ORDER Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - Heard Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners; Sri D.M.Vidya Sagar, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Ms. Rose, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Ld. Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. The prayer made in the present Writ Petition is as under: 'to issue a Writ, or Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to close the 'Murugu kodu' by filling with earth situated on Eastern side of petitioners Agriculture properties situated in Pedagaruvu Area, of Palakol Rural Gram Panchayath, which is used for letout the Surplus/Waste water from the petitioners agriculture fields which was connected to the Kaza Major drain, at Palakol Rural Gram Panchayath area West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, is violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and against the Andhrapradesh Irrigation Utilization and command area development Act 1984, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice.' 3. The averments made in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would indicate that the Writ Petitioners' properties are situated in R.S.No.286/1 of an extent of Ac.2-24 cents each (total extent is Ac.04-48 cents) in Pedagaruvu H/o Palakol Rural Gram Panchayath; that the Writ Petitioners have been cultivating the lands by raising various crops; that after verification by the Revenue Authorities, the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued by the Revenue Officials in respect of these agricultural lands; that the Writ Petitioners have regularly paid the land revenue and other taxes imposed by the Government from time to time; that towards the eastern side boundary, the presence of Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is mentioned; that the boundary of the land belonging to the Writ Petitioners is also described in the schedule of the Title Deed registered in the year 1984 held by the Writ Petitioners; that factually Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) exists on the eastern side boundary of the Writ Petitioners land (as per the photographs in Ex.P.4); and, that Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is a drainage canal used in the agricultural fields for the purpose of draining out excess water from the fields. 4. 4. It is averred in the Writ Petition that on the eastern side of the Writ Petitioners' agricultural land, this drainage canal (Murugu Kodu) exists, running (flowing) from south to north and connected to Palakol-Kaza Major Drain; that the Writ Petitioners used to draw fresh water for irrigating their fields from the eastern side of the irrigation canal and used to let out the surplus water and waste water into the drainage canal situated on the eastern side of the fields. 5. It is further submitted that the drainage canal, popularly referred to as Murugu Kodu, has been in existence since times immemorial; and that, apart from the lands belonging to the Writ Petitioners, the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) would cater to several agricultural fields in the vicinity, almost to an extent of 200 Acres; and that, due to the long existence of Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel), it does not have any documentary record, whether it is a natural formation or a man-made one; and that, if it is a man-made one, when it was made. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that except the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) for draining out the excess water from the agricultural fields, the Writ Petitioners do not have any other alternate way in the vicinity other than Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel). The width of the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is more than 30 feet and depth is about 10 feet and that during the rainy season, this Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) serves as a great protection for saving the agricultural crops from water logging. SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS: 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submits that about Ac.09-00 of land in the vicinity has been acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for providing house site pattas to the landless poor and weaker sections. The housing project was estimated at the cost of Rs.24,70,301/, and whereas, the Official Respondents have decided to level the low lying area occupied by the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) with a view to provide house sites. The Writ Petitioners having come to know about this situation that the Official Respondents are intending to fill-up Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) and level it up to rest of the ground area for the purpose of providing house sites, they (the Writ Petitioners) have requested the Authorities to stop the activity. 8. The Writ Petitioners having come to know about this situation that the Official Respondents are intending to fill-up Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) and level it up to rest of the ground area for the purpose of providing house sites, they (the Writ Petitioners) have requested the Authorities to stop the activity. 8. Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Canal that is used for draining of excess water has been in existence since times immemorial and that it has been in active use by not only the Writ Petitioners but also the other farmers in the neighbourhood for draining out excess water. Learned Counsel would submit that the proposal of the Government to close the drainage (Murugu Kodu) by filling it with earth for the purpose of providing house sites is not only irrational, arbitrary and illegal but it would also affect the interests of the Writ Petitioners as well as the farmers in the neighbourhood besides endangering the environment. Learned Counsel relied on several Judgments rendered by the Apex Court as regards the preservation of natural resources. These shall be dealt with at a later stage. SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 9. The Respondent No.5 namely the Deputy Executive Engineer, has filed a Counter Affidavit on 30.10.2017. The Respondent No.7 who is the Village Secretary filed Counter Affidavit on 12.11.2017. Both Affidavits are identical except the fact that along with the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.7, the Resolutions of the Panchayat and the Resolution of the Water Resources' Association, Digamarru Village, are also filed. 10. Respondents have filed W.V.M.P.No.5109 of 2017 for vacating above mentioned Interim Order dated 06.10.2017 and the same has been pending for consideration. 11. At the stage of admission, a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an Interim Order to the following effect: 'Notice Before Admission. Post after four weeks. In the meanwhile, the Respondents shall not close or damage the existing drainage canal abutting the land of the Petitioners.' 12. The averments in the Counter Affidavits filed by Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.7 are almost identical. Post after four weeks. In the meanwhile, the Respondents shall not close or damage the existing drainage canal abutting the land of the Petitioners.' 12. The averments in the Counter Affidavits filed by Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.7 are almost identical. Therefore, the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.7 namely the Village Panchayat Secretary, dated 12.11.2017 is usefully referred to as under: a) Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) has been in existence from times immemorial (Para No.7 of the Counter Affidavit) and the same is flowing from south side to north side of the Petitioner's agricultural lands; b) There is also the field channel existing and flowing from south side to north side on the western side of the Petitioner's agricultural land and this Channel is used by the agriculturists, including the Writ Petitioners, for drawing water for the fields; c) That the said Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is used for draining surplus water from respective agricultural fields; d) Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is classified as waste land belonging to the Gram Panchayat; e) Gram Panchayat vide Resolution No.32, dated 31.05.2016 resolved to issue Pattas in the land situated in Rs.Nos.253, 308, 284, 626, 421 and 419. f) Water Users' Association, Digammaru, have also resolved to this effect expressing their willingness to part with Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) and for conversion into house sites. g) That the Petitioners herein have encroached a part of the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) and that in view of the subsequent developments for levelling Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) for allotment of house sites, have apprehended eviction of their unauthorized occupation and have contrived the present Writ Petition. OBSERVATION: 13. During the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, he has taken this Court through Ex.P.4, which contains about 12 photographs which would falsify and debunk the contention of the Respondents that the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is in disuse. The photographs would clearly establish the presence of a water channel and marshes and plants growing in the channel due to absence of maintenance and also the presence of water in the said Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel). The photographs would clearly establish the presence of a water channel and marshes and plants growing in the channel due to absence of maintenance and also the presence of water in the said Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel). The photographs would indicate that the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is at the low lying compared to the paddy fields adjoining the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel), thereby, giving a clear indication that the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is actively used for draining excess water from the paddy fields. DISCUSSION: 14. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has relied on several Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to canvas that the Natural Resources such as Ponds, Lakes, Rivers and Water Channels etc., cannot be destroyed or tampered with. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has relied on 'inter-generational equity' as well as on the 'public trust doctrine'. The Judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners are briefly discussed hereunder: 15. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed on reliance on several Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are hereunder: i. State of H.P and Others Vs. Ganesh Wood Products and Others ( (1995) 6 SCC 363 ). ii. M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath ( (1997) 1 SCC 388 ). iii. Hinchlal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and Others ( (2001) 6 SCC 496 ). iv. Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs State of A.P and Others ( (2006) 3 SCC 549 ). v. Jagpal Singh and Orthers Vs. State of Punjab and Others ( (2011) 11 SCC 396 ). 16. In Paragraph Nos.29 and 30 in the State of H.P and Others Vs. Ganesh Wood Products and Others ( (1995) 6 SCC 363 ), are relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners to canvas that the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, empowers the Central Government to impose certain restrictions for preservation of environment. 17. The relevant portions of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath ( (1997) 1 SCC 388 ), have been read out by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners to impress upon this Court that not only there is a statutory embargo on the State against destroying the Natural Resources but also there is an indispensible duty casts upon the State in preserving all Natural Resources for the sake of community at large. 18. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners to impress upon this Court that not only there is a statutory embargo on the State against destroying the Natural Resources but also there is an indispensible duty casts upon the State in preserving all Natural Resources for the sake of community at large. 18. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would invoke the Public Trust Doctrine vis-a-vis the Natural Resources Law to state that the State is not the owner of Natural Resources but it is only a trustee for the public, which has to preserve and maintain the public utility and Natural Resources for the present and the future utilisation by the community/public. This Judgment has extensively dealt with the Public Trust Doctrine (from Paragraph Nos.24 to 39). 19. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has declared, in no uncertain terms, that the Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of land. Paragraph No.34 of the said Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder: '34. Our legal system - based on English common law - includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.' 20. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has invoked the Public Trust Doctrine in several other cases. 21. In the Hinchlal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and Others ( (2001) 6 SCC 496 ), Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 13 of the said Judgment. Paragraph No.13 is usefully extracted hereunder: '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. 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. ' 22. In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs State of A.P and Others ( (2006) 3 SCC 549 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while invoking the Public Trust Doctrine, has given several directions to the State Authorities to preserve the Tanks. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also invoked the Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity to indicate that the Natural Resources and community facilities shall be preserved for the sake of future generations. While invoking the said Doctrine, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that no single generation would have an absolute right to 'gobble-up' the limited Natural Resources and that it is the duty of the community as well as the State to preserve the Natural Resources so as to make it 'pristinely available' to the future generations as well. Paragraph No.79 is usefully extracted hereunder: '79. Further the principle of 'Inter-Generational Equity' has also been adopted while determining cases involving environmental issues. This Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu [ (1999) 2 SCC 718 ] in para 53 held as under: (SCC p. 739) '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 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. ' 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also reminded the duty of the State under Article 48-A of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy) to indicate that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution (Fundamental Duties) provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the national environment including forests, lakes, rivers etc.,. 24. In Jagpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others ( (2011) 11 SCC 396 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Grama Sabhas/Gram Panchayats are duty bound to retain the Natural Resources for the common use of the villages and it is no excuse to contend that a particular Natural Resource is in disuse for a long time, and therefore, it would entitle the State or the Gram Sabha to convert the land into house sites. 25. In the light of the above Rulings, the contentions raised by the Official Respondents will have to be appreciated. 26. The principle contentions raised by the Official Respondents are as under:- (a) That the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) has not been notified, and therefore, the same is not maintained by the Department of Irrigation. (b) Though the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is in existence from the times immemorial, it has fallen to disuse over a period of time. (c) That the Gram Panchayat has passed a Resolution to efface the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) be filled-up with earth and distribute the same as house sites for the weaker sections. (d) That the Water Users Association, Digamarru has also given its willingness for the same; and, (e) that the Writ Petitioners have raised this plea in order to safeguard the land which is encroached by them. 27. (d) That the Water Users Association, Digamarru has also given its willingness for the same; and, (e) that the Writ Petitioners have raised this plea in order to safeguard the land which is encroached by them. 27. From analysis of the facts involved in the present case, this Court is not in agreement with the contentions of the Official Respondents that merely because the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) has not been notified or recognised as per the Government records, it cannot be deemed that the said Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) has no significance or has any utility. In fact, it is admitted that the said Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) has been in existence from times immemorial as stated in Para No.7 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.7 (Panchayat Secretary). 28. It is settled law that even the Gram Sabhas or Village Panchayats, as the case may be, have no authority to efface a Natural Resource stating that the same is not in use for a long time or based on any representation made by Water Users Association etc.,. 29. The Principle of Intergenerational Equity would also apply with full force besides taking into account the concept of 'Sustainable Development', as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is as if, that Village Panchayat or the Government, as the case may be, does not have any other land for grant of house pattas for the weaker sections. Even, if there is no land available in the vicinity, that, by itself, cannot be a ground to close the Natural Resource, which admittedly is being used by the Writ Petitioners and the farmers in the neighbourhood for draining excess water from their fields. 30. It is also an admitted fact that, while one channel supplies water to the fields, Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) clears excess water after irrigating the fields. This is an indispensible process in paddy cultivation. The photographs (Ex.P.4) filed by the Writ Petitioners would clearly indicate that the area adjoining Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is teeming with agricultural activity and also the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) is also actively used, as it is evidently clear that the water is present. 31. Therefore, the contention of the Official Respondents namely the Executive Engineer (Respondent No.5) and the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.7) would fall to ground as what has been stated by them is contrary to the ground realties. 31. Therefore, the contention of the Official Respondents namely the Executive Engineer (Respondent No.5) and the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.7) would fall to ground as what has been stated by them is contrary to the ground realties. Alleged encroachment of the land by the Writ Petitioners 32. Insofar as the allegation made by the Official Respondents in their Counter Affidavit to the effect that the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands only to protect the land which is unauthorisedly encroached by them in the adjoining area of Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel), this Court is of the view that this allegation is not substantiated by furnishing any details as regards the land under Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) (Public Land) and the extent of land encroached by the Writ Petitioners. Before making such an allegation against the Writ Petitioners, the Official Respondents could have least conducted a survey of the land and specifically ascertained whether there is any encroachment, and if so, what is the extent of encroachment. The averments in the Counter Affidavits are bereft of such elementary details. 33. Nevertheless, this Court cannot allow anyone to take undue advantage of the pending litigation for protecting an act committed by the Writ Petitioners, which is apparently unauthorised. It is needless to state that the Official Respondents are not only endowed and empowered with statutory duty but also obligated under various statutes to prevent encroachment and also to evict the encroachers in accordance with law. 34. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Murugu Kodu (Drainage Channel) cannot be converted into house sites. This Court would declare that it is not within the purview of either the Gram Panchayat or the Government to close down a public utility either on the ground of disuse or on the ground of public necessity. As the public necessity cannot out-weigh the various environmental concepts such as Public Trust Doctrine, Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable Development, it has become imperative to declare that, it is not only duty of the State to ensure that the public cannot encroach either into public land or the Government land, but it is also the statutory requirement that the encroachments, if any, shall be cleared by evicting the encroachers in accordance with law. 35. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. 35. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the Competent Authority to clear-up the unwanted vegetation which is likely to cause obstruction to the free flow of water in the Murugu Kodu and also to annually maintain the same. No Order as to Costs. 36. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.