National Green Tribunal
Anumula Revanth Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 3 August, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.2:- Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No.79 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Anumula Revanth Reddy
Member of Parliament
R/o. Plot No.854-P, Road No.44
Jublee Hills, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 033.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) State of Telangana
Represented by its Chief Secretary
Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
2) Telangana State Pollution Control Board
Represented by its Member Secretary
A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan
Sanath Nagar Industrial Estate
Sanat Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 018.
3) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Represented by its Commissioner
CC Complex, Lower Tank Bund
Hyderabad - 500 063.
4) Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board
Represented by its Managing Director
Kairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
5) Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
Represented by its Commissioner
Block A, District Commercial Complex
Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007.
Telangana, India.
6) Irrigation & ICAD Department
Government of Telangana
Represented by its Engineer in Chief
Jala Soudha, Irrigation & CAD Department
Erram Manzil Colony, Punjagutta,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 082.
Page 1 of 5
7) Hyderabad Lakes and Water Bodies Management Circle
Represented by its Superintending Engineer
Irrigation Department
Ranga Reddy District
Hyderabad, Telangana State.
8) K.T. Rama Rao
R/o 8-2-120/110/1/3
Road No.14, Nandhi Nagar
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Sravan Kumar.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R1 & R6.
Mr. T. Sai Krishnan through
Ms. J. Dayana for R2 & R5.
Date of Judgment: 03rd August 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application filed by the applicant alleging illegal construction made by the 8th Respondent who is a member of the legislative assembly, State of Telangana and Minister for Municipal Administration & Urban Development by expanding his farm house by violating the environmental laws flouting the prohibitions mentioned in the G.O. Ms. 111 dated 08.03.1996.
2. It was also alleged in the application that in Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell Trust Vs. State of Telangana & Ors.1, this Tribunal had disposed of the matter by Judgment dated 19.12.2018, giving certain 1Original Application No.531 of 2018 [Earlier Original Application No.64 of 2016 (SZ)] Page 2 of 5 directions to the State of Telangana which reads as follows:-
"14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we dispose of this application with the following directions:
1) The State Respondents shall ensure that the High Power Committee deliberates on the issue expeditiously and submit its recommendations on the Terms of Reference, as far as it may be practicable, within six months from hence.
2) Until a decision is taken by the State Respondents on the recommendations of the Committee and is duly notified, order dated 17.03.2016 directing status quo, against the respondent No.8 shall remain in operation.
3) We also prohibit all other constructions/activities falling within the areas prohibited in the G.O. Ms. No.111, M.A. & UD (II) Department, dated 08.03.1996 until such time a decision is taken by the Government and is duly notified as in (2) above."
3. It was also alleged in the application that constructions were made in the Bio Conservation Zone within the catchment area of Osman Sagar Lake which is a lifeline for drinking water zone and flood control instruments situated in the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
4. So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Declare the construction of Farm House in prohibited Bio conservation zone at Janwada/Mirzaguda, Shankarpally mandal of Rangareddy district in Telangana State and damaging the Nala a natural water body by the Respondent No.8 as illegal and against the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Ac 1974, G.O. Ms. No.111 dated 08.03.1996 directions passed vide order dated 19.12.2018 by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.64 of 2016 (SZ) and Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 62,
(ii) Appoint an independent committee to conduct detailed study on the allegations raised by the Applicant in the present application to verify and take appropriate action if the allegations are found to be true,
(iii) Direct the Respondents to take stringent action against the Respondent No.8 for violating the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974, G.O. Ms. No.111 dated 08.03.1996 and directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.64 of 2016 (SZ).
(iv) Direct the respondents No.1 to 7 to restore the Nala, natural water body and catchment area of Osman sagar and Himayat Sagar Lakes.
(v) Direct the respondent No.1 to 7 to implement the directions dated 19.12.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.64 of 2016 (SZ) and Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayadu & Ors, 2001 (2) SCC 62 in true letter and spirit and submit a report to this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(vi) Direct the respondent No.1 to initiate action including criminal prosecution against the officials, violators and other responsible person for protecting/allowing the violations of Respondents No.8 in prohibited area contrary to G.O. Ms.111 dated 08.03.1996
(vii) Pass any such order, as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"Page 3 of 5
5. Vide Order dated 05.06.2020, this Tribunal considered the allegations made in the application and also the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for some of the official respondents who raised the question of limitation and after considering the same, this Tribunal deferred the consideration of question of limitation later, after appearance of the parties and completion of pleadings and appointed a Joint Committee to go into the question and directed them to file a report.
6. The above Order dated 05.06.2020 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad by the 8th Respondent herein by filing Writ Petition as W.P. No.7961 of 2020 and also by another person who purchased the property and not a party to the proceeding has filed a Writ Petition as W.P. No.7879 of 2020 on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding with the matter without considering the question of limitation and no interim order of appointing a Joint Committee should have been passed without hearing the other side in view of the bar under Section 19 (4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and against the principle of 'Natural Justice'.
7. The Hon'ble High of Telangana by Common Order dated 27.04.2022 in the above mentioned writ petitions, came to the conclusion that the Tribunal should not have deferred the question of limitation and that ought to have been considered as a preliminary point and the order appointing a Joint Committee is also against Section 19 (4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and it was passed without impleading the real person on party array and without hearing the real affected person.
8. One of the contention raised by the applicant herein who was respondent in the writ petition was that the person who came as a third party is a Benamidar for the 8th Respondent herein and the Hon'ble High Court answered the question stating that, that question cannot be considered by the National Green Tribunal as it was not covered by any of the statutes enumerated in the schedule attached to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and allowed both the writ petitions, setting aside the order of this Page 4 of 5 Tribunal and leaving open the right of the applicant herein who was the contesting respondent in the writ petitions to approach this Tribunal by initiating appropriate proceedings, if otherwise permitted against the true owner of the property in question in accordance with law.
9. In view of the Common Order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the above said Writ Petitions viz., W.P. No.7961 of 2020 and W.P. No.7879 of 2020 and also in view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.)2, the order of the jurisdictional High Court will be binding on this Tribunal and as such, the Tribunal cannot now proceed with the matter as it was filed. However, the State Departments are at liberty to take appropriate action on the basis of the earlier directions issued in this matter against the violators, if there is any violation found and the right of the applicant to approach this Tribunal by filing a proper application, if it is permissible under law is left open and further action (if any) to be taken by the concerned department will be subject to any further directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in respect of the orders passed in the earlier proceedings for removal encroachment from the water bodies.
10. With the above observations and directions, this Original Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.79 of 2020 (SZ) 03rd August 2022. Mn.
2 2022 SCC Online SC 728 Page 5 of 5