ORDER : The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in constructing the Grama Sachivalayam in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents out of the total extent of Ac.39.82 cents in Survey No.254 of Revendrapadu Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 19.07.2019, apart from principles of natural justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6, and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 9. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 9 started construction of Grama Sachivalayam/Village Secretariat building in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents out of total extent of Ac.39.82 cents in Survey No.254 of Revendrapadu Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District, which is vested with the Department of Irrigation and Public Works Department and without having any prior permission from the concerned authorities. Moreover, the land in Survey No.254 is classified as canal land (buckingham canal) and notified as Government land. He further contended that the revenue records i.e., adangal for the fasali 1431 dated 30.08.2021 categorically classified that the proposed constructed area is in Survey No.254, which is a land of irrigation canal. Once a piece of land is classified as water body, it cannot be converted for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it is meant for. He also contended that there is no conversion of land proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’) to make the construction of Village Secretariat. He also contended that in view of the proposed construction of the Grama Sachivalayam/Village Secretariat, they excavated the land to the extent of 2 meters depth abutting to the house of the petitioner, but which causing seepage of water from the canal which is abutting to the proposed construction and getting damage to the house of the petitioner. He also contended that in view of the proposed construction of the Grama Sachivalayam/Village Secretariat, they excavated the land to the extent of 2 meters depth abutting to the house of the petitioner, but which causing seepage of water from the canal which is abutting to the proposed construction and getting damage to the house of the petitioner. Further, even though the land in Survey No.254 is consisting of Ac.39.82 cents, the canal i.e., Buckingham Canal is a big irrigation and drinking water canal, which runs hundreds of kilometers and the width of the canal including bunds is more than 100 meters. In some places it is 200 meters. The entire extent of the land is covered by the canal passing through the revenue village of the Revendrapadu Village. The small pieces of extents i.e., Ac.0.05 cents or Ac.0.10 cents are also part and parcel of the bunds of the canal and it is not a vacant land or a vacant site as contended by the respondents. Moreover, the entire canal flow area in that particular revenue village is only one survey number which is Survey No.254. As such it is not a vacant site and it is only part of the bund as admitted by the respondents. Therefore, no construction shall be made in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Walta Act’) and more particularly, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, time and again to keep the natural courses and water bodies as intact. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 9 filed counter, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 filed counter and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.2 also filed counter. 5. Respondent No.2 through his counter contended that as per the directions of the 3rd respondent, the 6th respondent-Tahsildar identified all pieces of land an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in Survey No.252 but the 3rd respondent accorded his permission for construction of proposed Village Secretariat on 10.02.2021 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 under which the 3rd respondent was empowered to alienate and allot Government lands for public purpose. In view of G.O.Ms.No.571 since the 3rd respondent was empowered for such alienation the 2nd respondent has no objection for such alienation for construction of the present Village Secretariat, which is meant for public purpose. 6. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 also filed separate counters contending that as per the report of the Panchayat Secretary, the land in Survey Nos.252 and 254 is irrigation poramboke land and previously a veterinary hospital is being constructed in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.0.31 cents i.e., (Ac.0.18 cents and Ac.0.13 cents) and also stated that the present proposed construction is abutting to canal bund, which is part of it, but it is away from the canal as per the letter of the Executive Engineer, Krishna Water Division, Tenali to the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Works and also sought for no objection. Whereas the Superintending Engineer issued no objection letter on 07.12.2021 and in view of the permission accorded by the authorities, the 6th respondent handover the advance possession to the 7th respondent for construction of subject building. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for 9th respondent-Gram Panchayat also contended that the Gram Panchayat passed resolution for construction of the Village Secretariat and pursuant to its request, the respondent authorities sanctioned the permission of five Village Secretariat buildings vide proceedings dated 10.02.2021. Pursuant to the said sanction, the possession of the subject site was handed over for construction of the Village Secretariat. He also contended that the said site is abutting to village main road, even though it is classified as canal site it is abutting to the house of the petitioner as well as others it may not cause any obstruction to the free flow of channel. He further contended that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since it is classified as canal poramboke land, it cannot be converted for any other purpose is not sustainable, since the present construction is for public purpose and there is a defunct hospital for livestock is located and it is nearby the vicinity of the residential area and conversion of land into non-agricultural purpose does not arise since the proposed construction of Village Secretariat building is meant for public purpose. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the contentions made and material placed by both the learned counsels, it is an admitted fact that the land in Survey No.254 is classified as canal land (buckingham canal) and notified as Government land. It is also an admitted fact that the revenue record also shows that the proposed constructed area in Survey No.254 is a land of part of irrigation canal bund and it cannot be converted for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it is meant for. Further, the land is not converted into non-agricultural purpose as per the provision of Section 4 of the Act to make any construction as contended by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the proposed conversion is also against the provision of Section 11 of the Walta Act is also sustainable. Therefore, the proposed construction is in violation of the provisions status mentioned above, apart from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 9. The contention of learned Standing Counsel that the said site is abutting to village main road and also to the existing bund of the canal, even though it is classified as canal site it is abutting to the houses of the petitioner as well as others, it may not cause any obstruction to the free flow of channel is not sustainable in view of keeping the ecological balances and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of A.P. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 549 , wherein it is held at paragraph Nos.82, 83, 84, 86 and 96 as under: “82. Article 48-A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve the national environment and including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Article 51-A of the Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve the national environment and including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife 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 understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also the various laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures. 83. 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 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, mismatch between 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 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. 84. 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 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 development which can be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources for the benefit of humanity and future generations could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or compelling human necessity. The growth and development process are terms without any content, without inkling as to the substance of their end results. This inevitably leads us to the conception of growth and development which sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure “our common future”. The growth and development process are terms without any content, without inkling as to the substance of their end results. This inevitably leads 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 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 principle that all human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their wellbeing, 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. 86. 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 Article 21 of the Constitution. This apart, the directive principles of State policy as also the fundamental duties enshrined in Part IV and Part IV-A of the Constitution respectively also stress the need to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. 96. The appeals are disposed of with the following directions: With regard to Peruru tank (i) No further constructions to be made. (ii) The supply channel of Bodeddulu vanka needs to be cleared and revitalized. A small check dam at Malapalli to be removed to ensure the free flow and supply to the tank.” 10. In Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 , in paras 12 and 13 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “12. On this finding, in our view, the High Court ought to have confirmed the order of the Commissioner. However, it proceeded to hold that considering the said report the area of 10 biswas could only be allotted and the remaining five biswas of land which have still the character of a pond, could not be allotted. In our view, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order of the High Court. However, it proceeded to hold that considering the said report the area of 10 biswas could only be allotted and the remaining five biswas of land which have still the character of a pond, could not be allotted. In our view, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order of the High Court. There is concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it varies in the rainy season. In such a case no part of it could have been allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allied purposes. 13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.” 11. In Yegireddi Radha Vs. Manal Praja Parishad Development Officer, (2021) 6 ALT 418 (DB), in paras 12 and 13 of the judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held thus: “9. It is nobody's case that such conversion had been done before the construction of Village Secretariat Building/Grama Sachivalayam Building, Rythu Bharosa Kendram, Health Sub-Centre/Health and Wellness Centre in Survey No. 50-3 were undertaken. On the other hand, it is contended various constructions i.e., school, veterinary hospital etc., were already standing in Survey No. 50-3 and accordingly, the construction of Village Secretariat Building/Grama Sachivalayam Building, Rythu Bharosa Kendram, Health Sub- Centre/Health and Wellness Centre was undertaken in the said site. We are of the opinion where the land in question is classified as „tank?, mere existence of other constructions thereon cannot be a justification to permit new constructions to be made in survey number classified as tank”. Furthermore, no permission to make such construction had been obtained from the appropriate authorities including 3rd respondent herein. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that respondent Nos. Furthermore, no permission to make such construction had been obtained from the appropriate authorities including 3rd respondent herein. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that respondent Nos. 12 and 14 had acted contrary to law in undertaking unauthorised construction of Grama Sachivalayam and other buildings in Survey No. 50-3 which is classified as tank land. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall desist from continuing further constructions in Survey No. 50-3 of Uddavolu village which is classified as tank land. In the event, the respondents choose to shift the site of the buildings from Survey No. 158 of Uddavolu village, it shall be open to the said respondents to approach the 3rd respondent for necessary permission and allotment of any other plot in accordance with law.” 12. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is also followed by this Court and upheld the law in catena of judgments. Therefore, under these present circumstances, this Court has no other option except to follow the same to safeguard the canal in question. However, due to the persistent developmental activities over a long time, much of the natural resources of the lakes and tanks have been lost, and considered irreparable. This, though regrettable, is beyond the power of this Court to rectify. It is true that the tank as well as field channel are communal property and the State authorities are trustees to hold and manage such properties for the benefits of the community and they cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission, which will infringe the right of the community and alienate the property to any other person or body on the guise of development and public purpose. The repeated plea of the respondents that the subject construction is only meant for intra-development for the public at large, more particularly, the community of the village cannot weigh more than the environmental considerations, which is primus as on today. 13. In view of the observations and findings to keep the ecological balance and the principles of preservation of the natural water courses, lakes, canals and other types of water bodies and to achieve the object of Article 58(d) of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed. 14. 13. In view of the observations and findings to keep the ecological balance and the principles of preservation of the natural water courses, lakes, canals and other types of water bodies and to achieve the object of Article 58(d) of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents not to construct the Grama Sachivalayam in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents out of the total extent of Ac.39.82 cents in Survey No.254 of Revendrapadu Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.