National Green Tribunal
Human Rights & Consumer Protection Cell ... vs The State Of Telangana. Rep. By Its Chief ... on 8 February, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.6:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No.154 of 2016 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1) Human Rights & Consumer Protection Cell Trust
Reg. No.1/IV/2014
Represented by its Chairman - Thakur Rajkumar Singh
S/o. Late Sri T. Deen Dayal Singh
Aged about 45 years, Occupation - Chairman - HRCPC Trust
BHEL MIG 982, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 502 032
Telangana State.
2) Smt. M. Sunitha W/o. Rajkumar
Aged about 38 years, Occupation - Surpanch,
R/o. H.No.2-23/63, Durganagar Colony,
Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana State - 500 089.
3) P. Suresh S/o. Venkaiah
Aged about 46 years, Occupation - Business
R/o. H.No.4-3-47/401, Sri Balaji Residency, Tulip Garden,
Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State - 500 089.
4) Smt. G. Kavitha Bai W/o. Rajesh Singh
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation - Gram Panchayat Ward Member (11th)
R/o. H.No.1-178,
Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State - 500 089.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Telangana State.
2) The Special Chief Secretary - Govt. of Telangana
For Municipal Administration & Urban Development
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
Page 1 of 23
3) The Special Chief Secretary - Govt. of Telangana
For Panchayat Raj & Rural Development
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
4) The Metropolitan Commissioner,
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
Tarnaka, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
5) The District Collector - Ranga Reddy District
District Collectorate, Lakdi-ka-pul,
Hyderabad, Telangana State.
6) The District Panchayat Officer - Ranga Reddy District
2nd Floor, PISGAH Complex, Nampally,
Hyderabad, Telangana State.
7) The Executive Officer / Village Secretary
Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana State - 500 089.
8) Sri. Dhanunjaya Rao
Developer - A.P. Secretariat Staff Co-Op. Society Ltd.
R/o. Plot No.320, Sriramnagar Colony, Puppalaguda Village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana State - 500 089.
9) Sri. Ramesh Gambheer
H.No.6-3-661/1A, 1st Floor, Sangeet Nagar,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082,
Telangana State.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Thakur Rajkumar Singh (Party in Person).
For Respondent(s): Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali through
Mrs.Renugafor R1 to R3& R5 to R7.
Mr. T. Sai Krishnan through
Ms. J. Dayana for R4.
Mr. K. Sai Rama Murthy for R8 & R9.
Date of Judgment: 08th February 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 2 of 23
JUDGMENT
1. The grievance in this application is regarding encroachment into the water bodies and inaction on the part of the authorities in taking the steps.
2. It was alleged in the application that the second applicant was the then Sarpanch of the Puppalaguda Village and he was taking interest in protecting the water bodies and green area just as parks under Section 46
(vi) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2006. As per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2006 namely Section 121, "No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed and no addition or alteration shall be made to the existing building without the permission of the Gram Panchayat granted in accordance with the provisions of any rules or byelaws made under this Act." He had also explained the manner in which the permissions will have to obtained etc. The Government is bound to take steps to protect the water bodies and they are also expected to fix the buffer zones and the flood plains in respect of lakes, rivers respectively.
3. It was alleged in the application that the 8th Respondent had applied for approval of the draft layout and extended with 4th Respondent for development of an extent of 69.85 Acers of land in Sy. No.52, 55, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67 to 73, 76, 77, 85, 86, 94 and 120 to 126 of Puppalaguda Village and Sy. No.5, 6, 144 (P), 146 of Manikonda Village both Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District ear marking the facilities as follows: Page 3 of 23
197543.50 Sq. Yds. Plots 58.35%
99781.82 Sq. Yds. Roads 29.47%
33855.80 Sq. Yds. Open 10.00%
Area/Parks
7376.88 Sq. Yds. Amenities 2.18%
4. Certain applications have been filed for this purpose. Without obtaining necessary permissions, they have started the construction. The 4th Respondent seeing the letter addressed to the Respondents 5 & 6 asking them not to permit any construction activities and take necessary action on the unauthorized constructions which was already raised until the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority final layout approved and released, they issued show cause notice to the 8th Respondent to remove the unauthorized constructions and certain other notices were also issued by the other departments in this regard. Though complaints were made to the several authorities, no action was taken.
5. Further, it was also alleged in the application that there is a 100 feet wide Nalla known as "Pandena Vagu" flowing through this venture from Ibrahimbagh Cheruvu to Musi River and that was also encroached by the 8th Respondent while making the construction. No one is entitled to encroach into the water body and make any construction. In Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, the Hon'ble Apex Court has insisted the responsibility of the authorities in protecting the water bodies and directed the authorities to take appropriate action to remove the encroachments and restore the water bodies and it was also reiterated in that decision that no constructions can be permitted in the Page 4 of 23 water bodies even if it is in a disused condition due to the negligence on the part of the authorities and they will have to take steps to remove the encroachment and protect the water bodies.
6. Since the authorities have not taken any steps, the applicants have filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Direct the 4th Respondent o cancel the technical approval of building permission issued to the 9th Respondent and direct the 4th, 6th&7th Respondents to cancel all the building permissions issued in open space/parks/amenities areas of the Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Puppalaguda Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State and demolish all the encroachments, illegal and unauthorized constructions in the colony and fence the area. Further direct the 4th& 5th Respondents to remove all encroachments in the PandenaVagu canal and restore it to its original size and maintain buffer zone as per Hyderabad Master Plan.
(ii) Further, direct the 1st, 5th, 6th& 7th Respondents to take appropriate action against the land grabbers, violators of building & layout norms who had constructed buildings without permissions and further take appropriate action against the public servants who are responsible for allowing illegal and un-authorized constructions and grating permissions in parks & amenities areas of Sri Ram Nagar Colony Puppalaguda Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State thereby damaging the environment.
(iii) Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased pass such other orders or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
7. The 4th Respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending thatthe HMDA is competent authority to issue technical approvals of buildings or layouts or developments. The HMDA has delegated development control powers for approval of Residential Building plans with 10 mts height, up to 1000 sq. mts. area only to local bodies. Beyond this extent, the HMDA is the Competent Authority for granting of any type of building/layout plans and permissions by collecting necessary development charges as per rules in force under Section 19, 20 & 21 of Page 5 of 23 the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 and as per Section 23 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, the Enforcement Powers i.e., monitoring and detection of Development Activity contrary to the Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan, Zoning Regulations, Building Rules and Regulations and the Service of enforcement notices and taking steps in connection with them, shall be exercised by the Executive Officers / Panchayat Secretaries of respective, village Panchayats vide Letter No.15048/HMDA/2008 dt:
17.01.2009 for curbing the unauthorized developments. So, they are the competent authority to protect the area which falls under their jurisdiction. After noticing about the unauthorized constructions, the fourth respondent serves notices to the concerned Panchayath Secretary / Executive Officers to take immediate steps for removal of the same by giving a support. The HMDA is constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.570 MA dated 25.08.2008 and the authorities such as HUDA/Hyderabad Airport Development Authority/Cyberabad Development Authority were dissolved and merged with HMDA. The jurisdiction of HMDA extends to 55 Mandals located in 5 Districts, viz Hyderabad - all 16 Mandals, Medak (P) - 10 Mandals, Rangareddy (P) - 22 Mandals, Mehboob Nagar (P) - 2 Mandals and Nalgonda (P) - 5 Mandals i.e. 849 Villages. The total area of HMDA is around 7228 Sq. Kms. The jurisdiction of HMDA includes the areas covered by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Sangareddy and Bhongiri Municipalities. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 14 (1) of the HMDA Act, 2008, the Government sanctioned the Metropolitan Development Plan - 2031 for Hyderabad Metropolitan Region along with the land use zoning and Development Promotion Regulations along with Development plan Page 6 of 23 integrating with the earlier notified Master Plans outside Outer Ring Road and also integrating with the Outer Ring Road Growth Corridor Master vide G.O.Ms. No. 33, dt. 24.01.2013 for Hyderabad Metropolitan Region. The development permissions were being accorded as per the Rules & Regulations mentioned in A.P. Building Rules, 2012 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.168, dt.07.04.2012 and Zoning &Development Promotion Regulations issued vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dt.24.01.2013. They are granting permission strictly in accordance with the same. A draft layout permission was approved by this respondent vide Lr.No.1967/MP2/HUDA/90, dt.20.07.1990 for development of land to an extent of 50.10 acres in Sy. Nos.61, 62, 64, 65, 67 to 73, 76, 76, 85, 86, 94 and 120 to 126 of Puppalguda village to the 8th Respondent and a revised and extension of draft layout plan to an extent of 65.85 acres in Sy. Nos.61, 62, 64, 65, 67 to 73, 76, 76, 85, 86, 94 and 120 to 126 and Sy.Nos.63, 52/1/4 and 52/1/5 of Puppalguda village and Sy.Nos.146, 144/e, 5 & 6 of Manikonda village of Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District was also approved by them vide Lr.No.1967/MP2/HUDA/90, dt.27.11.1990 subject to the compliance of the main four conditions. After noticing the construction work of 7 model houses was taken by the 8th Respondent in the draft layout stage, a Show cause notice was issued by this Respondent vide Lr. No. 3005/UC/DC/HUDA/92 dt.30-9-1992 to stop constructions. On 31.10.2015, a technical approval to the 9th Respondent for Residential Building (stilt+ 3 upper floors) in Plot No. 16 in Sy. No.76 of Secretariat Colony (Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Puppalguda Village, Rajendranagar (M), R. R. District to an extent of 231.26 Sq.Mts has been accorded as per the Memo No. 23940/M2/2012 dt.21.08.2013 while collecting Land Regularization Scheme charges with 33.3% Page 7 of 23 compounding fee and 14% open space charges duly taking into consideration of registration value as on the date of application. The same has been considered and approved the building permission vide Lr.No. 13/P4/UNIT-VI/SKP/HMDA/2015, dt.31.10.2015 as per rules in force. Regarding present status of Nalla and its encroachments, a detailed status report may be furnished by Irrigation Department, Telangana State. The development permissions in the Hyderabad Metropolitan Region are being accorded as per the Rules & Regulations of A.P. Building Rules, 2012 mentioned above. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
8. The 8th Respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made in the application and they also denied the allegation that 100 feet wide Nalla was narrowed drastically by their construction activity. According to them, they obtained all necessary permissions and they are doing only according to the permissions granted. There was no violation committed by them. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
9. The 9th Respondent filed a counter affidavit more or less reiterating the contentions raised by the 8th Respondent. It is further contended that they purchased the property i.e. Plot No.16 situated at Secretariat Colony, Sriramnagar Colony, Puppalaguda and applied for building permission with the 4th Respondent and technical approval was granted in their favour by the 4th Respondent. They also applied for permission of construction of residential building which was approved by the HUDA. They denied the allegation that their property is situated in the open area of the HUDA's approved plan and they are not entitled to make any construction there. They have not encroached into any water Page 8 of 23 body by way of construction. So, they prayed for accepting their contention and dismissal of the application.
10. They 6th Respondent has filed their reply on their behalf and on behalf of Respondents No.3 & 5 contending that the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat has to implement the G.O.Ms.No.67, PR&RD Dt:26.02.2002 and act as per the orders of land development (Layout & Building) Rules. The District Panchayat Officer has never issued any instructions to the Executive Officer/ Panchayat Secretary not to object any illegal and unauthorized construction and issued instructions to the Panchayat Secretary to take necessary action for removal of illegal and unauthorized constructions from time to time. The HMDA has also empowered to sanction the layouts after completion of due procedure and as such, the allegation against them is not correct. The 6th Respondent had already cancelled the Gram Panchayat Layout vide Proc. No.645/2008-B1(Pts), Dt:07.04.2011 and the allegations contra are not correct. Directions were issued to the Extension Officer(PR&RD)/ Panchayat Secretary to conduct enquiry and submit detailed report vide this office memo No.2400/2015-B1(Pts), Dt:02.06.2015, 13.11.2015 & 08.01.2016. The Extension Officer (PR&RD) has submitted his report vide Lr.No.MPP/EOPRRD/2015, dt:29.2.2016 and the same has been submitted to the Commissioner, PR&RE, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.2400/2017-B1(Pts), Dt:02.01.2017. The Extension Officer (PR&RD), Rajendranagar Mandal has submitted his report vide Lr.No.MPP/R5/123/2016, dt:22.11.2016 regarding Sriram Nagar Colony that, the detailed report of the layout which was plotted in the Sy. Nos. 61, 62, 64, 65, 67 to 73, 76, 77, 85, 86, 94 and 122 to 126 developed by AP Page 9 of 23 Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society, Hyderabad of Puppalguda is submitted as follows:
"The Extension Officer (PR&RD), Rajendranagar Mandal has submitted that, the said layout is plotted in Sy.Nos. 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, to 73, 76, 77, 85, 86, 94 and 120 to 126 of Puppalguda village by Mr. S.Dhanurjaya Rao, Secretary to the AP Secretariat Staff Co-operative Society. Initially, this layout was tentatively approved (draft plan not available in the GP office) by HUDA on the conditions that, no plot shall be utilised, sold, leased or otherwise disposed off without final approval from HUDA and after handing over the public open places earmarked in the draft layout plan to the local authority through gift deed and the same should be intimated to HUDA within the stipulated period so as to release the final layout copy."
"The revised and extension of the same layout in the Sy.No.61, 62, 64, 65, 67 to 73, 76, 77, 85, 86, 94 and 120 to 126 pertaining to Puppalguda village, Sy.No. 63, 52/1/4 and 52/1/5. Puppalguda and Sy.No.146, 144/e, 5 and 6 of Manikonda village, duly cancelling and superseding the earlier draft layout and even considered the construction of 400 houses in such layout by S.Dhanunjaya Rao, Secretary to the A.P. Secretariat Staff Co- operative society. The Extension Officer (PR&RD), Rajendranagar Mandal has submitted that, the HUDA has cancelled the draft layout approvals issued earlier due to non compliance of the stipulated conditions and in this scenario, the said developer has sold away majority plots duly violating the above stipulated conditions and even the purchasers has purchased the plots as it was a HUDA approved layout.
The Panchayath secretary has submitted that a layout in Sy.No.52/p, 61 to 65, 67 to 74, 76, 77/p, 78, 85 to 89, 94/p and 120 to 126 to an extent of 64.27 Acres pertaining to Puppalguda village by the then Sarpanch Sri K Balraj is available in the Gram Panchayat office and also a Government site exists still vacant; and when the same is verified with the then existing layout rules in G.O.Ms.No.377 PR, dated 12.10.1973, the stipulated 5% open place over the total extent is not found and also no relevant layout permission fee receipts are found except the Photostat of the said layout which is not building confidence to be a reliable layout. Thereafter this layout was also cancelled by the then District PanchayathOfficer, Rangareddy in turn directed the Executive authority of GP Puppalguda, not to accord any building permission in such layout and directed the Extension Officer (PR&RD), Rajendranagar and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chevella, to ensure that no construction activity is observed. Even Page 10 of 23 though a number of constructions took place of which majority of them has been regularised periodically during 2007, 2008 and 2015 and some have applied and are waiting for LRS/BRS. At present the land of this colony is fully filled with constructions just leaving few open plots along with the vacant Government site."
11. The 6th Respondent further contended that the matter was enquired by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chevella. Based on the enquiry report, the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Puppalaguda has directed to take necessary action in the matter duly following the existing rules, procedure from time to time and report compliance vide Memo No.732/2016-B1(Pts), Dt:28.04.2016. So, the allegation that they have not taken any steps is not correct. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
12. The 7th Respondent filed counter affidavit more or less reiterating the contentions raised by the District Panchayat Officer and the action taken by them on the basis of the directions given. They also denied the allegation that they have not taken any action in spite of the same brought to their notice. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
13. As per order dated 16.06.2020, after considering the pleadings and also hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee comprising(1) Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad (2) District Collector - Renga Reddy District (3) Senior Officer of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Telangana and (4) Senior Scientist of Telangana Pollution Control Board to inspect the area in question and submit a factual and action taken report, if there is any Page 11 of 23 violation regarding the clearance or permission granted to the party respondents in implementing their project including imposition of environmental compensation and removal of encroachment if any found. The 4th respondent/ Metropolitan Commissioner was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and also for providing necessary logistics for this purpose. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time for submission of report by the Joint Committee.
14. On 16.12.2021, this Tribunal had considered the report submitted by the Joint Committee dated 15.02.2021, received on 16.02.2021 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"Joint Committee inspection report submitted before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone at Chennai
1. It is humbly submitted that Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone at Chennai in their order dt.16.06.2020 in O.A. No.154/2016 have pleased to constitute a Joint Committee comprising of (1) Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, (2) District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (3) Senior Officer of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Telangana (4) Senior Scientist of Telangana Pollution Control Board to inspect the area in question and submit factual report and action taken report if there are any violations regarding the clearance of permission granted to the respondents in implementing their project including imposition of environment compensation and removal of encroachment if any found.
2. It is humbly submitted that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble NGT following officials have inspected the area in question located in Puppalguda, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 16.09.2020. i. Sri G. Gangadhar, Secretary State Expert Appraisal Committee, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Telangana ii. Sri. G. Hanmantha Reddy, Senior Environment Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board iii. Sri. S. Balakrishna - Director Planning - I, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (Representative of Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA)
3. Further, it is humbly submitted that following officials from Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Irrigation and Canal area Development Department and office of District Collector, Ranga Reddy District were also present during the joint inspection Page 12 of 23 i. Sri Raja Sekhar, Tahsildar, Gandhipet Mandal (Representative of District Collector, Ranga Reddy District) ii. Sri. P. Ganesh Kumar, Surveyor, Gandhipet iii. Sri. H. Nikesh Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, I & CADD, Gandhipet Section.
4. It is humbly submitted that the site under reference is located in Puppalguda area of Manikonda Municipality and failing in the HMDA limits.
5. It is humbly submitted that during the joint inspection, officials of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority have furnished the Master Plan of the above area and as per which the above layout area is earmarked as Residential use zone in the HMDA Master Plan. Further observed that the entire area is developed with residential Buildings (Independent Houses/ Apartment), shops and other non-residential buildings.
6. It is humbly submitted, during the joint inspection it is learnt that in the year 1990 the then Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (Presently Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority) vide file No.1967/MP2/HUDA/1990, dt 20.07.1990 issued a Draft Layout in an extent of area 50.10 acres in Sy. Nos. 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68/1, 68/2, 69, 70, 70/1, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77/1, 85/1, 86, 94/P & 120 to 126 of Puppalaguda (V) and Sy. No. 5& 6 of Manikonda Khalsa and Sy. No.144/E (P) and 146 of Manikonda Jagir (V) Gandipet Mandal, RR District which was applied by Sri. S. Dhanunjaya Rao and others sand to the GPA holders cum Layout Development of Secretariat Staff Co-op. Society to facilitate the Layout Development i.e., formation of Roads, drains, water supply and street lighting in the layout as per the standard specifications within a period of one year. i.e., to complete the same by 19.07.1991, subject to condition that the final layout will be issued after completion of developmental works and after handing over 10% open spaces and roads to the Local Authority through a Register Gift Deed.
While approving the draft layout one more conditions was also insisted that the proposal shall deemed to be lapsed in event of non-completion of the development works within the stipulated time period and the draft layout approval with automatically stand cancelled.
7. Further, it is submitted that after 4 months from date of issue draft letter, the then HUDA has issued Revised draft Layout to an extent of Ac.69-38 gts in Sy. Nos. 52/1/4, 52/1/5, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68/1, 68/2, 69, 70, 70/1, 71, 72/1, 72, 73, 76, 77/1, 85/1, 86, 94/P & 120 to 126 of Puppalaguda (V) and Sy. No. 5& 6 of Manikonda Khalsa and Sy. No.144/E (P) and 146 of Manikonda Jagir (V) in file No.1967/MP2/HUDA/1990, dt 20.07.1990 and in the revised draft layout also same conditions was insisted that the layout shall be developed within 1 year from the date of issue of draft layout and if it is not developed same will automatically stands cancelled.
8. It is learnt that the applicant has not completed the layout development works in the stipulated time period and therefore the then HUDA has cancelled the Draft Layout on 28.11.1997. Subsequently in the year 2000 the Residents Welfare Association of above layout made a representation dated 13.11.2000 and the same was examined by the then HUDA and noticed that the development of Roads, Water Supply, Electricity etc. are not provided as per Rules. So the then HUDA wrote a letter dt 11.04.2001 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District with a request to direct the concerned Page 13 of 23 Executive Authority/ Sarpanch, Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat not to permit any construction activities and to take necessary action on the unauthorized constructions which are already raised, until the final layout is approved by the HMDA.
9. It is humbly submitted that on perusal of the Draft layout approved by the then HUDA it is observed that the total extent of layout is Ac.69-38 gts and of which 10% area i.e. Ac.8.36 Gts is earmarked for open space (Park) which is spread over at 8 locations and one of which was earmarked for school purpose. The above open spaces were proposed all along a Nala on either side of Nala. But during the inspection it is observed that at present all these open spaces are covered by Building as submitted below.
Sl. Open Present Status No. of
No. Space No. structures
1 Open Covered by 5 Residential apartments 13
Space No.1 of Stilt + 4 Floors, 7 independent
Houses of G+2 Floors, 1 School
Building of G+2
2 Open Covered by 1 Residential apartments 5
Space No.2 of stilt + 4 Floors under construction,
3 independent houses of G+2 floors
and 1 under construction stilt floor
3 Open Covered by 6 Residential apartments 6
Space No.3 of Stilt + 4 Floors
4 Open Covered by 2 Residential cum 4
Space No.4 Commercial apartments of Stilt + 4
Floors, 2 Residential apartments of
Stilt + 4 floors
5 Open Covered by 14 Residential villa 14
Space No.5 consisting of stilt + 3 floors
6 Open Covered by 7 Residential apartments 12
Space No.7 of stilt + 4 floors, 3 independent
houses of G+3 Floors, 2 independent
houses of G+2 floors
7 Open Covered by 4 Residential apartments 12
Space No.7 of stilt + 4 floors, 5 independent
houses of G=3 Floors, 3 independent
house of G+2 Floors
8 Open No constructions were noticed
Space No.8
10. It is humbly submitted during the inspection it is noticed that some of the above building are unauthorized buildings and some were permitted by the then Puppalguda Gram Panchayat on the assumption that the Draf layout approved by HMDA in the year 1990 was subsequently cancelled in 1997 thereby layout pattern approved by HMDA with open spaces as submitted was not in force. The Municipal Commissioner, who was present during the inspection was asked to furnish the details of each building and approvals vide Lr. No.1967/MP2/HUDA/1990, dt 29.09.2020 and same are awaited. Regarding encroachment of nala passing through the above layout it is observed that number of buildings are existing all along this nala and irrigation and revenue officials were requested to demarcate the nala portion to ascertain whether there are any encroachments into Nala portion vide Lr. No.1967/MP2/HUDA/1990 dt. 29.09.2020 and same is awaited.
11. Further it is humbly submitted that during the inspection a copy of the layout plan said to be approved by the Sarpanch of PuppalgudaGrama Page 14 of 23 Panchayat was produced before the Committee and it is observed that in the said layout plan there are no any open spaces left for public purpose and the present developments on the ground are as per the layout pattern. A copy of the same is annexed to this report for kind perusal of Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, during the inspection it is learnt that with regard to encroachment of open spaces in the above layout, one Mr. Chandrakanth Goud one of the resident of the above layout has filed a complaint before the Hon'bleLokayuktha, Hyderabad in Complaint No.4344/2013/B2 against the sarpanch of the then Puppalgadu Gram Panchayat and same is pending for adjudication in the Hon'bleLokayuktha, Hyderabad.
12. The above status report is submitted before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Chennai for kind perusal and it is prayed that necessary order or orders may be passed as deemed fit."
15. Thereafter, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
"4. It is seen from the report that inspections were done and certain findings were noted and awaited for further reports from the Municipal Commissioner, District Collector, Revenue and Irrigation Department.
5. It is also seen from the report that layout plan said to have been approved by the panchayat was produced before the committee. When it was pointed out as to whether the panchayat has got power to approve the layout plan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent/ Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority submitted that he wants to get instruction and also to verify whether they have got power to do the same and whether there is any guidelines provided as to how such layouts have been approved by them and whether it is in accordance with the guidelines provided.
6. The report does not help this Tribunal to dispose of the case. We wanted specific observation and also the material as to whether the Nallahs have been encroached upon or not. But such a detailed report has not been filed by the authorities who are expected to file a report showing all these aspects in a specific manner so as to help the Tribunal to pass appropriate directions.
7. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel representing the nodal agency submitted that if some time is granted, they will come with proper report.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the State Department also submitted that they will come with proper report regarding the nature of encroachments with details of survey numbers etc., after conducting proper survey and submit a report to this Tribunal.
9. The committee is also directed to submit a proper report as to whether there was any proper approved layout and whether constructions were made in tune with the approved layout in that area and if any permissions were granted against the provisions of the respective statutes, then the committee is also directed to suggest the nature of action to be taken in respect of those unauthorized permissions.
10. The committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal in tune with the directions made above on or before 26.03.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules. Page 15 of 23
11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee as well as to the official respondents and also to the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana for their information and complying with the direction."
16. The case was posted to 26.03.2021 for consideration of report. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time for filing report by the Joint Committee. Again, the matter was taken up on 22.11.2021 and this Tribunal had considered the Joint Committee report dated Nil, e-filed on 20.11.2021 and received on 21.11.2021 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"JOINT COMMITTEE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE AT CHENNAI IN PURSUNACE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ON 13.07.2021 & 13.09.2021
1. It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in their order Dt 13.07.2021 & 13.09.2021 have issued orders to the Joint Committee to submit the report on following issues.
(i) Whether the Gram Panchayat has got power to approve the layout plan.
(ii) Whether Nalas have been encroached upon or not.
(iii) Nature of the Encroachments with details of survey numbers etc., after conducting proper survey and submitted a report.
(iv) Whether there was any proper approved layout and whether constructions were made in tune with the approved layout in that area and if any permissions were granted against the provisions of the respective statues, then the committee is also directed to suggest the nature of action to be taken in respect of those unauthorised permissions.
2. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal following is submitted.
(i) Local Body (i.e. Gram Panchayath) does not have any power to approve the layout plan. As per HMDA Act 2008 and as per UDA Act 1975. HMDA is the competent authority for approval of any layout plan. After approval of layout plan same will be sent to concerned local body (i.e. Gram Panchayat or Municipality) for release of plans to the layout owner on collection of local body charges.
(ii) Regarding encroachments of Nalas passing through the layout under reference it is submitted that one nala is passing through the above layout and number of Buildings have come up all along the Nala and its Buffer Page 16 of 23 area. In this regard HMDA vide Lr.No. 1967/MP2/HUDA/1990, Dt. 29.09.2020 & Dt. 21.08.2021 have requested the Irrigation Department and Revenue Department to demarcate the Nala Boundary on the ground to ascertain whether there are any encroachments made in Nala & its Buffer Zone. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division has addressed a letter to the Collector R.R. District stating that Joint Inspection was conducted along with TahsildarGandipet Mandal, Asst. Executive Engineer I & CADD and Mandal surveyor on 08.04.2021stating that 9 Mtrs has been taken as buffer Zone on either sides of PandenaVagu as per G.O.MS.No. 168 MA & UD Dept. Dated 07.04.2012. it was found that some structures (42 Nos in Puppalguda Village & 10 NosNeknampur Village has been identified which was existing from long back and to this effect they prepared the Line Diagram showing of pandenavagu showing the list of encroachments and the same is submitted before this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal.
3. Regarding unauthorised constructions made in the layout under reference it is humbly submitted that during the inspection it is noticed that some of the buildings are unauthorized Buildings and some were permitted by the then Puppalguda Gram Panchayat on the assumption that the Draft layout approved by HMDA in the year 1990 was subsequently cancelled in 1997 as stated in earlier report Dt. 15.02.2021 thereby layout pattern approved by HMDA with open spaces as submitted was not in force. The Municipal Commissioner, who was present during the inspection was asked to furnish the details of each building and approvals and same are awaited. After receipt of report from Municipal Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality following action be taken against the constructions made in violation of rules and constructions made in Nala and its buffer zone.
(i) In case of unauthorised Buildings and Building constructed by encroaching Nala and its Buffer Zone, the Municipal Commissioner Manikonda Municipality shall take immediate action for demolition of encroached portion by following due procedure prescribed under Telangana Municipalities Act,2019.
(ii) In case of Building/s which were permitted by the then Puppalguda Gram Panchayat in the open spaces of HMDA approved draft layout, the Municipal Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality (Since Puppalguda village has now become part of Manikonda Municipality) shall revoke the building permission by issuing show-cause notice to the Building owners and after revocation of Building permission granted earlier, the Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality shall take further action for demolition of Buildings by following due process of law as per Telangana Municipalities Act-2019.
(iii) Action on the persons responsible for granting buildings permissions in the layout open spaces and nala/ Buffer Zone shall be taken by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Since these buildings have come up during Grampanchayat period Page 17 of 23
4. The above report is submitted before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Chennai for kind perusal and it is humbly prayed that necessary order or orders may be passed as deemed it."
17. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned to 16.12.2021 to enable the applicant to file their objections (if any) to the Joint Committee report and also directed the official respondents to file their further action taken report.
18. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, the applicant who appeared in person submitted that since certain actions have been taken by the Government, the Tribunal may dispose of the matter directing the respective authorities to take appropriate action to submit their progress report regarding the action taken, after removal of encroachments.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Telangana submitted that certain actions have been taken and they are pursuing the matter and they will strictly adhere to the directions issued by this Tribunal to remove the encroachment and protect the water bodies in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court to such issues.
20. It is settled law that no one is entitled to encroach into the water bodies/water channels/Nallas which play a great role in protecting the environment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396 reiterated the importance of maintaining the water bodies/waterways/Nallas, though they may not be serving their original function on account of non-maintenance of the authorities and also insisted the necessity for maintaining the community area Page 18 of 23 provided under the layouts and not permitting any constructions in those areas, as that is intended for the purpose of protecting environment and also providing a healthy environment as part of Right to Life to the citizens as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
21. It is seen from the Joint Committee report that certain actions have been taken by the authorities and certain directions have been issued for the purpose of taking steps to fix the buffer zone on either sides of the Pandena Vagu as per G.O. Ms. No.168 MA & UD Department dated 07.04.2012 and if there is any violation found, directions have been issued to remove the same as well. Further, certain directions have been issued for removal of encroachments into the water bodies and Nallas and show cause notices have been issued for violations committed.
22. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving following directions:
a. The Joint Committee report dated 15.02.2021 and the latest report dated Nil, e-filed on 20.11.2021 are recorded and accepted. b. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority is directed to proceed with the action already taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Municipal Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality for removal of encroachments and protecting the open area and Nalla mentioned in the application.
c. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority is also directed to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachments and restore the same to its original position. They are also directed to take steps to assess the environmental compensation for the Page 19 of 23 damage caused to the environment on account of the encroachment and take steps to recover the same against such violators applying the "Polluter Pays" principle as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. and the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal and this Bench in several matters of this nature.
d. The Chief Secretary - State of Telangana, Principal Secretary for Environment and Principal Secretary for Housing and Urban Development are directed to monitor the action taken by the subordinate officials in implementing the directions of this Tribunal and if any technical or other support is required, they are directed to provide the same to save the water bodies/waterways/Nallas and open area as per the zonal regulations.
e. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is directed to file periodical reports regarding the action taken till the entire action is completed once in 4 (Four) months to this Tribunal. f. The District Collector of the concerned district is also directed to provide all necessary assistance for surveying and fixing the encroachment and render all necessary assistance to remove the encroachment and restore the same to its original position as well. g. The District Collector - Ranga Reddy District is also directed to file a periodical report till the encroachments are removed and the same is restored to its original position as directed by this Tribunal once in 4 (Four) months along with the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
Page 20 of 23
23. In the result, this application is disposed of as follows:-
(i) The Joint Committee report dated 15.02.2021 and the latest report dated Nil, e-filed on 20.11.2021 are recorded and accepted.
(ii) The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority is directed to proceed with the action already taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Municipal Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality for removal of encroachments and protecting the open area and Nalla mentioned in the application.
(iii) The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority is also directed to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachments and restore the same to its original position. They are also directed to take steps to assess the environmental compensation for the damage caused to the environment on account of the encroachment and take steps to recover the same against such violators applying the "Polluter Pays" principle as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. and the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal and this Bench in several matters of this nature.
(iv) The Chief Secretary - State of Telangana, Principal Secretary for Environment and Principal Secretary for Housing and Urban Development are directed to monitor the action taken by the subordinate officials in Page 21 of 23 implementing the directions of this Tribunal and if any technical or other support is required, they are directed to provide the same to save the water bodies/waterways/Nallas and open area as per the zonal regulations.
(v) The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is directed to file periodical reports regarding the action taken till the entire action is completed once in 4 (Four) months to this Tribunal.
(vi) The District Collector of the concerned district is also directed to provide all necessary assistance for surveying and fixing the encroachment and render all necessary assistance to remove the encroachment and restore the same to its original position as well.
(vii) The District Collector - Ranga Reddy District is also directed to file a periodical report till the encroachments are removed and the same is restored to its original position as directed by this Tribunal once in 4 (Four) months along with the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
(viii) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the application.
(ix) As and when the reports are received, the Office is directed to place the same before the Bench for consideration and issuing further directions (if any) required in this regard.
Page 22 of 23
(x) The Registry is directed is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary - State of Telangana, Principal Secretary for Environment and Principal Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, District Collector -
Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Municipal Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality and Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority by e-mail for their information and compliance of directions.
24. 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.154/2016 (SZ), 08th February 2022. Mn.
Page 23 of 23