Tirupati (R) 10 203.10 64.90 268.00
F Manda!

3. Reningunta 9 129.50 47.60 177.10
Manda I

4. Chandr~gir 3 71.70 6.50 78.20
G Mandal
Total 32 792.14 201.50 993.64

As already noticed, the Expert Committee in its Inspection Report, has
H gone into various technical details about the cause for gradual reduction of
INTELLECTUALS FORUM. TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J] 447
inflow of water to the Peruru tank, which is a rain-fed tank, over the last 50 A
- "r years. The Committee has observed in its report that the reduction in the
inflow of water to the taiik was due to the construction of 22 check dams, 8
percolation tanks, 43 7 rock fill dams and contour trench on a length of 1.22
km for water conservation and efficient use of rain water without wastage.
The Committee has also observed in its Report that the main supply channel
to the Peruru tank was affected due to the revival of Dalavai Tank situated B
at a distance of about 2 Kms upstream in the catchment area.
~ . The Expert Committee in its report has suggested some additional
* measures for rain water harvesting by providing for a percolation tank in an
area of 50 acres instead of 20 acres already earmarked for the said purpose
by the Revenue authorities with roof top rain water harvesting and artificial
c
recharge

The Expert Committee has gone into various technical and cost aspects
about the feasibility of reviving the Peruru tank. Only after the Committee
found that the tank could not be revived in its original form, it suggested in D
its report for construction of percolation tank and roof top rain water harvesting
and artificial recharge for increasing the ground water level.
- -J,
4 . A careful perusal of the report would clearly reveal that the Committee
has given its suggestions only after taking into account various possibilities
in recharging the ground water level. It is not proper in doubting the correctness E
of the Committee's report as contended by the appellants. The Committee, in
our view, has gone into the details about the revival of the feeder channel to
the Peruru tank from Swarnamukhi river and having regard to the
impracticability of restoring the same as feeder channel had suggested an
alternative which in their view, is feasible and beneficial.
F
__.. It is evident from the report of the Expert Committee that the Members
of the Expert Committee have taken technical aspects as contained therein
and the objections of the appellant in this regard are untenable. The
'. Government of Andhra Pradesh has also taken various steps pursuant to the
directions given by this Court which could be seen from the additional affidavit G
dated 25.3.2005 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

We have given our thoughtful and careful consideration to the sensitive
i
t issues raised in the appeals by the appellants and countered by the respective
respondents with reference to the pleadings, the documents, annexures filed
and judgment of the High Court. We have also carefully perused the report H
448 SUPREME COL RT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A submitted by the Expert Committee and also considered the rival submissions
•
made by the respective counsel. In our opinion, the nature of the question in ..,, .
this case is twofold. Firstly, the jurisprudential issues. In the event of conflict
between the competing interests of protecting the environment and social
development, this Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] I
sec 388, in paragraph 35 held as under:
B
"The issues presented in th is cast: illustrate the classic struggle between
those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests,
parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with
-!.
administrative responsibility, who under the pressures of the changing
needs of an increasingly complex society find it necessary to encroach
c to some extent upon open lanes heretofore considered inviolate to
change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the
legislature and not for the Courts. If there is a law made by Parliament
or the State Legislatures, the Courts can serve as an instrument for
determining legislative intent in the exercise of powers of judicial
D review under the Constitution. But, in the absence of any legislation,
the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate
the natural resource and convert them into private ownership or ).

commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural . ~

resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot
be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use
E unless the Courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public and
in public interest to encroach upon the said recourses."

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,
F 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 :n 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 states:
G
"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.

H Thus, there is no doubt about the fact that there is a responsibility bestowed
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 449

upon the Government to protect and preserve the tanks, which are an important A
-r 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 B

.*
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, c
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 (Bnmdtland 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", D
Returning to the Stockholm Convention, a support of such a notion can be
--.II found in Paragraph 13, which states:

' ' "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 E
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 at 1992, to which also India is a party, adopts the
notion of sustainable development. Principle 4 of the declaration states: F
........
"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."

This court in the case of Essar Oil v. Ha/ar Utkarsh Samiti, [2004] 2 G
SCC 392, Para 27 - was pleased to expound on this. Their Lordships he.Id:

i "This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and
' social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on
the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat.
Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A population together with the consequential demand~ to sustain the
population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down
of forests. filling up of lakes and the pollution of water resources and
the very air that we breathe. However there need not necessarily be
a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment
on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to
B creatt: harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed
at the altar of the other."

A similar view was taken by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-legal
Action v. Union of India, [1996] 5 SCC 28 I, Para 31 where their Lordships
C said:

"While eco~omic development should not be allowed to take place at
the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environmental destruction
and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and
environment should not hamper economic and other developments.
D Both development and environment should go hand in hand, in other
words, there should not be development at the cost of environment
and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due
care and ensuring the protection of the environment."
' ...
The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions
E of this court in the cases M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium
Case), [1997] 2 SCC 653, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood
Products, [1995] 3 SCC 363 and Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of
India, [2002] 10 SCC 664.

In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting
F an intention for development will not be er;ough to sanction the destruction
of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of
sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs
which the respondents assert, and the envronmental degradation, that the
appelants allege.

G Public Trust Doctrine
Another legal doctrine that is relevant to this matter is the Doctrine of
Public Trust. This doctrine, though in existence from Roman times, was
•
enunciated in its modern form by the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central
H Railroad Company v. People uf the State of Illinois, 146 US 537 (!892)
~
I I

INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI v.STATE OF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J] 45 I

where the Court held: A
The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State
in their character as sovereign, in trust for public uses for which they
are adapted.

(... ] the state holds the title to the bed of navigable waters upon a B
public trust, and no alienation or disposition of such property by the
State, which does not recognize and is not in execution of this trust
is permissible.

What this doctrine says therefore is that natural resources, which includes
lakes, are held by the State as a "trustee" of the public, and can be disposed C
of only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust. Though
this doctrine existed in the Roman and English Law, it related to specific
·types of resources. The US Courts have expanded and given the doctrine its
contemporary shape whereby it encQmpasses the entire spectrum of the
environment.
D
The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian
--1 law by this Court in the case of MC. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (supra) and also
J ' in Ml. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999] 6 SCC 464. In M.C. Mehta,
Kuldip Singh J., writing for the majority held:

[our legal system] includes the public trust doctrine as part of its E
jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of all natural resources which
are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. [.... ] The state as
a trustee is under the legal duty to protect the natural resources. [Para
22]

.-.,I.,
The Supreme Court of California, in the case of National Audubon Society F
v. Superior Court of Alpine Country, 33 Cal.419 also known as the Mono
Lake case summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:

Thus the public trust is more than an affirmation of state power to use
public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty G
of the State to protect the people's common heritage of streams,
lakes, marshlands and tidelands., surrendering the right only in those
rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the
purposes of the trust.

This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A of the State with regard to public trust. Fonnulated from a negatory angle, the y -
doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a
public trust. However, when the state holds a resource that is freely available
for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny
upon any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing
B legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinize
such actions of the Government, the Co1Jrts must make a distinction between
the government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the
special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain
public resources, [Joseph L. Sax "The public Trust Doctrine in Natural
Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review, Vol.68
C No.3 (Jan.1970) PP 471-566)]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this
subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on
governmental authority are often· thought to imposed by the public trust
doctrine [ibid]:

1. the property subject to the: trust must not only be used for a
D public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the
general public;
2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent
3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use. (i)
either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that ronn of
E resources.

In the instant case, it seems, that the Government Orders, as they stand now,
are violative of principles I and 3, even if we overlook principle 2 on the
basis of the fact that the Government is itself developing it rather than
F transfering it to a third party for value.
..... .
Therefore, our order should try to rectify these defects along with
following the principle of sustainable development as discussed above.

Further the principle of "Inter-Generational Equity" has also been
G adopted while determining cases in vol~ ing environmental issues. This Court
in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof M. V. Nayudu & Ors.,
[1999] 2 sec 718 in paragraph 53 held as under:

"The principle of inter-generational equity is of recent origin.
The 1972 Stockholm Declaration refers to it in principles 1 and 2. In
this context, the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for
H
.A
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHI v.STATEOF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J] 453
the survival of the present and future generations. A
--y
Principle I - Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality
and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that
permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present
and future generations .......... B
Principle 2 - The natural resources of the earth, including the air,
~ ' water, lands, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of
~ natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present
• and future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate," c
Several international conventions and treaties have recognized the above
principles and, in fact, several imaginative proposals have been submitted
including the locus standi of individuals or groups to take out actions as
representatives of future generations, or appointing an ombudsman to take
care of the rights of the future against the present (proposals of Sands and D
I
Brown Weiss referred to by Dr. Sreenivas Rao Permmaraju, Special
. co( Rapporteur, paras 97 and 98 of his report).
J
The principles mentioned above wholly apply for adjudicating matters
concerning environment and ecology. These principles must, therefore, be
applied in full force for protecting the natural resources of this country.
E

Art. 48-A of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests
, and wild life of the country. Art.5 IA of the Constitution oflndia, enjoins that
it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve F
national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have
-~
compassion for living creatures. These two Articles are not only fundamental
in the governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of the State to
apply these principles in. making laws and further these two articles are-to be
kept in mind in understanJing the scope and purport of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the G
Constitution of India and also the various laws enacted by the Parliament and
the State Legislature.
.,.j
\
On the other hand, we cannot also shut our eyes that shelter is one of
the basic human needs just next to food and clothing. Need for a National
Housing and Habitat Policy emerges from the growing requirements of shelter H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A and related infrastructure. These requirements are growing in the context of
rapid pace of urbanization, increasing migration from rural to urban centres
in search of livelihood, mis-match be•:ween demand and supply of sites and
services at affordable cost and inability of most new and poorer urban settlers
to access formal land markets in urban areas due to high costs and their own
B lower incomes, leading to a non-sustainable situation. This policy intends to
promote sustainable development of habitat in the country, with a view to
ensure equitable supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices.
' ,
The World has reached a level of growth in the 21st Century as never
before envisaged. While the crisis of economic growth is still on, the key •
C question which often arises and the Courts are asked to adjudicate upon is
whether economic growth can supersede the concern for environmental
protection and whether sustainable d<:velopment which can be achieved only
by way of protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources
for the benefit of the humanity and future generations could be ignored in the
garb of economic growth or compelling human necessity. The growth and
D development process are terms without any content, without an inkling as to
the substance of their end results. This inevitably leaves us to the conception
of growth and development which sustains from one generation to the next
in order to secure 'our common future'. In pursuit of development, focus has ...
to be on sustainability of development and policies towards that end have to
E be earnestly formulated and sincerely observed. As Prof. Weiss puts it,
"conservation, however, always takes a back seat in times of economic stress."
It is now an accepted social prin'ciple that all human beings have a fundamental
right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well being, coupled
with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and
preserved in such a way that present as well as the future generations are
F aware of them equally.
The Parliament has considerably responded to the call of the Nations
for conservation of environment and natural resources and enacted suitable
laws.

G The Judicial Wing of the country, more particularly, this Court has laid
down a plethora of decisions asserting the need for environmental protection
and conservation of natural resources. The environmental protection and
conservation of natural resources has been given a status of a fundamental
right and brought under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. This apart, the
H Directive Principles of State Policy as also the fundamental duties enshrined
in Part IV and Part IVA of the Constitution of India respectively also stresses
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, Tl RU PA THI v.STATE OF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 455

the need to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, A
~·--r
lakes, rivers and wild-life and to have compassion for living creatures.

This Court in Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group and
Ors. v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. ltd. & Ors., (1991] 2 SCC
539 held that the concerned Government should "consider the importance of
public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living people on one B
hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balance and
avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and
'' j water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical
and oilier aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of
laymen, experts and public workers and strike a balance between the two
conflicting objectives."
c
However, some of the environmental activists, as noted in the "The
Environmental Activities Hand Book' authored by Gayatri Singh,. Kerban
Ankleswaria and Colins Gonsalves, that the Judges are carried away by the
money spent on projects and that mega projects, that harm the environment D
are not condemned. However, this criticism seems to be baseless since in
---"' Virender Gaur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 577, this
.._ Court insisted on the demolition of structure which have been constructed on
the lands reserved for common purposes and that this Court did not allow its
decision to be frustrated by the actions of a party. This Court followed the
said decision in several cases issuing directions and ensuring its enforcement E
by nothing short of demolition or restoration of status quo ante. The fact that
crores of rupees was spent already on development projects did not convince
this Court while being in a zeal to jealously safeguarding the environment
and in preventing the abuse of the environment by a group of humans or the
authorities under the State for that matter. F
J-+
The set of facts in the present case relates to the preservation of and
restoration of status quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in
existence since the time of Srikrishnadevaraya, The Great, 1500 A.O., where
the cry of socially spirited citizens calling for judicial remedy was not
considered in the right perspective by the Division bench o(the High Court G
of Andhra Pradesh despite there being overwhelming evidbncr of the tanks
being in existence and were being put to use not only for irri,gation purpose
~ but also as lakes which were furthering percolation to improve the ground
- water table, thus serving the needs of the people in and aroJnd these tanks.
The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned order, has given
H
456 SUPREME COUR".' REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A precedence to the economic growth by completely ignoring the importance
and primacy attached to the protection of environment and protection of
valuable and most cherished fresh water resources.

No doubt, the wishful thinking and the desire of the appellant forum,
that the Tanks should be there, and the old glory of the tanks should be
B continued, is laudable. But the ground realities are otherwise. We have already
noticed the ground realities as pointed out by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh, TUDA and TTD in their reply to the Civil appeals by furnishing
details, datas and particulars. Now a days because of the poverty and lack of
employment avenues, migration of people from rural areas to urban areas is
C a common phenomenon. Because of the limited infrastructure of the towns,
the towns are becoming slums. We, therefore, cannot countenance the
submissions made by the appellant in regard to the complete restoration and
revival of two tanks in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We
cannot, at the same time, prevent the Government from proceeding with the
proper development of Tirupathi town. The two Government Orders which
D are impugned have been issued long before and pursuant to the issuance of
the Government Orders, several other developments have taken place.
Constructions and improvements have betm made in a vast measure. Because
of spending crores and crores of rupees by various authorities, the only
option now left to the appellant and the respondents is to see that the report
E submitted by the Expert Committee is implemented in its letter and spirit and
all the respondents shall cooperate in giving effect to the Committee's report.

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
F will infringe the right of the Community and alienate the property to any
other person or body.

Taking into account all these princ:iples of law, and after considering
the competing claims of environment and the need for housing, this Court
holds the following as per the facts of this case.
G
The Respondents have claimed that the valuable right to shelter will be
violated if the impugned Government Orders are revoked. On the facts of the
present case, it seems that the respondents intend to build residential blocks
of flat for High and Middle income families, institutions as well as
infrastructure for the TTDS. If the proposed constructions are not carried on,
H it seems unlikely that anyone will be left homeless or without their basic
INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPA THI v. STA TE OF A.P. [LAKSHMANAN, J ] 457
need for shelter. Therefore, one feels that the right to shelter does not seem A
-·-Y
to be so pressing under the present circumstances so as to outweigh all
environmental considerations.

Another plea repeatedly taken by the respondents correspond to the
money already_ spent on developing the land. However, the decision of this
case cannot be based solely upon the investments committed by any party. B
Since, otherwise, it would seem that once any party makes certain investment
~ in a project, it would be a fait accompli and this Court will not have any
'
~ option but to deem it legal.

Therefore, under the present circumstances, the Court should do the
most it can to safeguard the two tanks in question. However, due to the
c
persistent developmental activities over a long time, much of the natural
resources of the lakes has been lost, and considered irreparable. This, though
regrettable, is beyond the power of this court to rectify.

One particular feature of this case was the competing nature of claims
D
by both the parties on the present state of the two tanks and the feasibility
of their revival. We thought that it would be best, therefore, if we place
4 reliance on the findings of the expert committee appointed by us which has
J..
considered the factual situation and the feasibility of revival of the two tanks.
Thus in pursuance of a study of that committee, this Court passes the following
orders. E
The appeals are disposed of with the following directions:

With regard to Peruru tank:

(i) No further constructions to be made. F
----+ (ii) The supply channel ofBodeddula Vanka needs to be cleared and
revitalized. A small check dam at Malapali to be removed to
ensure the free flow and supply to the tank.
(iii) Percolation tank to be constructed and artificial recharge to be
done to ensure the revival of the tank, keeping in mind its G
advantage at being situated at the foot hills.
(iv) The area allotted by Manda! Revenue Office for construction of
r the tank to be increased to a minimum of 50 acres. Percolation
tank with sufficient number of recharge shafts to be developed
to recharge the unsaturated horizons up to 20 m. The design of H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS J2006) 2 S.C.R.

A the shafts etc. to be prepared in consultation with the CGWB.
The proposed percolation tank to be suitably located along the
bund keeping in view the inlets, irrigation sluices and surplus
water.

(v} Feasibility and cost estimation for the revival of the old feeder
B channel for Swarnamukhi River should be carried and a report
to be submitted to the Court.
(vi) Each house already constructed by the TTD must provide for
roof top rain water harvesting. Abstraction from ground water to
be completely banned. No borewell/ tubewell for any purpose to
c be allowed in the area.
(vii) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation
with the CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting
in the area on ground water regime.

With regard to Avila/a tank:
D
(i) No further construction to be allowed in the area.
(ii) Each house already constructed by the APHB/ TUDA must
provide structure for roof top rain water harvesting. All the storm
water in the already built colonies to be recharged to ground
E water. Structures for such purposes to be designed in consultation
with the CGWB.
(iii) No borewell/ tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.
(iv) An area of 40 acres presently reserved for the Government should
not be developed in any way that may lead to concretization of
F the ground surface. Recharge structures to be constructed for
rainwater harvesting. +- .

(v) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation
with the CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting
in the area on ground water regime.
G
We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance
rendered by all the counsel appearing in this case which made our job easier.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly no costs.

H v.s. Appeal disposed of.