Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Feb 23, 2006
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of India
Seat of court
New Delhi
Judge
Pal
Lakshmanan
Reference number
(2006) INSC 86
Language
English
Subject
Water
Keyword
Urban land Sustainable development Public trust doctrine Freshwater resources management
Abstract
The appellants in this case complained about the systematic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in their town, and alienation of the tank bed land to the Urban Development Authority and the A.P. Housing Board for the urban development of the land for housing purposes. They stated that the tanks were being put to use not only for irrigation purpose but also as lakes which were furthering percolation to improve the ground water table, thus serving the needs of the people in and around these tanks. The court emphasized that it had to analyze the following questions: Whether urban development could be given primacy over the need to protect the environment and valuable fresh water resources, whether the action of the A.P. state in taking the impugned decision could be permitted in the light of the Constitution of India, and whether the need for sustainable development could be ignored and harm caused to the environment in the name of urban development. It applied, among others, the principle of sustainable development, the public trust doctrine, and the principle of intergenerational equity, emphasizing that these principles wholly applied for adjudicating matters concerning environment and ecology and they had to be applied in full force for protecting the natural resources of the country. The court stressed that nowadays, because of poverty, migration of people from rural areas to urban areas was a common phenomenon. Because of the limited infrastructure of the towns, the towns were becoming slums. The court therefore could not prevent the Government from proceeding with the proper development of the town in question. On the other hand, the tank was a communal property and the State authorities were trustees to manage such properties for the benefits of the community. They could not be allowed to commit any act which would infringe the right of the Community. The residential buildings planned by the authorities were mainly for high and middle income families, meaning that if the proposed constructions were not carried on, it seemed unlikely that anyone would be left without their basic need for shelter. Therefore, the right to shelter did not seem to be so pressing under the present circumstances so as to outweigh all environmental considerations. The decision of this case could also not be based solely upon the money already spent by the respondents on the development of the land. Otherwise, once any party made certain investment in a project, it would be a fait accompli and the Court would not have any option but to deem it legal. Therefore, the Court should do the most it could to safeguard the two tanks in question. However, due to the persistent developmental activities over a long time, much of the natural resources of the lakes had been lost, and considered irreparable. This, though regrettable, was beyond the power of the court to rectify. The court, after taking into account all these principles of law, and considering the competing claims of environment and the need for housing, disposed of the appeals with the directions, among others, that no further constructions was allowed to be made, each house already constructed had to provide structure for roof top rain water harvesting, all the storm water in the already built colonies had to be recharged to ground water and no borewell/ tubewell for any purpose was allowed in the area.
Full text
86.html

References

Cites