Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 972 (AP)

Ketha Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-10

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2022
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 to 7, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 10, and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in connecting the drainage canals to the irrigation channel pipeline No.1 lockbode situated on the eastern side of Nidadavole-Narsapur main irrigation canal upto the kaja drain, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are having small extents of agricultural lands in Poduru Village and Mandal and depending on the agriculture for their livelihood. Their agricultural lands are irrigated under pipeline No.1 which is called as lockbode. While so, the 9th respondent-Grampanchayat got constructed a drainage and the same was connected to pipeline No.1/lockbode which is meant for irrigation of notified ayacut of 111 acres. In view of the same, the crops of the petitioners are being damaged. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent authorities. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent authorities in not taking action against the 9th respondent, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9878 of 2014. At the time of hearing of the said writ petition, basing on the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation as well as the learned standing counsel for the 9th respondent that they are not carrying out any such activity as alleged by the petitioners, the writ petition was closed on 10.04.2014. Even after passing of the order dated 10.04.2014 in W.P.No.9878 of 2014, as the respondent authorities are allowing the 9th respondent to continue the drainage canal by connecting it to pipeline No.1/lockbode situated on the eastern side of Nidadavole main canal, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 10.12.2014 to the respondent authorities bringing to their notice about the high handed action of the 9th respondent. After receipt of the said notice, the 5th respondent issued a reply notice dated 05.01.2015 admitting that the pucca drain connecting to the irrigation field channel to the lockbode and Mattaparru channel. On the other hand, the 6th respondent got issued a reply stating that the irrigation channel is purely under the control and maintenance of the Irrigation Department and within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent. On the other hand, the 6th respondent got issued a reply stating that the irrigation channel is purely under the control and maintenance of the Irrigation Department and within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent. It is also the case of the petitioners that the irrigation channels are spoiled by dumping hazardous materials and by connecting the drainage canals into the field channels of irrigation system. It is the contention of the petitioners that even though there is a specific admission on the part of the 5th respondent that the 9th respondent got constructed a pucca drain and it was connected to the subject lockbode, the drain is not yet diverted. 4. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the subject field channel is not at all pertains to the Irrigation Department and all the irrigation channels are under the purview, control, supervision and maintenance of the Revenue Department, but the pucca drains constructed by the 9th respondent is under the control of the 9th respondent. As such, a letter dated 10.04.2014 was addressed to the 10th respondent requesting him to curb such activity with a view to safeguard the welfare of the ryots and also cattle. If the sewage water enters into the field channels, the water of the field channels will be contaminated and it would cause severe ill-health problems to the cattle and spoil the crops. Even as per the Revenue Board Standing Order No.86 (2), the revenue authorities are empowered to maintain and control the irrigation channels. Admittedly, the subject channel is an irrigation channel. Therefore, the 10th respondent is responsible to take appropriate action and see that no drainage is connected to the subject channel. 5. The 9th respondent-Grampanchayat also filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioners and stating that the Grampanchayat has already taken all precautionary measures to see to it that the drainage water is not mixed and entered into the irrigation bode. The Grampanchayat also passed a resolution dated 26.02.2016 and it is proposed to construct a harvesting pit in order to take the drainage water into the pit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even though the 9th respondent passed a resolution dated 26.02.2016 for taking alternative steps, but so far the same is not materialised. 7. The Grampanchayat also passed a resolution dated 26.02.2016 and it is proposed to construct a harvesting pit in order to take the drainage water into the pit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even though the 9th respondent passed a resolution dated 26.02.2016 for taking alternative steps, but so far the same is not materialised. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the fact remains is that the drainage, which was got constructed by the 9th respondent and connected to the subject lockbode, has been damaging the crops of the petitioners and causing health hazards to the cattle of the ryots. It is also an admitted fact that the subject lockbode is part and parcel of Dowlaiswaram Project Irrigation channel and it has a notified ayacut and the petitioners are the ayacutdars of the said channel. Further, the 5th respondent addressed a letter dated 10.04.2014 to the 10th respondent to take steps to arrest the damage being caused to the subject field channel. 8. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “20. It is thus obvious that the Environment Act contains useful provisions for controlling pollution. The main purpose of the Act is to create an authority or authorities under Section 3(3) of the Act with adequate powers to control pollution and protect the environment. It is a pity that till date no authority has been constituted by the Central Government. The work which is required to be done by an authority in terms of Section 3(3) read with other provisions of the Act is being done by this Court and the other courts in the country. It is high time that the Central Government realises its responsibility and statutory duty to protect the degrading environment in the country. If the conditions in the five districts of Tamil Nadu, where tanneries are operating, are permitted to continue then in the near future all rivers/canals shall be polluted, underground waters contaminated, agricultural lands turned barren and the residents of the area exposed to serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the Environment Act.” 9. In U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the Environment Act.” 9. In U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi, (2009) 2 SCC 147 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held thus: “38. In the case on hand which is also similar to Mohan Meakins Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 745 ] had commenced its journey in the year 1985, nonetheless lapse of such a long period cannot be a reason to absolve the respondents from the trial. In a matter of this nature, particularly, when it affects public health if it is ultimately proved, courts cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. The message must go to all persons concerned whether small or big that the courts will share the parliamentary concern and legislative intent of the Act to check the escalating pollution level and restore the balance of our environment. Those who discharge noxious polluting effluents into streams, rivers or any other water bodies which inflicts (sic harm) on the public health at large, should be dealt with strictly dehors the technical objections. Since escalating pollution level of our environment affects the life and health of human beings as well as animals, the courts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental Acts in a casual or routine manner.” 10. In Sri Siromani Mittasala, Chairman, Paryavarana Parirakshaka Parishad, Kavali, Nellore District Vs. Since escalating pollution level of our environment affects the life and health of human beings as well as animals, the courts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental Acts in a casual or routine manner.” 10. In Sri Siromani Mittasala, Chairman, Paryavarana Parirakshaka Parishad, Kavali, Nellore District Vs. President, Brindavanam Colony Welfare Association, Kavali, 2001 SCC Online AP 921, the Apex Court directed the State Government of Andhra Pradesh as well as the Municipal Authorities as under: “(a) The State Government shall constitute a Committee with (i) Chief Engineer, Public Health as Chairman; (ii) Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, (iii) Director of Medical & Health or Director of Health Services; (iv) Director of Institute of Preventive Medicine; (v) Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board; (vi) Director of Municipal Administration and (vii) District Collector, Nellore immediately to prepare necessary plans and steps and monitor supply of safe drinking water to residents of Kavali; (b) We direct the Director of Municipalities and Kavali Municipality to take immediate necessary steps to prevent the flow of both treated and untreated sewage into Papireddy tank and other surface water resources like tanks, kuntas, guntas, guntas whether or not they are being used for drinking purpose.” 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra which are applicable to the case on hand, respondent Nos.9 and 10 are directed to take steps for disconnection of the drainage from the subject irrigation channel/lockbode by making alternative arrangements i.e., by constructing a separate pucca drain to the extent possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 are also directed to monitor and see that the drainage is disconnected from the irrigation channel/lockbode and no further damage will be caused to the crops of the petitioners and health hazards to the cattle of the ryots. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.