AP High Court Calls For Law Penalising Govt Officials Who 'Turn Blind Eye' To Encroachment Of Water Bodies, Drains

In a case involving the illegal construction of a bridge over a Canal in Andhra Pradesh's Kaikaluru town, the High Court has called for stringent laws that punish not only public violators but also the government officials who turn a blind-eye to illegal encroachments and violations on waterways.Taking serious note of the detrimental impact of such encroachments and calling for legislative reforms that hold officials accountable for sitting on such issues, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,“These violations on waterways and watercourses in which fresh water or drainage water flows are damaging or destroying the flora and fauna besides causing humongous damage to the human inhabitations. In times of flood, inundation of land by water become virtual death-traps for animals in the wild (in forests) as well as to the humans in the villages, towns and metropolitan cities. It is also noticed that the violators go scot-free with impunity because the existing law, does not have a deterrent effect. Therefore, it is the right time for the Government (law makers) to make laws, rules and regulations to weaponise the Government Departments to achieve this purpose. This law needs to address not only the violators from among the public, but also the Officials who conveniently turn a blind-eye to the acts of violation."Thus, in the larger public interest, the Single Judge issued the following directions to the State authorities:“i. The Irrigation Department, Revenue Department, Department of Panchayat Raj, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations shall ensure that all waterways and or watercourses (with whatever nomenclature they are called) that carry fresh water as well as drainage water are maintained and preserved in terms of depth, width and length as per the Official Records. ii. The above Departments shall ensure that any construction made by anyone over the watercourses and or waterways (with whatever nomenclature they are called) that enable flow of fresh water and drainage water shall not in any manner impede, block or 'cause a bottleneck effect' either during the normal time or during the time of flood. iii. Concerned Departments shall make periodical visits/inspections along the entire length of such waterways/watercourses (with whatever nomenclature they are called), preferably once in six (6) months and submit reports to their respective Heads of Departments as regards violations or deviations from permits/licences which are noticed during their visits/inspections with complete measurements of the violations/deviations and the particulars of the violators/deviators. iv. Concerned Heads of the Departments, upon receiving of such reports, shall forthwith cause an enquiry and ensure clearance within fifteen (15) days, by following the due process of law.v. The above directions shall apply to all waterways and or watercourses, and feeder channels, either man-made or natural. Concerned Heads of Departments shall percolate this Order to all Officers in the whole hierarchy for effective compliance. (Note: Fresh Water and Drainage Water, wherever they are referred to shall mean and include brackish-waters, back-waters and sewerage waters)”Background:The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging a Notice issued by the Tahsildar, Kaikaluru, Eluru District (Respondent 4) dated 04.09.2024, whereby he directed the petitioners to remove the bridge constructed by them on the Canal.In order to gain access to the house, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation (Sub-Division), Kaikaluru (Respondent 5), had granted a conditional permission to the father of Petitioner 1 for construction of a bridge with retaining walls on both sides. The permission was subject to the construction being carried out under the supervision of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, and in strict adherence to the original dimensions of the Canal, specifically maintaining its actual width and depth, along with a concrete bed of five meters.Owing to prevailing flood conditions in the region, Respondent 4 had issued the impugned notice. Subsequently, the Court directed Respondent 4 and 5 to submit a Report explaining whether the petitioners had violated the terms of the conditional permission granted to them.Upon receipt of the respective Reports, it transpired that the petitioners had constructed concrete slabs in such a manner that covered the entire stretch of the Canal without informing the Executive Engineer, thereby, violating the terms of the conditional permission. The Report of Respondent 4 further indicated that while the petitioners had free and convenient ingress and egress on the western side, they had closed it by erecting a Garage and took complete access from the southern side on which the bridge was illegally constructed. Court's Findings:Expressing concern over the illegal encroachment, the Court reprimanded:“… the Writ Petitioners have constructed 62 feet 11 inches of concrete bridge in blatant...

AP High Court Calls For Law Penalising Govt Officials Who 'Turn Blind Eye' To Encroachment Of Water Bodies, Drains

Saahas Arora

Tags