AP High Court Calls For Law Penalising Govt Officials Who ‘Turn Blind Eye’ To Encroachment Of Water Bodies, Drains
In a case involving the unlawful development of a bridge over a Canal in Andhra Pradesh’s Kaikaluru city, the Excessive Courtroom has known as for stringent legal guidelines that punish not solely public violators but additionally the federal government officers who flip a blind-eye to unlawful encroachments and violations on waterways.
Taking critical observe of the detrimental affect of such encroachments and calling for legislative reforms that maintain officers accountable for sitting on such points, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad noticed,
“These violations on waterways and watercourses during which contemporary water or drainage water flows are damaging or destroying the wildlife apart from inflicting humongous harm to the human inhabitations. In instances of flood, inundation of land by water develop into digital death-traps for animals within the wild (in forests) in addition to to the people within the villages, cities and metropolitan cities. It is usually observed that the violators go scot-free with impunity as a result of the present legislation, doesn’t have a deterrent impact. Subsequently, it’s the proper time for the Authorities (legislation makers) to make legal guidelines, guidelines and rules to weaponise the Authorities Departments to attain this objective. This legislation wants to handle not solely the violators from among the many public, but additionally the Officers who conveniently flip a blind-eye to the acts of violation.”
Thus, within the bigger public curiosity, the Single Decide issued the next instructions to the State authorities:
“i. The Irrigation Division, Income Division, Division of Panchayat Raj, Municipalities and Municipal Companies shall be certain that all waterways and or watercourses (with no matter nomenclature they’re known as) that carry contemporary water in addition to drainage water are maintained and preserved by way of depth, width and size as per the Official Information.
ii. The above Departments shall be certain that any development made by anybody over the watercourses and or waterways (with no matter nomenclature they’re known as) that allow circulation of contemporary water and drainage water shall not in any method impede, block or ‘trigger a bottleneck impact’ both throughout the regular time or throughout the time of flood.
iii. Involved Departments shall make periodical visits/inspections alongside your entire size of such waterways/watercourses (with no matter nomenclature they’re known as), ideally as soon as in six (6) months and submit experiences to their respective Heads of Departments as regards violations or deviations from permits/licences that are observed throughout their visits/inspections with full measurements of the violations/deviations and the particulars of the violators/deviators.
iv. Involved Heads of the Departments, upon receiving of such experiences, shall forthwith trigger an enquiry and guarantee clearance inside fifteen (15) days, by following the due strategy of legislation.
v. The above instructions shall apply to all waterways and or watercourses, and feeder channels, both man-made or pure. Involved Heads of Departments shall percolate this Order to all Officers in the entire hierarchy for efficient compliance. (Observe: Contemporary Water and Drainage Water, wherever they’re referred to shall imply and embody brackish-waters, back-waters and sewerage waters)”
Background:
The Courtroom was coping with a writ petition difficult a Discover issued by the Tahsildar, Kaikaluru, Eluru District (Respondent 4) dated 04.09.2024, whereby he directed the petitioners to take away the bridge constructed by them on the Canal.
With a view to achieve entry to the home, the Deputy Govt Engineer, Irrigation (Sub-Division), Kaikaluru (Respondent 5), had granted a conditional permission to the daddy of Petitioner 1 for development of a bridge with retaining partitions on either side. The permission was topic to the development being carried out beneath the supervision of the Govt Engineer, Irrigation Division, and in strict adherence to the unique dimensions of the Canal, particularly sustaining its precise width and depth, together with a concrete mattress of 5 meters.
Owing to prevailing flood circumstances within the area, Respondent 4 had issued the impugned discover. Subsequently, the Courtroom directed Respondent 4 and 5 to submit a Report explaining whether or not the petitioners had violated the phrases of the conditional permission granted to them.
Upon receipt of the respective Reviews, it transpired that the petitioners had constructed concrete slabs in such a fashion that lined your entire stretch of the Canal with out informing the Govt Engineer, thereby, violating the phrases of the conditional permission. The Report of Respondent 4 additional indicated that whereas the petitioners had free and handy ingress and egress on the western facet, they’d closed it by erecting a Storage and took full entry from the southern facet on which the bridge was illegally constructed.
Courtroom’s Findings:
Expressing concern over the unlawful encroachment, the Courtroom reprimanded:
“… the Writ Petitioners have constructed 62 ft 11 inches of concrete bridge in blatant violation of the permission granted by the Deputy Engineer, Division of Irrigation dated 10.06.2015 (Ex.P4) and that the Writ Petitioners have been using this portion illegally for a substantial size of time and the Irrigation Division additionally has conveniently ignored the blatant violation of their very own instructions”
The Courtroom referred to T. Sannamani Ammal V. Authorities of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary Income Division and Others [2018 SCC Online Mad 1305], the place the Madras Excessive Courtroom had held that encroachment in water our bodies and water sources is a “social evil” which impacts and infringes the constitutional rights of different residents.
The Single Decide additionally referred to the Niti Aayog’s “Report of the Committee Constituted for Formulation of Technique for Flood Administration Works in Complete nation and River Administration Actions and Works associated to Border Areas (2021-26)” which had steered structural and non-structural measures for flood administration and had prescribed “Channel and drainage enchancment work, which artificially scale back the flood water stage in order to maintain the identical, confined throughout the river banks and thus stop spilling”, as one of many structural measures which don’t scale back flood circulation however scale back spilling.
Disposing of the petition, the Courtroom expressed discontent over the blatant violation of the conditional permission and the handy ignorance of the identical by the Irrigation Division. Subsequently, within the bigger public curiosity, the Courtroom issued a slew of remedial and supervisory instructions to varied authorities our bodies for preservation of all waterways.
Case Particulars:
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 19674/2024
Case Title: MAGINENI SHANMUKHA VINAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
