Holding

The Court held that the CEC’s recommendations are lawful and must be implemented immediately, as the Section 26A notification validly prohibits aquaculture activities that obstruct water flow, irrespective of land acquisition.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the Central Empowered Committee’s (CEC) recommendations to demolish fish‑tanks (bunds) constructed inside Kolleru Lake Wildlife Sanctuary and to prohibit the use or transport of inputs for pisciculture, arguing that demolition could only follow acquisition of private lands and that the bunds were part of traditional fishing practices. The State had earlier issued a notification under Section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 declaring one‑third of Kolleru Lake as a sanctuary, which the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examined whether the CEC’s directions were consistent with the notification, Section 29 of the Act, and the public‑interest goal of preserving the lake’s ecology. It held that the notification validly regulates aquaculture, pisciculture, prawn and shrimp culture and that the bunds obstruct free water flow, threatening the lake’s survival and upstream agriculture. Consequently, the Court affirmed the legality of the CEC’s recommendations, ordered immediate demolition of the fish‑tanks and a ban on pisciculture inputs, and vacated the interim order previously granted. All writ petitions were disposed of in favour of the State.

Issues considered

The validity of the Central Empowered Committee’s recommendations to demolish fish‑tanks and prohibit pisciculture inputs within Kolleru Lake Wildlife Sanctuary.
Whether demolition can be ordered before the government acquires private lands where bunds are situated.
Whether the bunds constitute a traditional fishing practice exempt from the prohibition under Section 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 21, s. 249, s. 250
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972s. 18, s. 21, s. 22, s. 24, s. 26A, s. 29

Subjects

Wildlife sanctuaryKolleru Lakeencroachmentbundsfish tanksaquaculturepiscicultureenvironmental lawsustainable developmentSection 26ASection 29public interest

Judgment

t

A T.N. GODA YARMAN 11-l!RUMALPAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 10, 2006

B [ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972-Section 26 A-Encroachers
constructed bund/fish tanks resulting in blockage of free flow of water into
Kolleru Lake-Notification under, declaring Kolleru Lake Area as a
c sanctuary-Recommendations by Committee regarding its implementation-
Directions to demolish all fish tanks constructed inside the Sanctuary and
also prohibition of use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture--Validity
of-Held: Notification regulates aquaculture, pisciculture, prawn culture
and shrimp culture in public interest and in the interest of ecology-Thus,
D issuance of Notification justified-State Government directed to implement
the recommendations by the Committee-Environment Laws.

In Kolleru Lake, one of the largest shallow fresh water lake in the State
of Andhra Pradesh, encroachers constructed bund/fish tanks which resulted
in blockagl!' of free flow of water into the lake. Therefore, the State
E Covernment issued Notification dated 04.10.1999 under section 26A of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and declared 1/3 area of the Kolleru Lake
as wild life sanctuary. High Court upheld the validity of the Notification.
Thereafter, Central Empowered Committee made recommendations with
regard to the implementation of the Notification. It issued directions for
F demolition of all fish tanks constructed inside the Kolleru Wild Life Sanctuary
in a time bound manner and prohibited use or transportation of inputs for
pisciculture in the said sanctuary.

The question which arose for consideration in these batch of cases is
with regard to the validity of the recommendations made by Central Empowered
G Committee regarding implementation of the Notification dated 4.10.1999.

Objectors contended that although final Notification has been upheld,
the terms and conditions of the Notification indicate that the demolition of
bunds can only take place after acquisition by the Covernment of private lands
consequently, the Government should first acquire the rights of the objectors
H 1024
+
T.N. GODAYARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. lJ.0.1. ] 025

before ordering demolition of the fish tanks/bunds; that till the acquisition A
by the Government the owners of these private lands are entitled to construct
bunds in their own lands; that from 1976 upto 4th October, 1999 permissions
to construct bunds have been given; that mud bunds constituted a part of
traditional fishing practice and as such direction for demolition of these bunds
should not be given; that the objectors have made huge investments over the B
years, that they were permitted to put up bunds under permissions given by
the collector; and that equity demands that a balance be struck between
preservation of the lake and the livelihood of persons surviving on aquaculture
and pisciculture.

Disposing of the matters, the Court
c
HELD: 1. The final Notification seeks to regulate, in public interest
and in the interest of ecology and activities, such as aquaculture, pisciculture,
prawn culture and shrimp culture, basically to preserve the identity of the
lake which otherwise is likely to become extinct within 12 years. Having
regard to the larger public interest and in view of the fact that the Notification D
under section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ha~ been issued
pursuant to the orders of the High Court in Kunapuraju Rangaraju 's case,
the Notification issued needs to be enforced immediately. The State
Government and its officers are directed to implement the directions of Central
Empowered Committee. The use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture
should be stopped immediately. The demolition of all fish tanks in a time-bound E
manner should commence. 11034-C-D; 1036-C-DI

2.1. In the previous year on account of the bunds/fish tanks free now of
water into the sea was blocked for 40 days. In any event, the rights of those
fishermen surviving on a traditional method of fishing have not been taken F
away, they have been duly protected. Only those who had illegally constructed
bunds and who were using harmful manures have been prevented from doing
so by reason of the said Notification. The material placed.on record shows
that there is obstruction to the free now of water in the lake bed area due to
raising of bunds whereby the retention capacity of the lake is diminished, as
such the Government is right in regulating the rights under the said G
Notification. If such encroachments are not removed immediately the right of
the farmers in the upstream mandals to do cultivation would be in jeopardy,
consequently, their right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution is violated. [1034-D-G)

H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120061 J .s.c.R.

A 2.2. Section 29 of the Act specifically prohibits commercial activity
inside the Sanctuary. It prohibits commercial activity which diverts, stops or
increases the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary. The Notification
dated 04.10.1999 provides a limited right to carry on fishing inasmuch as it
permits fishing with traditional methods using mavus and nets. However, it
B expressly prohibits the objectors from forming any fish tank(s) for
aquaculture or for any other purpose as they obstruct free flow of water both
into or outside the Sanctuary. It also expressly provides that wherever
pisciculture was existing on the date of the Notification in private lands, fishing
in traditional methods shall be permitted, without causing environmental
hazard, till the Government acquires such private lands. It also cancels the
C pattas granted in the past. Therefore, the Notification regulates aquaculture,
pisciculture, prawn culture, shrimp culture etc. 11035-B-DI

2.3. lt cannot be said that mud bunds formation is compatible with
traditional fishing practice and, therefore, should be allowed to continue to
exist. When a bund is formed in a sanctuary or a lake it seeks to encapsulate
D an area which in turn obstructs free flow of water in the lake bed area.
Formation of bund reduces the retention capacity of the lake. If these formation
is allowed, it would destroy the lake. Section 26A read with section 29 prohibits
all commercial activities which seek to destroy the ecology. Compatibility of
mu<.: bunds with the traditional fishing practice in a lake is a concept different
E from formation of mud bunds inside the Sanctuary. The Notification does not
cover the entire area of the lake but only 1/3 area alone is notified as
Sanctuary. This indicates that the Government has balanced the needs of
sustainable development with the livelihood of persons surviving on the
resources of this lake.11035-D-Fl

F 2.4. The preliminary Notification was issued as far back as in 1995
under section 18 of the Act. The objectors were put to notice about the future
course of action. Therefore, it is not open to the objectors now to say that
they have made huge investments which would be lost if the report of the CEC
is implemented. In the preceding year free flow of water into the sea was
blocked for 40 days. Such blocking of water also affects the livelihood of
G farmers cultivating lands in the upstream mandals. The oil cakes used as
manure also pollute the Sanctuary. There are other effluents which also pollute
the lake. By issuance of the Notification, the Government has taken a step in
the right direction and this Court cannot tell the Government as to which of
the three effluents in terms of their discharge should be regulated first in
H point of time. In the instant case, the blockage is due to discharge of effluents
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.] 1027

from three sources, namely, fish tanks in and around the lake containing A
high concentration of ·nutrients, effluents from municipal drainage and
effluents emerging from the industries located in and around the above two
districts. (1035-G-H]

Dr. T. Patanjali Sastry, President, Environment Centre v. Chairman,
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Ors., {2001) 5 ALT 315 and B
Kunapuraju Rangaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., {1998) 3
ALT 215, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1486-87 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 202of1995. C
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

WITH

I.A. No. 1492 in WP(C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1508 in WP(C) No. 202/95,
WP(C) No. 95/2006, WP(C) No. 111/2006, I.A. No. 1497-1498 in WP(C) No. D
202/95, I.A. No. 1509-1511 in WP(C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1514 in WP (C) No.
202/95, I.A. No. 1515 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1523 in WP (C) No. 202/
95, I.A. No. 1524 in WP(C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1525 in WP (C) No. 202/95,
I.A. No. 1531 in WP (C) No. 202/1995, WP (C) No. 155/2006.
E
Gopal Subramaniyam, A.S.G., Harish N. Salve, (A.C.) U.U. Lalit, (A.C.)
(N.P.) Mukul Rohatgi, L. Nageswar Rao, Soli J. Sorabjee, Raju Ramachandran,
Colin Gonsnlaves, ·M.N. Krishnarnani; Altaf Ahmad, Dushyant A. Dave, Dr.
R.G. Padia, Sidhartha Chowdhary, (A.C.), Dr. K.P. Kyalasanath, Mohd. Wasay
Khan, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Venkat Subramaniam, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, P.
Sriraghuram, Sridhar Potaraju, P.S. Narasimha, Rohit Rao N, Ananga F
Bhattacharyya, Anupam Lal Das, Vipin M. Benjamin, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, D.
Bharat Kumar, Anand, Ms. Indrani, Abhijit Sengupta, Rohit Das, Somiran
Sha1ma, Rakesh K. Khanna, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Ms. Jahanvi, S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, Bina Madhavan for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co., P.K. Manohar, A.D.N.
Rao, Gopal Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Ms. G
Sameena Ahmed, M.P. Meharia, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Satish, Ajay
Siwach, Sandeep Sharma, T.V. George, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, B.N. Jha
and J.K. Bhatia for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. Development needs of the present without compromising H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs is called
'sustainable development', a concept based on the principle of inter-
generational equity.

In this batch of cases the common issue that arises for consideration
is the validity of the recommendations made by Central Empowered Committee
B (for short, 'CEC') in its Report dated 20th March 2006 which concerns
implementation of the notification issued by State of Andhra Pradesh dated
04.10.1999 under section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 whose
validity has been upheld by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
dated 30th July, 200 I in the case of Dr. T. Patanjali Sastry, President,
C Environment Centre v. Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
and Ors., reported in (200 I) 5 ALT 315. By the impugned recommendations
CEC has issued directions for demolition of all fish tanks constructed inside
the Kolleru Wild Life Sanctuary in a time bound manner, as indicated therein.
CEC has also issued directions prohibiting use or transportation of inputs for
pisciculture in the said sanctuary. The details of the inputs are given in the
D report.

NATURE OF KOLLERU LAKE

Kvlleru Lake is one of the largest shallow fresh water lake in Asia
located between the delta of Krishna and Godavari rivers in the State of
E Andhra Pradesh. It serves as a natural flood balancing reservoir for the two
rivers. It receives water from 67 inflowing drains and .channels. It sustains
flora and fauna and peopk living around it. The area of the lake at various
contour levels is as under:
Contour level at Mean Area
F Sea Level (MSL)
At+ 10 MSL 90 I sq. km. (2.25 lakh acres)
At + 7 feet MSL 675 sq. km. ( 1.69 lakh acres)
At + 5 feet MSL 308 sq. km. (0.77 lakh acres)

G It is found between the alluvial planes of river Godavari and river
Krishna due to natural geological formation covering 2 mandals in West
Godavari district and 7 mandals in Krishna district. Ecologically it is a wet land
ecosystem. In its mean season, the lake has mean water level of 3 feet above
the mean sea level, popularly known as plus 3 contour. The water surface area
H in the contours of the lake vary, depending upon the seasonal flow of water
into the lake. In the normal monsoon, the lake extends from plus 7 contour
t
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.) \029

to plus 10 contour. At plus 3 contour level the lake spreads over 70 sq. miles. A
At plus 7 contour the capacity of the lake is 30 tnic. At plus 10 contour the
capacity of the lake is 54 tmc, covering an area of 348 sq. miles. The peak level
inflow into the lake is of the order of 1,10,000 cusecs. 4 rivers, 18 drains and
22 irrigation channels empty out into the lake and the drain Uppteru is the
only outlet to the sea. There are 122 villages in the lake-area out of which
46 are bed villages and 76 are belt villages. In the belt villages, above plus B
5 contour, cultivation is being done both in the patta lands as well as in the
government lands on payment of cist. The lake supports bio-diversity and
high biomass of fish plankton which constitute the source of food for birds.

· Kollern Lake extends over 901 sq. kms. at plus 10 contour. However, C
only 308 sq. kms. out of901 sq. kms. have been declared as wild life sanctuary.
This has been done in order to strike a balance between the rights of the
people living in and around the lake on one hand and to protect the ecosystem
on the other hand.

Government of India is the signatory to 1971 Convention of Ramsar D
(Iran) where it is declared that Kolleru is a wet land ecosystem of international
importance. In the said convention it is decided that encroachments in the
lake would not be tolerated. The said convention is also known as Wet Land
Convention.

REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4.10.1999 E

The above notification came to be issued under following circumstances.
Submersion of delta facility in the upstream area on account of blockage of
free flow of water into the lake caused by encroachers. Further, thousands of
land stood converted into fish tanks resulting in the blockage of the drain
system of Krishna and West Godavari districts which chooses the said lake
F
as a natural route to sea. Lakes were formed by the encroachers over areas
ranging from 30 to 400 acres by raising bunds upto the height of 20 to 25 feet
above the ground levels and thereby diminishing the retention capacity of the
lake. Consequently, it has resulted in submergence of upstream mandals
causing huge crop losses. G
The notification above-mentioned seeks to preserve the lake both for
the benefit of the migratory birds and to avoid floods. The total lake area in
terms of hectares is one lac hectares out of which an area admeasuring
30,855.20 hectares is constituted as wild life sanctuary.
H
t
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) 3 S.C.R.

A ARGUMENTS
The basic argument advanced on behalf of the objectors is that
acquisition is the basis for issuance of notification/official declaration under
section 26A of the said 1972 Act. It is submitted that although final notification
has been upheld, the terms and conditions of the notification indicate that
B demolition of bunds can only take place after acquisition by the government
of private lands. In this connection, it is urged that apart from government
lands the sanctuary also covers private lands; that, the owners of these
private lands are entitled to construct bunds in their own lands till the
government acquires such lands. It is submitted that from 1976 upto 4th
C October, 1999 pennissions to construct bunds have been given; that huge
investments have been made in the business of pisciculture and that thousands
of employees are working to earn their livelihood from these activities. It is
submitted that the notification covers an entire package and acquisition is a
part of that package. Consequently, the government should first acquire the
rights of the objectors before ordering demolition of the fish tanks/bunds.
D
FINDINGS

In order to answer the above arguments we may briefly state the
relevant provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which has been enacted
to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds, plants and for matters
E connected theri:with. This Act is enacted by Parliament in exercise of its
powers under Articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution, pursuant to resolutions
passed by Houses of Legislatures of all States including Andhra Pradesh.
The Act came into force in the State with effect from 1.3.1973. It may be useful
to note the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act:
F "The rapid decline of India's wild animals and birds, one of the richest
and most varied in the world, has been a cause of grave concern.
Some wild animals and birds have already become extinct in this
country and others are in the danger of being so. Areas which were
once teeming with wild life have become devoid of it and even in
G Sanctuaries and National Parks the protection afforded to wild life
needs to be improved. The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act,
1912 (Act 8 of 1912), has become completely outmoded. The existing
State laws are not only out-dated but provide punishments which are
not commensurate with the offence and the financial benefits which
accrue from poaching and trade in wild life produce. Further, such
H
T.N. GODA YARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.] I 03 l

laws mainly relate to control of hunting and do not emphasize the A
other factors which are also prim~ reasons for the decline of India's
wild life, namely, taxidermy and trade in wild life and products derived
therefrom."

Section 2(26) defines "sanctuary" to mean an area declared, whether
under section 26A or under section 36, or deemed under sub-section (3) of B
section 66, as a wild life sanctuary. Section 2(37) defines "wild life" to include
any animal, butterflies, fish and aquatic or land vegetation which forms part
of any habitat. Chapter IV deals with sanctuaries and national parks. Section
18 deals with 'declaration of sanctuary' by a preliminary notification with
definite boundaries where the government intends to constitute any area as C
a sanctuary, provided it is satisfied that such area is of adequate ecological
significance for protecting or developing wild life or its environment. Under
section 19 the collector is required to inquire into and determine the existence,
nature and extent of the rights of any person in or over the land comprised
within the sanctuary. Section 21 deals with proclamation by the collector and
under section 22 the collector has to make inquiry after service of the prescribed D
notices upon the claimants. Sections 24 and 25 deal with acquisition. Under
section 26A the State government shall make declaration of an area as a
sanctuary. After such declaration, any alteration of the boundaries of sanctuary
can be made only by a resolution passed by the State legislature. Section 29
specifically prohibits carrying out of commercial activity as well as diversion,
stopping or enhancement of the flow of water into or outside the sanctuary.
E
Section 29 reads as follows:

"29. Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without .a permit.-
No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wild life from a
sanctuary or destroy or damage the habitat of any wild animal or F
deprive any wild animal of its habitat within such sanctuary except
under and in accordance with a permit granted by Chief Wild Life
Warden and no such permit shall be granted unless the State
Government being satisfied that such destruction, exploitation, or
removal of wild life from the sanctuary is necessary for the improvement
and better management of wild life therein, authorises the issue of G
such permit.. .... "

The government under section 18 issued preliminary notification on
25th September, 1995 declaring the areas specified in the schedule as 'wild life
sanctuary' and by reason thereof the collector of West Godavari and the
collector of Krishna districts took steps in implementation thereof to hear and H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) 3 S.C.R.

A decide claims and to demarcate the boundary of the lake and the sanctuary.
The pri•liminary notification issued 1 nder section 18 and the consequential
action taken by the district collectms came up for consideration before a
learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
Kunapuraju Rangaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported
in (1998) 3 ALT 215. By order dated 5.3.1998, the learned single judge held
B that no interference with the rights of the petitioners could take place without
a notification under section 26A. Accordingly, directions were given to the
State government to take steps for issuance of such notification. Pursuant to
the said directions, proclamation under section 21 of the said Act was issued
by the respective district collectors of the above-mentioned two districts
C calling for objections. After conducting an inquiry under section 22 and after
considering all the objections, final notification as required under section 26A
of the Act was issued on 4.10.1999 which was published in government
gazette on 5.10.1999 determining the rights of the parties in terms of section
24 in the following terms:

D 'The existence, nature and extent of rights as determined by District
Colle.;tor, Krishna vide proceedings No. E6/1236/97, Dated: 01-09-1998
and by the District Collector, West Godavari, Elum in Re.No. D6/
11717I 96, Dated: 08-08-1999 are as follows:

(I) Right to do fishing with traditional methods using mavus, nets of
E size (which does not cause damage to seed but catches only fish of
harvestable size) which will be specified separately by the Chief Wild
Life Warden of Andhra Pradesh.

(~) No person shall form any tank for Aquaculture or for any other
purposes.
F
(3) Wherever Pisciculture was existing in private lands, as on the date
of notification, fishing In traditional methods shall be permitted, without
causing environmental hazard, till the Government acquires such
private lands.

G (4) Right to do traditional Agriculture without using pesticides and
chemicals.

(5) Right to use the ordinary boats, without motor for the movement
of the people.

H (6) Right of way with existing Roads connecting main habitations and
+
I

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.] 1033
their maintenances by providing sufficient number of vents for the A.
roads existing at the time of Notification ofKolleru Wild Life Sanctuary
U/s. 18 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 without permitting new
roads and culverts.

(7) Right to maintain existing water courses and drains necessary to
. avert submersion of agricultural lands surrounding Kolleru lake. B
(8) Other rights and conditions as specified U/s. 27 to 34 and other
provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

(9) Electricity connection shall be given for domestic use only and not
for Aquaculture or any activity connected therewith. C
(10) The 'D' form pattas granted or lease of land allowed in the area
in favour of any assignee or lessee as the case may be including three
societies viz., Gangaraju Fishermen Co-operative Society,
Srungavarappadu; Sringavarappadu Fishermen Cooperative Society;
Sanjaya Gandhi Fishermen Co-operative Society, Srungavarappadu of D
Krishna District will be cancelled. The claimants are not entitled to
any compensation under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as they were
assigned the'·lands by the Government on free of land value.

(11) D-Farm pattas to the extent of Ac. 2882.00 cts issued to the E
individuals as per G.0.Ms. No. 118 Revenue (Q) Dept., Dated:
24-0-1-1976 in West Godavari District wherein they were permitted to
construct fish tanks on the said lands are liable to be cancelled and
these lands will be resumed under the provisions of Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. These D-Farn1 patta holders are not entitled for
any compensation except ex gratia as provided by the Government. F
(12) The annual Licences which are being issued by the Fisheries
Department for Fishery purpose indicating the areas allotted are to be
discontinued.

(13) Encroachments in conditional patta lands of Siddapuram village G
of Akiveedu Manda! are to be evicted.

(14) The village site Poramboke of Siddapuram village of Akiveedu
Manda! measuring Ac. 16.67 cts is hereby excluded from the jurisdiction
of the Sanctuary. ·
H
(15) Any other encroachments activities, which are not pen\1itted
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 3 S.C.R.

A specifically are liable to be removed/stopped forthwith."

From the above, it is clear that the right of the local fishermen to do
fishing by traditional methods is not taken away, but aquaculture in the form
of any tank is prohibited. Further, wherever pisciculture existed in private
land, as on the date of the notification, fishing in traditional method is
B permitted without causing environmental hazard, till the government acquires
such private lands under the said 1972 Act. The right to do traditional
agriculture without using pesticides and chemicals is also permitted under the
notification. Lastly the encroachment activities are directed to be stopped,
forthwith. The final notification, therefore, seeks to regulate, in public interest
C and in the interest of ecology, activities, such as aquaculture, pisciculture,
prawn culture and shrimp culture, basically to preserve the identity of the lake
which otherwise is likely to become extinct within 12 years.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that having regard to the larger public
interest and in view of the fact that the Notification under section 26A has
D been issued pursuant to the orders of the High Court in the case of Kunapuraju
Rangaraju (supra), the Notification issued under section 26A needs to be
enforced immediately. We are informed that in the previous year on account
of these bunds/fish tanks free flow of water into the sea was blocked for 40
days. In any event, the rights of those fishermen surviving on a traditional
E method of fishing have not been taken away, they have been duly protected.
Only those who had illegally constructed bunds and who were using harmful
manures have been prevented from doing so by reason of the said Notification.
The State government has fulfilled its obligation by issuing such Notification.
When the rights of tl:e fishermen to do fishing by traditional methods have
not been taken away, and when the material placed on record before us shows
F that there is obstruction to the free flow of water in the lake bed area due to
raising of bunds whereby the retention capacity of the lake is diminished, the
government is right in regulating the rights under the said Notification. If
such encroachments are not removed immediately the right of the farmers in
the upstream mandals to do cultivation would be in jeopardy, consequently,
G it is their right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution which
is violated.

Before us it has been repeatedly urged that the objectors have made
huge investments over the years, that they were permitted to put up bunds
H under permissions given by the collector and that equity demands that a
balance be struck between preservation of the lake and the livelihood of
~
I

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. U.0.1. [KAPADIA, J.J 1035
persons surviving on aquaculture and pisciculture. It is further argued that A
mud bunds constituted a part of traditional fishing practice and consequently
this Court should not direct demolition of these bunds.

We do not find any merit in the above. arguments for the following
reasons. Firstly, section 29 specifically prohibits commercial activity inside the
Sanctuary. It prohibits commercial activity which diverts, stops or increases B
the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary. With the issuance of the final
Notification formation of fish tanks for aquaculture or for any other purpose
is prohibited as they obstruct free flow of water both into or outside the
Sanctuary. Secondly, the Notification dated 4.10.1999 provides a limited right
to carry on fishing inasmuch as it permits fishing with traditional methods C
using mavus and nets. It expressly, however, prohibits the objectors from
forming any fish tank(s) for aquaculture or for any other purpose. It also
expressly provides that wherever pisciculture was existing on the date of the
notification in private lands, fishing in traditional methods shall be permitted,
without causing environmental hazard, till the government acquires such
private lands. It also cancels the pattas granted in the past. In our view, D
therefore, the Notification regulates aquaculture, pisciculture, prawn culture,
shrimp culture etc. Thirdly, the argument advanced on behalf of the objectors
that mud bunds formation is compatible with traditional fishing practice and,
therefore, should be allowed to continue to exist, has no merit. When a bund
- is formed in a sanctuary or a lake it seeks to encapsulate an area which in
turn obstructs free flow of water in the lake bed area. As stated above,
E

formation ofbund reduces the retention capacity of the lake. These fonnations,
if allowed, would destroy the lake. In view of the provisions of section.26A
read with section 29 all commercial activities which seek to destroy the
ecology, stands prohibited. Compatibility of mud bunds with the traditional
fishing practice in a lake is a concept different from formation of mud bunds F
inside the Sanctuary. Notification dated 4.10.1999 does not cover the entire
area of the lake. Out of 901 sq. kms. of Kolleru lake, an area of 308 sq. kms.
alone is notified as Sanctuary. This indicates that the government has balanced
the needs of sustainable development with the livelihood of persons surviving
on the resources of this lake. Lastly, the preliminary notification was issued G
as far back as in 1995 under section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the objectors
were put to notice about the future course of action. Therefore, it is not open
to the objectors now to say that they have made huge investments which
would be lost if the report of the CEC is implemented. As stated hereinabove,
in the preceding year free flow of water into the sea was blocked for 40 days.
Such blocking of water also affects the livelihood of farmers cultivating lands H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A in the upstream mandals. The oil cakes used as manure also pollute the
Sanctuary. It is true that there are other effluents which also pollute the lake.
By issuance of the Notification the government has taken a step in the right
direction and it is not open to this Court to tell the government as to which
of the three effluents in terms of their discharge should be regulated first in
B point of time. In the present case, as stated above, the blockage is due to
discharge of effluents from three sources, namely, fish tanks in and around
the lake containing high concentration of nutrients, effluents from municipal
drainage and effluents emerging from the industries located in an around the
above two districts. Destruction of the fish tanks is one of the steps taken
by issuance of the Notification. That has to be done at the earliest point of
C time, particularly, before the onset of the monsoon.

For the above reasons, we direct the State government and its officers
to implement the directions of CEC vide para 54 of its report dated 20th
March, 2006. We make it clear that the use or transportation of inputs for
pisciculture shall be stopped immediately. We. further, clarify that the demolition
D of all fish tanks in a time-bound manner shall commence with effect from April
20, 2006, as indicated vide para 54(ii). Accordingly, the interim order granted
by this Court in I.A. Nos.1486-1487 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995, shall stand
vacated.

Accordingly, all I.As/writ petitions/objections filed by various objectors,
E shall stand disposed of. -
N.J. Matters disposed of.