ORDER : 1. Since all these writ petitions are identical and the issues involved in these cases are similar, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of them by way of this common order. 2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and learned standing counsel for Grampanchayats. 3. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in W.P.No.11822 of 2022 are taken into consideration as under: The present writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to make construction of office buildings for Village Secretariat, Wellness Centre and Rytu Bharosa Kendram in the land in Survey No.33 of Vedullavalasa H/O. Kovvur Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court for conversion of water tanks and water bodies into any constructions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are agriculturists/ryots of Vedullavalasa Village and doing agricultural operations in respect of their lands having an irrigation source to their lands through Pothulavari Cheruvu/tank. The said Pothulavari Cheruvu is a big natural tank and catering the needs of village as irrigation source to so much agricultural lands/notified ayacut lands of the ryots apart from other professional needs of the villagers i.e., for washing of clothes by rajakas and drinking water needs of the livestock of the villagers. The tank has one feeder channel, which runs from adjacent hill areas of the village through the land in Survey No.33 of Vedullavalasa Village. It is a natural course/channel/feeder channel to Pothulavari Cheruvu/Tank. He further contended that he filed revenue records consisting of 1B Register dated 05.04.2022 and a copy of adangal dated 09.03.2022 wherein the land in Survey No.33 is shown as an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and notified as Government land and classified the nature of land as field channel. As per the revenue records, Survey No.33, in which office buildings are proposed to be constructed, is classified/earmarked as water channel (gorji). As such, it cannot be converted to any other purpose. As per the revenue records, Survey No.33, in which office buildings are proposed to be constructed, is classified/earmarked as water channel (gorji). As such, it cannot be converted to any other purpose. He further contended that there are no conversion proceedings of subject land into non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act’), which is mandatory under the provisions of said Act before any constructions. Hence, the proceedings issued by the District Collector dated 20.05.2020 for construction of the office buildings at subject land in Survey No.33, which are come under the usage of semi public usage, as illegal and liable to be set aside and the proposed construction cannot be allowed in the subject land, which violates provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Walta Act’) as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. He also contended that this Court after prima facie satisfaction, granted interim direction, and because of the same, no construction is being carried out till today. 5. Learned Standing Counsel filed a vacate stay petition along with a counter seeking to vacate the interim order dated 26.04.2022 and he also filed documents consisting of resolution of Gram Panchayat and a letter addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer to the 4th respondent herein and photographs of the proposed construction in the subject land. He contended that it is true that the land as per the revenue records, as claimed by the petitioners, which is in Survey No.33 is classified as gorji, which means that field channel/Kaluva, which runs from the hill track to Pothulavari tank, which is a natural course and feeder channel. Moreover, the said tank is catering the needs of irrigation sources to the agricultural lands apart from other professional needs of the villagers. He emphasized that the extent of land in Survey No.33 is Ac.1.00 cents and the subject channel runs from the hill track to Pothulavari Cheruvu through the land in Survey Nos.33, 40 and 187. In fact, there is a huge vacant site available in Survey No.33, between R & B road and this channel, which runs through part of the land in Survey No.33. In fact, there is a huge vacant site available in Survey No.33, between R & B road and this channel, which runs through part of the land in Survey No.33. Therefore, the said vacant site was identified by the authorities, which is suitable for construction of above stated office buildings out of Ac1.00 cents of land leaving an extent in which area the field channel is flowing. As such the contention of the petitioners that if office buildings are constructed, it will obstruct the free flow of field channel and cause damage to the crops in their lands, is only invented to file this writ petition only. Moreover, it will obstruct water feeding to the tank since it is only a field channel to the tank is not true and correct. As per the letter addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kothakota Section, Kothakota to the 4th respondent herein, wherein he stated that the said Pothulavari tank is notified as a minor irrigation tank. It has an ayacut of 148 acres and the present channel runs through the lands in Survey No.33. In fact, there is a gap of 1.5 meters between the proposed construction and the water flow area. As such, it may not obstruct the flow of water to the subject tank i.e., the Pothulavari tank. Because of the said proceedings, there is no possibility of obstruction to the flow of the water through the feeder channel and there is no submersion of the village in this channel. He further contended that since there is no other suitable land available in the village, it was explicitly identified and earmarked for such construction as it is abutting to the R & B road and Government land, and Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 25.04.2020 for construction of the subject buildings. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the contentions and material placed by both the learned counsels, it is an admitted fact that the land in Survey No.33 is classified as a natural water course/field channel (vanka) to the Pothulavari Cheruvu, which is a minor irrigation tank i.e., Pothulavari Cheruvu/tank and which is catering the irrigation source to the notified ayacut of 148 acres apart from other needs of villagers. It is also admitted that the revenue records also show that it is only a feeder channel/field channel and also notified as Government land. Further, the subject land is not converted for non-agricultural purposes, which is mandatory as per the provisions of the Act to make any constructions. The other contention of the petitioners that the proposed conversion for construction of RCC Buildings is also in violation of the provisions of the Walta Act is also to be considered. In fact, the proposed structure cannot be allowed on the land, which is classified as water body/water course. 7. The contention of learned Standing Counsel that since it is a vacant site and is abutting to the R & B road and the non-availability of any other Government land in a particular village and it is very much suitable for the construction of office buildings and may not cause any obstruction to the free flow of the water since there is 1.5-metre distance between the natural field channel to the proposed structures is not sustainable, in view of the 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, including forests, lakes, rivers, and 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. 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 protection and related infrastructure. These requirements are growing in the context of the rapid pace of urbanization, increasing migration from rural to urban centres in search of livelihood, the 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 the sustainable development of habitat in the country, with a view to ensuring the 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 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 an 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 to secure "our common future". In pursuit of development, the focus has to be on the sustainability of development and policies towards that end must 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 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. 86. It is now an accepted social principle 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 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 preservation of natural resources have been given a status of a fundamental right and brought under Article 21 of the Constitution. This apart, the directive principles of State policy and 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.” 8. 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, the High Court should 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 still has the character of a pond, could not be allotted. In our view, sustaining the impugned order of the High Court is difficult. There is a 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 the construction of the building or any allied purposes. 13. It is essential to notice that the material resources of the community, like forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks, mountains etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain a delicate ecological balance. In such a case, no part of it could have been allotted to anybody for the construction of the building or any allied purposes. 13. It is essential to notice that the material resources of the community, like forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks, mountains etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain a 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 the 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.” 9. 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 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 was 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', the mere existence of other constructions thereon cannot be a justification to permit new constructions to be made in the 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 believe that respondent Nos. 12 and 14 had acted contrary to the 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. 12 and 14 had acted contrary to the 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.” 10. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is followed by this Court and upheld the ratio in a catena of judgments. Therefore, under these present circumstances, this Court has no other option except to follow the same to safeguard the vanka/channel 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 the field channel, are communal property, and the State authorities are trustees to hold and manage such properties for the benefit of the community, and they cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission, which will infringe the rights 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 of today. 11. 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, all these writ petitions are liable to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.