ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal acts of the respondents to divide the Water Tank/Cattle Pond (Kotha Cheruvu/Chinna Cheruvu) near Veerabhadra Temple situated in the centre of the village Gramakantam covered by Survey No.53-1 of Suryaraopalem Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District into house site plots for assignment as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, unjust against the procedure laid down in the Board standing orders and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently, direct the respondents to maintain and preserved the Water tank/Cattle Pond (KOTHA CHERUVU/CHINNA CHERUVU) intact, in the interest of justice and to pass such other and further order or orders …”. 2. The averments, in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner is permanent resident of Suryaraopalem, village. Petitioner has been living by doing business and by rearing pigs in and around Water Tank/Cattle Pond (Kotha Cheruvu/Chinna Cheruvu). Tank is situated in survey No.53-1 of Suryaraopalem village and it is classified as gramakantam. Petitioner was served with notice, dated 14.01.2021 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act. Petitioner came to know that official respondents are trying to convert the tank as house sites by leveling the same. Petitioner along with others made representation, dated 19.04.2021. With the above allegations, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Respondent Nos.7 to 23, beneficiaries, who are assigned house sites filed implead petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the same was allowed by order dated 24.01.2023. 4. Respondent No.4/Tahsildar filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6. It was contended, inter alia, that an extent of Ac.16-97 cents of Suryaraopalem village is classified as ‘gramakantham’. The entire land is covered by houses, roads and drains, etc., except Ac.0-48 cents, which is vacant land and vested with Gramapanchayat. Said vacant land is situated in the midst of the village and surrounded by residential houses, rain water, drain water and sewage water used to collect in it and formed like a small pond. It is not a tank and even in FMB there are no traces or signs of water body. Said vacant land is situated in the midst of the village and surrounded by residential houses, rain water, drain water and sewage water used to collect in it and formed like a small pond. It is not a tank and even in FMB there are no traces or signs of water body. Wherever any tank, drain or pond would exist, the same will be depicted in FMB with water symbol. If any part of the gramakantam is at low level, Gram Panchayat can fill it in the interest of public health and filling of any low lying area cannot be termed as filling up of a tank or pond. Gram Panchayat, Surayraopalem passed resolution No.15 dated 20.11.2019 for development of housing colony in R.S.No.53-1 under NREGS scheme with an amount of Rs.6,64,330/-. Gram Panchayat, Surayraopalem passed resolution No.39, dated 02.12.2020 for formation of gravel road in the housing colony layout in R.S.No.53-1 with an estimated amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Resolution No.40 was passed by Gram Panchayat, Surayraopalem, on 04.01.2021 for providing water pipeline. 5. During the year, 2019, Government has instructed to issue house sites to homeless poor families on saturation basis under NPI and instructed that all unobjectionable and vacant government lands shall be allotted for the purpose, before going for land acquisition. On verification, it is noticed that land of Ac.0-48 cents in survey No.53-1 is vacant except a small hut of the writ petitioner and huts of others which were being used for non residential purpose. Identified beneficiaries requested to allot above site for house sites. Writ petitioner was issued notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘APLE Act’), on 14.01.2020. Writ petitioner vacated the land. The subject land of Ac.0-48 cents has been handed over to the PD, DWMA, who has developed the land into layout by spending Rs.6,64,330/- under MGNREGS and 25 plots were divided on the ground. Plots were allotted to the identified beneficiaries, on 29.06.2020 through draw of lottery. House site pattas were issued on 06.01.2021. Grounding for 17 plots has been completed and two houses are under construction, having been completed upto lintel and basement levels. Alleged tank was never used for any purpose of drinking water in the earlier days. In fact, water tank is in existence in R.S.No.39 of Suryaraopalem village. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Grounding for 17 plots has been completed and two houses are under construction, having been completed upto lintel and basement levels. Alleged tank was never used for any purpose of drinking water in the earlier days. In fact, water tank is in existence in R.S.No.39 of Suryaraopalem village. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Respondent No.5, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Suryaraopalem, filed separate counter affidavit with leave of this Court. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that as per revenue records, Ac.16-97 cents in R.S.No.53-1 in Suryaraopalem village is classified as gramakantam. Entire land is covered by houses, roads, drains except Ac.0-48 cents which is vacant. It is only low lying area surrounded by the residential houses and formed like a small unhygienic pond due to stagnation of rain water, drain water and sewage water. Land was identified for the purpose of house sites under NPI (“Navaratnalu Pedaluandariki Illu”) scheme. Gram Panchayat also passed resolution for formation of gravel road and for providing water pipeline. 25 plots were marked in the subject land. 17 plots were allotted to the identified beneficiaries through draw of lottery and house site pattas were issued on 06.01.2021. Two houses are under construction completed up to lintel and basement levels respectively. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Beneficiaries, who were impleaded as party respondent Nos.7 to 23 filed separate counter affidavit, praying the Court to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether any tank existed in survey No.53-1 in an extent of Ac.0-48 cents of Suryaraopalem village? (2) If any tank existed, whether dismantling tank for the purpose of house plots is permissible? 9. Along with the writ petition, petitioner filed Ex.P1, copy of village map. The main objective of preparing maps is to depict a mental construct of the village itself, and it also exhibits the geographical image of the village or para and also to show the available resources that are found in that particular village. A perusal of the map manifests existence of tank in survey No.53- 1 of Suryaraopalem village. ‘Marking’ in the village map indicates the existence of water. Ex.P2, work details indicate that an amount of Rs.98,171/- was expended for desilting cattle ponds and work code is 050652907007170364. The location is Krotha Cheruvu (near Veerabhadra gudi), Suryaraopalem village. A perusal of the map manifests existence of tank in survey No.53- 1 of Suryaraopalem village. ‘Marking’ in the village map indicates the existence of water. Ex.P2, work details indicate that an amount of Rs.98,171/- was expended for desilting cattle ponds and work code is 050652907007170364. The location is Krotha Cheruvu (near Veerabhadra gudi), Suryaraopalem village. In Ex.P7, resolution Nos.4 and 42 were passed on 28.10.2013 and 25.02.2017 respectively. Resolution No.4 was passed for cleaning of the tank by lifting drainage water from the tank and resolution No.42 was passed requesting Undrajavaram Engineer Assistant (RWS) for preparing estimation cost for lifting of the water in new tank situated in Suryaraopalem gram panchayat with the support of oil engines, from the tank. Ex.P8, positive photograph also prima facie shows existence of tank. 10. Along with the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No.4, RSR was filed. Copy of RSR discloses that an extent of Ac.17-13 cents in S.No. 53 is shown as gramakantham. In resolution dated 20.11.2019 filed along with counter affidavit, at page No.22, at S.No.68, work is described as development of housing colony and the place is described as ‘Suryaraopalem Kotha Cheruvu’. In resolution No.40, dated 04.01.2021, it was mentioned as ‘Kotha Cheruvu layout pipeline’. 11. Along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, resolutions were filed which were referred to supra and also the resolution of Gramasabha. In the counter affidavit filed by unofficial respondents, house site pattas were filed. 12. Neither respondent No.4/Tahsildar nor the deponent of counter filed on behalf of respondent No.5 i.e. Secretary of Gram Panchayat, denied the genuineness of Ex.P1/village map and Exs.P2 and P7/resolutions. Even unofficial respondents did not deny Exs.P1, P2 and P7. 13. Thus, the village map, which indicates existence of tank, coupled with Exs.P2 and P7/resolutions, supports the plea of the petitioner regarding existence of a tank. Official respondents are expected to verify the records before filing counter affidavits on oath. Non-denial of Exs.P1, P2 and P7 in the counter affidavits, is deemed that respondents are also admitting existence of tank. In view of the discussion supra, this Court concludes that an extent of Ac.0-48 cents in R.S.No.53-1 of Suryaraopalem village, is a tank. 14. Whether the tank is allowed to be dismantled for the purpose of construction of house sites? 15. In view of the discussion supra, this Court concludes that an extent of Ac.0-48 cents in R.S.No.53-1 of Suryaraopalem village, is a tank. 14. Whether the tank is allowed to be dismantled for the purpose of construction of house sites? 15. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 (1) SCC 388 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “The issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of their powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.” 16. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others, 2008 (2) SCC 222 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “3. As a matter of preface, we may state that adherence to the principle of sustainable development is now a constitutional requirement. How much damage to the environment and ecology has got to be decided on the facts of each case. While applying the principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs is sustainable development. Therefore, courts are required to balance development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology. While applying the principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs is sustainable development. Therefore, courts are required to balance development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable development based on inter-generational equity…” 17. In Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co.Ltd., 1991 (2) SCC 539 it was observed that the Government concerned should consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. 18. In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and others, 2006 (3) SCC 549 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated three principles i.e. sustainable development, doctrine of Public trust and intergenerational equity, which are to be applied while dealing with matters concerning environment and ecology for protecting natural resources of the country. The Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development as well as decision reported in Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, 2004 (2) SCC 392 , held as under: “In the light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appellant alleges.” 18.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court further placed reliance on IIIionis Central Railroad Co. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appellant alleges.” 18.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court further placed reliance on IIIionis Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of IIIionis, 146 US 387 of Supreme Court of US and National Abundun Society v. Superior Court of Alpine country, 33 Cali 419 and opined that following three types of restrictions are to be imposed on government authority by public trust doctrine, which read thus: “1. the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; 2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent; 3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.” 18.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court also placed reliance on A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu8, wherein it was held as under: “53. The principle of inter-generational equity is of recent origin. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration refers to it in Principles 1 and 2. In this context, the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for the survival of the present and future generations. ‘Principle 1.—Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations…. Principle 2.—The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate. 18.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court, after discussing the three principles in elaborate, observed as under: “It is true that the tank is a 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.” 19. It is not out of place to say that Professor Barbara Ward has written about ecological imperative. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “We can forget moral imperatives. But today the morals of respect and care and modesty come to us in a form we cannot evade. We cannot cheat on DNA. We cannot get round photosynthesis. We cannot say I am not going to give a damn about phytoplankton. All these tiny mechanisms provide the preconditions of our planetary life. To say we do not care is to say in the most literal sense that 'we choose death'. There is a commonly-recognized link between laws and social values, but to ecologists a balance between laws and values is not alone sufficient to ensure a stable relationship between humans and their environment. Laws and values must also contend with the constraints imposed by the outside environment. Unfortunately, current legal doctrine rarely accounts for such constraints, and thus environmental stability is threatened. Historically, we have changed the environment to fit our conceptions of property. We have fenced, plowed and paved. The environment has proven malleable and to a large extent still is. But there is a limit to this malleability, and certain types of ecologically important resources for example, wetlands and riparian forests can no longer be destroyed without enormous long-term effects on environmental and therefore social stability. To ecologists, the need for preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value choices but rather is the necessary result of objective observations of the laws of nature. In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences as providing us with certain laws of nature. These laws, just like our own laws, restrict our freedom of conduct and choice. Unlike our laws, the laws of nature cannot be changed by legislative fiat; they are imposed on us by the natural world. An understanding of the laws of nature must therefore inform all of our social institutions.' 20. In Court on Its Own Motion v. Chandigarh Administration, 2020 (0) Supreme (P & H) 239 the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed about the theory of the ancient Roman Empire i.e. Doctrine of the Public Trust, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the 'Doctrine of the Public Trust'. In Court on Its Own Motion v. Chandigarh Administration, 2020 (0) Supreme (P & H) 239 the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed about the theory of the ancient Roman Empire i.e. Doctrine of the Public Trust, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the 'Doctrine of the Public Trust'. It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern about 'the environment' bear a very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were either owned by no one (res nullious) or by every one in common (res communious). Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine in an erudite article 'Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention', Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473, has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under: 'The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties such as the seashore, highways, and running water perpetual use was dedicated to the public, it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties such as the seashore, highways, and running water perpetual use was dedicated to the public, it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government.” 21. In Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, 2001 (6) SCC 496 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose and respondents were directed to vacate the land, which was illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. 22. In Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 2011 (11) SCC 396 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while issued directions to all the Government to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of gram sabha/gram panchayat /poramboke etc. and restore the same for common use of villagers observed as under: “19. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in, etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rainwater harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years. 20. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/ Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so-called auctions is not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop. 23. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) as per Legal Representatives and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District and Others, 2019 (4) SCC 500 , the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized the need to retain and restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable. The time has come when these malpractices must stop. 23. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) as per Legal Representatives and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District and Others, 2019 (4) SCC 500 , the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized the need to retain and restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable. It was also held that land comprised in water bodies cannot be alienated to any person even if it is dry. 24. In The Joint Collector–cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others v. Smt. S. Kamalamma and Others, 2019 (2) ALT 99 , Division Bench of High Court of Hyderabad made it clear that water poramboke land is an objectionable poramboke land and is not available for grant of ryotwari patta to anybody under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. 25. A conspectus of expression referred to supra, right to clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right, and everyone has duty to protect and preserve water body. Tank is a communal property and the State authorities are trustees to hold and manage such properties for the benefits of the community. Government cannot construct buildings by demolishing ponds or water bodies. Water bodies are indeed valuable resources, and their destruction would have serious environmental consequences. 26. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 would disclose that land in survey No.53-1 is gramakantam and covered by houses, roads and drains, etc., except Ac.0-48 cents. Since land is a low laying area, by virtue of residential houses, a small pond was formed due to stagnation of water. However, as discussed supra, there is no denial regarding Exs.P1, P2 and P7. Marking in village map discerns existence of water body (pond/tank). As per Board Standing Orders no construction is allowed or permitted in water bodies. 27. As discussed supra, petitioner established existence of tank in the extent of Ac.0-48 cents in survey No.53-1 of Suryaraopalem village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. Though pattas were filed showing allotment of house site pattas and constructions of two houses at lintel and basement level, allotment of house site pattas, itself, in water tank/pond is prohibited. Demolition of water tank is not permissible. Though pattas were filed showing allotment of house site pattas and constructions of two houses at lintel and basement level, allotment of house site pattas, itself, in water tank/pond is prohibited. Demolition of water tank is not permissible. Since the allotment of house site pattas, by dismantling water pond/tank, itself, is violation of the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Board Standing Orders referred to supra, this court is of the considered opinion that the water tank needs to be restored. 28. During the arguments, learned counsel appearing for non official respondents would contend that petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition. 29. In Union of India vs. Associations of Class I (group A) Officer, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 17 High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital, at para Nos. 17 and 18 held as under: 17. Locus standi to approach the Court/Tribunal relates to the maintainability of the petition/application. (Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa). In a case of defect of jurisdiction, an aggrieved person will be entitled to relief including for a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfil that character, and is a “stranger”, the Court/Tribunal will deny him this remedy, save in very special circumstances. (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed). To have “standing to sue”, which means locus standi to ask for relief in a Court/Tribunal, the petitioner/applicant must show that he is injured, that is, he has been subjected to or threatened with a legal wrong. Courts can intervene only where legal rights are invaded. “Legal wrong” requires a judicially enforceable right and the touchstone to judiciability is injury to a legally protected right. A nominal or a highly speculative adverse affect on the interest or the right of a person is insufficient to give him the “standing to sue” for judicial review of the administrative action. Again the “adverse affect” requisite for “standing to sue” must be an “illegal effect”. (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai). 18. In order to have locus standi, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application. Again the “adverse affect” requisite for “standing to sue” must be an “illegal effect”. (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai). 18. In order to have locus standi, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right, or prejudice to some legal interest, inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him locus standi in the matter, (State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B.; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa; Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P.; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr. v. S. Lal & Co.; and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai). The expression “ordinarily” indicates that this is not a cast-iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject-matter. That apart, in exceptional cases, even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings, will be covered by this rule. (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai). Thus, petitioner being villager got locus standi to file writ petition. 30. In Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation v. India Rocks, 2009 (1) SCC 150 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, at para No.39, held as under: “There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there exists a legal right in the writ petition and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the State, but then if any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, the superior courts are not powerless.”. 31. This court is refraining from making any remarks against the official respondents i.e. Tahsildar and Village Secretary since the responsible officers filed counter affidavits without adverting to the material papers filed along with the writ petition or the averments made in the affidavit. In fact, a perusal of the respective counter affidavits is only to prevaricate this Court on facts. The laudable project of government in intending to provide house sites to weaker section could be implemented properly when the lower rung gives input properly. 32. In fact, a perusal of the respective counter affidavits is only to prevaricate this Court on facts. The laudable project of government in intending to provide house sites to weaker section could be implemented properly when the lower rung gives input properly. 32. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Water tank/pond existed in S.No. 53/1 of Suryaraopalem Village, Undrajavaram Mandal. Allotment of house sites by demolition of tank is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violative Doctrine of public trust and healthy environment. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are directed to restore tank in survey No.53/1 of Suryaraopalem village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. Since the house site pattas were assigned to the beneficiaries, in view of the order, the official respondents shall provide house site pattas in any other suitable land. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.