I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT
SHARMA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

WRIT PETITIO N NO:21801 21s82 AND 21818 0 F 2022

AND
LA.NO.3 0 F 2022 lN w. P.NO.2158 20F 2022

wP NO.21801 oF 2022:
Betwee n:
Villa No'
1,
' tr,4. Anuradha. W/o L4 Subba Raju, Age--62 years Occ- Housewife'
i;,"p;";l;-za, xolJpei'srz-rr,laii Ro,d-^Near Zresta GoldfishVillas,
Hyderabad^- 500 075
kokap"i, nlngareddy District,
z Business' R/o Plot No'
x. nlonir<a, Wo r. *iii"ri-,'n,'JAge- sz vears' occ- Shaikpet' Hvderabad
664, Road No. ss, r'i;ai'lfiCnr-rn-o ilid-LJbiiee'Hills, Plot No'
3. K: A;;lt;. oio x. s'tiniurl iao Rge- 2.5 jubitee occ- Student'
.vqql' Hills. shaikpet, FUo
" b'0,i,'n"iJ rrr". os. NeJiilicnf"no.h"ug, Hyderabad
Housewife' Fl/o 11' Pace S.partan
4. S. Srid;;i wlo xrisnii nge- sr vlart, occ-Ambattur'
TNRHB Extn, l,logappiiitlsi' l'lr"g'ppair' Tiruvallur' Tamil Nadu -
037
600"ULmafatha,
s. k. W/o Late Keshava Rao, Age- 85 vears Occ- Housewife' R/o-
Hvderabad
Flat No. 205, Sai K;;;D;l;;;'Ap"t'"ni", Sri Nagar Colonv'
500 073 ...PEITIoNERS
AND

l.StateofTelangana,Rep.byitsChiefSecretaryTelanoanaSecretariat5th
Ftoor, Burguta nrra iilirn,ia'n* [nJ*"., lri ++, Hitirort, Adarsh
Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
2.
- s(ate of TeianganS, Oepirtment of MunicipalAdministration and Urban Sth _
6il"ropri,nt R"p. oviG sbeciit cnier Se'cretarv Telanqana Secretariat
Froli, durgura ni.u'r<ii.r,ii nJJehiuun, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nasar'
Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
t" Hi,derabad N/etroooiitJn Development Authority (HMDA, Rep by its .
Javanti cclmplex' S^anjeeva Reddy
ilti;ilii;n'6or-ritso*r. Swdrna Hyderabad
flugiiSriniuuta Nagar, Ameerpet' - 500038
...RESpoNDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in
the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be

pleaSedtoissueanappropriateWrit,Directionororder'particularlyoneinthe
nature of Mandamus
I
 2

a.To declare that the application of G.O. lv1s.No. 69 daled 1210412022 to

the lands of the Petitioners which fall outside the catchment area of Osmansagar
and Himayatsagar lakes is illegal and arbitrary and consequently
b.To declare that the Petitioners land be subject to the same
developmental regulations as the ad.ioining lands (i.e. Kokapet SEZ, Financial
District and Neopolis)

lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To
direct the Respondents to produce all records pertaining to the delineation of
non-catchment area inVattinagulapally village

lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To
direct that the proposed rules and regulatory measures under G.O. Ms.No.69
dated 1210412022 will not be applicable to the Petitioners' lands pending disposal
of this Petition
Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. SHRAVYA REDDY PATLLOLA

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

SRI Y. RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA

WPNO: 21582 OF 2022

Betwee n:

1. Agni Agritech Pv,t. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3,Plot
No.1B, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, lvladhapur, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 08'1 Rep. by Authorised Representative G.t\,4.Subhani
2. Nimbha Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot
No.18, iLabs Centre , Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative M. Gopala
Chakravarthi
3. Scorpio Bio Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3,
Plot No.18, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, [Vladhapur, Hyderabad,
 ".r
,.,/
-)

Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative I/. N. S. S. N.

Raju
4 Skan^da Aerospale Pfi. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, plot
k No.1B, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, Ivladhapur, llyderabad,
Telansana - s00 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative O y.i.T?NBll.*.
AND

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat Sth

Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar,
Hyderabad. Telangana 500063
2 State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat 5th
Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
.)
Hyderabad lvletropolitan Development Authority (HIUDA, Rep. by its
IVletropo_litan Commissioner Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva' Reddy
Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038
4 T. Pradeep Kumar Reddy S/o. Sidiram Reddy, Occ: Advocate, R/o.sravanthi
Nagar, Varsbakari Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

(Respondent No. 4 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 29.04.2022

vide l.A.No.3 ol 2022 in W.P.No.21582 ol 2022)
-..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, particularly one in the
nature of Mandamus.
a.To declare that the application of G.O. Ms.No. 69 daied 12.04.2022 to
the Iands of the Petitioners which fall outside the catchment area of osmansagar
and Himayatsagar lakes is illegal and arbitrary and consequenfly
b.To declare that the Petitioners land be subject to the same
developmental regulations as the adjoining Iands (i.e. Kokapet SEZ, Financial
District and Neopolis)

l,A NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the Respondents to produce all records pertaining to the delineation of
non-catchment area in Vattinagulapaily village

lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct that the proposed rules and regulatory measures under G.O. lr/s.No.6g
 1

dated 12.O4.2O22 will not be applicable to the Petitioners' lands, pending

d isposal of this Petition

lA NO: 3 OF 2022:
Between:

T. Pradeep Kumar Reddy S/o. Sidiram Reddy, Occ: Advocate, Rl/o.Sravanthi

Nagar, Varsbakari Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
....lMPLEAD PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT No. 4
AND
'1 . Agni Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot
No.'18, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, lr/adhapur, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by Authorised Representative G.t\4.Subhani
I
2. Nimbha Biotech P!,t. Ltd., Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot
No.1B, ilabs Centre Software Units Layout, Madhapur, -Hyderabad,
,
-
Telangana 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative l\,4. Gopala
Chakravarthi
3. Scorpio Bio Solutions P!t. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3,
PIot No.'18, ilabs Centre, Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised Representative M. N. S. S. N.
Raju
,l
4. 9kanda Aerospace P\,(. Ltd, Having its registered office at Building No.3, Plot
No..1B, iLabs Centre, Software Units Layout, I\,4adhapur, Hyderabad,
ll
retangana _ 500 081 Rep. by its Authorised ReprBe,ilEl![".,fi,_H
u r.e!|N8i]u*,
ii
5. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat Sth
Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
6. Slate of Telangana, Department of lvlunicipal Administration and Urban
l Develqlment tep. by its Special Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat sth
Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar,
:
l Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
7. H.yderabad Metropolitan Deveiopment Authority (HlVDA, Rep. by its
Metropolitan Commissioner Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva- Reddy
Nagar, srinivasa Nasar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad
:ig8g8fir.rrs/RESpoNDENrs
Petition under Section 16-A of Writ Rules praying that jn the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased implead the proposed Respondent as Respondents No,4
in the present w.P.No.215B2 of 2022 as well as in the l.A.'s in the Writ petition
for proper adjudication of the case in the interest of justice
Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI MANOJ REDDY KESHI REDDy

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION &
 5

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

SRIY. RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI CHIKKUDU PRABHAKAR

WP NO: 21818 OF 2022

Betwee n :

1 (. -Syrygnalayana, S/o Late Pulliah Age. 90 years, Occ. Business, R/o g-2-
293l12lA-1219, Road No.36, Near tclcl Bank; Jubitee Hills, Hyderabad - 500
033
2 (. Aqulya, D/o K. Srinivas Rao Age. 25 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o plot No,
664, Road No. 33, Near MCRHRD Road, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad
3 K Hemalatha, W/o Late Keshava Rao, Age. 85 years, Oci. Hbusewife, R/o
Flat No 205, Sai Kiran Deluxe Apartmenls, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderatiad -
500 073
4 Q, !f{ev1, W/o Krishna Age. 51 years, Occ. Housewife, Rt/o Fl, pace Spartan
lryRHq Extn, N/ogappair East, Mogappair, Ambattur, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-
600 037
5 K. Radhika, W/o K. Srinivasa Rao Age. 52 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o plot No.
664, Road No. 33, Near MCRHRD, Road, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet. Hvderabad
6 K. Srinivas Rao, S/o K. Surayanarayana Age. 57 years, Ocb. Business, Rl/o
Plot No. 664, Road No. 33, Near II4CRHRD Roa-d, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet,
Hyderabad
7 K. Aishwarya, D/o K. Srinivas Rao Age. 30, Occ. Housewife, R/o plot No. 664,
Road No. 33, Near MCHRD Road, Jubitee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad - SOd
033
B M. Anuradha, W/o M. Subba Raju, Age.62 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Villa
No. 24, Private 28, Kokapet SEZ Mein Ro!d, Near Zresta Goldfish Villas,
Kokapet, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad - S00 075
...'E,,.NERS
AND

State oJ Telang!na, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat sth

Floor, Burgula Rama Krishn-a-Rao Bhavan, NH ++, HitIfort, Adarsh Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
2 State.of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban
Developmen.t [eO bV 1ts Special Chief Secretary Telangana Secretariat 5th
Floor, Burgula Rama Krishn^a-Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500063
3 H.yderabad Metropo.litan Development Authority HMDA, Rep. by its
Metropo_litan Commissroner Swarna Jayanti Ccimplex, Sanibevi Reddv
Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038
...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226

ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, Direction or order, particularly one in the
nature of Mandamus
 [r

a. To declare that the application of G O Ms

No 6g dated 12'04'2022 to
area of Osmansagar
the lands of the Petitloners which fall outside the catchment
and consequently
and Himayatsagar lakes as illegal and arbltrary
b.To declare that the Petitioners land be subiect to the same

developmental regulations as the adjoining

lands (i'e Kokapet SEZ, Financial

District and NeoPolis)

in the circumstances stated in

Petition und er Section 151 CPC praying that
High court may be pleased to direct
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the
under G O- Ms No 69 dated
that the proposed rules and regulatory measures
l2,o4.2o22willnotbeapplicabletothePetitioners,landspendingdisposalofthis
Petition

IA NO :2O F 2022
Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in
the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High

court may be pleased to direct
the delineation of non-
the Respondents to produce all records pertaining to
pending the disposal of the writ petition
catchment area in Vattinagulapally village
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G' BHEEMA CHARY
GENERAL FOR
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: THE ADVOCATE
GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

counserf orRespondentNo'2:l?t$'-',ff
.i$,lir|=r\t$,f,t-,'.?[o,o**
URBAN DEVELOPMENT

FOR
I Counsel for Respondent No' 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HMDA
SRI Y. RAMA RAO, SC FOR

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

.L

THE HO N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

WRIT PETITION Nos.2 18O1 2L582 and 21-ALa OF 2022

and I.A.No.3 of 2O22 in W.P.No.21582 ot 2022

COMMON ORDERi eer e llon'bLe the Cluef Justice Satistr Clwndra Shclrma)

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

involved in the present cases, the writ petitions \\rere

analogously heard and by a common order, they are being

disposed of by this Court.

2. The facts of W.P.No.2180 1 of 2022 are as follows:-

The petitioners before this Court have filed the present

writ petition stating that they are the owners of lands in

survey Nos.173, 192, 193,225-228,230-233,240 and 243

in Vattinagulapally Vil1age, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy Distrcit.

3. The petitioners have stated that the Government of

Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.111, M.A., dated
08.03. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'G.O.Ms.No. 11 1') for

the protection of catchment area of Himayatsagar and

\
Osmansagar lakes in Hyderabad to ensure that the \

\
L' 2

rainwater flows into the lakes. G.O.Ms.No.111 prohibits

establishments in the catchment area of the lakes upto 10

kilometers from the Full Tank Level (FTL). The petitioners

have further stated that instead of identifying the precise

contours of the catchment area of the two lakes, the

Government had prepared a list ol 84 villages falling within

10 kilometers and declared that G.O.Ms.No.111 would apply

to all 84 villages in their entirety. The Government did not

make any attempt to demarcate the catchment area in each

village and in those circumstarces, even the area u'hich rvas

not the catchment area and it was part of those 84 viilages

became the subject matter of the restrictions imposed on

account of G.O.Ms.No.111. The petitioners have further

stated that Vattinagulapally Village is situated on the
northern side of Osmansagar and Himayatsaga-r and is one

of the 84 villages identified by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.l11 and it has got a unique geography and

drainage pattern as compared to other villages in

G.O.Ms.No.111. It has been further stated that a prominent

, ridge is subdividing the area of Vattinagulapally Village and

I the water on the western side of the ridge flows into

)
 Osmansagar lake, whereas the water on the eastern side of

the ridge flows into an existing storm water drain and

thereafter into the Musi river downstream of Osmalsagar
lake. It has been further stated that the storm water drain

does not form part of the catchment area of either

Osmansagar or Himayatsagar 1ake.

4 . The petitioners have further stated that in the close

proximitl, to petitioners' land, the Government has alloi,ved

commercial development on three sides of petitioners' land

and the Government has allowed the commercia-l

development in the surrounding areas on the premise that

the storm water from these development does not flow into
Osmansagar or the Himayatsagar 1ake, but rather flows into

a storm water drain which in turn joins the Musi river

downstream of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar 1akes. The

petitioners have given details of certain development

activities/commercial development carried out on three
sides of the petitioners' land and they are as under:-

No. Location (from Nature of Development Distance from

\
Petitioners Property) Osmansagar Lake
(FTL} i
South Western Neopolis (State Government 500 metres to I km

\,
v- -1

and allotted Plots for

developed
commercial and residential
development. Construction of
I
buildrngs of more than 20 floors is
l
on tIt
I I] Southern Side Kokapet SEZ (State Government 700 metres to 3
development and allotted property to kms
various entities for commercial and
residentiai development with more
than 20 floors
111 Southern Side Outer Ring Road (8-Lane Expressu'ay l 5 kms
constructed b the HMDA
South Easte.n Puppalaguda Land - (State 3.5 kms
Government is auctioning the
property for commercial
l
develo mcrl
Northern Side Government Allotted Land for 4 kms
Commercial Development (Q Cit)'
tt I
with ovcr 10 floor building for
commercial development) I

vl North Eastern Side Proposed Consulate of USA (Land 4 kms

Allorted Governmen
\NI Eastern Side Financial District (State Covernment 4.5 kms
developed and allotted to leading
companies which have constmcted
commercial and residential with
more than 20 floors

5. The petitioners have given large number of examples

of adjoining Iands, which are close to the petitioners' 1and,

where commercial activities are going on. The petitioners

have further stated that even the buildings having more

than twenty floors have been constructed on the adjoining

iand or on the land which is in close proximity of the
petitioners' land. The petitioners further stated that other

land owners in non-catchment area also made several

representations to the Government to exclude the areas in

I Vattinagulapally Village which do not form part of

(
I
 5

catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes

from the purview of G.O.Ms.No.111 and a Committee was

constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.149, M.A, dated 28.03.2006 to

determine the extent of land in Vattinagulapally Village

which falls outside the catchment area of two lakes and

identify the survey numbers of the same. The Committee
was comprising of the following members:-

" 1 .
Special Chief Secretary to Govemment of
A.P., Department of Revenue (Sri V.P.Jasuhari, I.A.S.,)
2.
Principal Secretary to Government of A.P.,
Department of Environment, Forests, Science and
Technolory (Sri T.Chatterjee, I.A.S.,)
3. Secretary to
Government of A.P.,
Department of Municipal Administration and Urban
Development (Sri S.P.Singh, LA.S.,)
4. Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh
Pollut ion Control Board (APPCB; (Sri Rajeswar Tiwari,
I.A.S.,)
5.
Malaging Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan
Water Suply arrd Sewerage Board (Sri Jawahar Reddy,
I.A.S.,)"

6. The petitioners have further stated that the said

Committee decided to engage an expert body on the subject,

i.e., the Environmenta-i Protection Training and Research l

\
Institute (EFrfRi), which is an autonomous institution set

\
Ll-
6

upon in 7992 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and

the Government of India. The Committee has submitted

va-rious reports on environmenta1 issues including the

protection of Hussain Sagar iake and pollution control in

Hyderabad. The report of the said Committee has been

looked into and reference of cases in Ramakrishna Rao v'

Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., [2001 (5) ALD

299 (DB)l and D.Achyutanand v. Union of India [2004 SCC

Online AP 1445 (DB)l has been furnished by the petitioners'

The petitioners have further stated that the Committee

constituted vide G.O'Ms.No.149, M.A., dated 28'03'2006
formulated the terms of reference, which was referred to

EPTRI and is reproduced as under:-

"To deiineate the watershed of the catchment al'ea

of Osman Sagar Lake covering Vattinagulapalli Village
administrative area and assess the area outside the
Catchment area."

7. The EPTRI conducted exhaustive hydrological and

topographical survey, examined Government maps,

, topographical maps, drainage maps and satellite data of the
I
/ viilage area and finally submitted a Report on 31.05'2006' It
 7 7

has been further stated that the Report of the Committee

u,as accepted. Meaning thereby, it has been stated that the

demarcation done by the EPTRI was accepted and the

petitioners' land is not part of catchment area as per the

EPIRI Committee Report. The petitioners have further

stated that a writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.9386 of 2007 was

a-lso filed in respect of protection of catchment area around

Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes keeping in view the

provisions of G.O.Ms.No.111 and various orders were

passed from time to time, It has been further stated that on

07.04.2O7O, based upon the EPTRI Report, the Government

had filed I.A., in W.P.No.93B6 of 2OO7 for exclusion of land

parcels identified by the EPIRI in respect of

Vattinagulapally Village from the catchment area of

Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes and after filing of the

said I.A., the Government has not taken any steps to

exciude the non-catchment area. The petitioners kept on

representing in the matter and another application i.e',

I.A.No.1 of 2Ol7 in W.P.No.9386 of 2OO7 was filed and this

Court was informed that a High Powered Committee (HPC\

. ,\

has been constituted to look into various aspects of

F"_
t t-
S

G.O.Ms.No.l11' The High Powered Committee has been

constituted on account of order, dated 19'12'2018 passed

by the National Green Tribunal in O'A'No'53 1 of 2018 and

all construction activities in respect of area in

G.O.Ms.No.111was barred till HPC submits its Report' The

petitioners have further stated that finally this Court on

26.08.2027 has passed a detailed and exhaustive order in

W.P.Nos.9386 and 18896 of 2OO7 and W'P' (PIL) No'64 of

2O2l and the same is reproduced as under:-

"I.A.No.1 of 2 010 PMP .No.10 152 of 2 o 10)

&
I.A.No.1 of 2OL7 (wP tlf P.f o. tS 5O7 of 2O 17)
IN
W.P.No.9a 86 of2OO7

1. This order is in continuation of the order passed

yesterday wherein, it was pointed out to Mr' 'l'
Ramachandra Rao, learned Additional Advocate General
that the five terms of reference, subject matter of
G.O.Ms.No.839 dated 07. i2.2016 vn'hereunder the High
Powered Committee was constituted to submit its Report
within 45 days, did not cover the terms of reference
drawn by the Municipal Administration ald Urbal
Development Department, State Government that had
commissioned EPTRi to conduct a survey "to delineate
the u.tatershed. of the catchment area of Osmansagar Lake
coueing Vattinagulapaltg Vtllage Administratiue Area and

I assess the area outside the catchment area"

 9

{.

2. We may note that the Report submitted by the

EPTRI in May, 2006 states in ciear terms that,,Based on
the representations receiued bg the Gouernment to relo-x
the restictions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.l 1 1 of M.A 1996
tuith regard to areas which is not Catchment area
Watershed of Osman Sagar Lake, the Gouemment desired
EPTRI to examine "the extent of administratiue area of
Vattinagulapallg Village, Ranga Reddg district which fatls
outside the tuatershed- after d.etineating the watershed.
boundaryi' ". The findings recorded in the Report have
been encapsulated in para 2.6 in the following words:-
2,6. Project Findings
The drainage pattern tn the studA urea,
Vattinogulapalli uillage administratiue area with land
parcel tnformatton and topographic proJile of the studg are
now in GIS layer form. Keeping the direction of the JloLU,
topography, the uLatershed boundary is now delineated.
The delineated utaterslrcd boundary is presented in ftgure
9.

The land parcel boundaies are nou.t ouerlayed on the

topographic features and as well on delineated tuatershed
boundary. A small hill range is subdiuiding the drainage
area in the studg area u.therein the southem flou.ts are
joining Osman Sagar Lake ond Northern Jlotus are
draining tnto Nakka Vagu catchment ond drainage afier
the hiLl range is draining down in to Musi Riuer i,e., down
stream of OsmcLn Sagar Lake. Tlrc delineated uatershed
boundary uith land parcel information is presented in
f.gure 10.
The satellite dctto as captured bg Quick Bird Satellite and
presented by Google Earth agency on u.teb coueing\.
Vattinagulapalli uitlage area is presented in figure I l. As I
I

r,-
t .L

10

place this
seen from the image, mining actiuitg is taking
smatl hilt range. This hos greater impact on the drainage
pattern in the study area. Ang damage to this idge utill
facititate the mouement of surface Jlottts
into the Osman
Sagar Lake uhich results into enuironmental impact on the
water qualitA of the tack This ridge area has to be
protected.
From the aboue ouerla!) onal:].sis, it is found thot the
follouing land. parcels listed in table 1 (other than the idge
area) in Vattinaqtlaptli uitlage falls in the drainage area
that drains into Musi nuer i.e'' dotun stream of Osman
Sagar Lake ond same is presented in ftgure 12 '

Tnhle I
PARCEL NO PARCEL NA P,4 RC I.:L NO
173 245
t76 206 231
t79 207 235
t80 I
248 236
181 209 237
209 238
183 210 2 39
t81 211 210
/ 8.t 212 211
186 2t3 212
187 213 213
188 2 1,1 241
189 216 245
190 217 246
t9l 218 247
192 219 248
193 220 219
194 221 254
I95 222 25 t
196 223 252
197 221
198 225 251
198 226 2i -i
t99 227 256
200 228 25i
20l 229 2iE
202 230 259
203 231 264

I 241 232 5t2

 -----7

ll
(
/

3. It is apparent from a reading of the Report of

the
EPTRI that ali the g7 parcels of
land mentioned in Table
I above and highlighted in a map mentioned at figure
12,
are a part of the non-catchment area arld. quaJify
for
being declared as falling outside the watershed
boundary.
4. As noted in our earlier ord.ers, by virtue
of
G.O.Ms.No.839 dated OT.t2.2O16, issued
by the
Municipa.l Administration arrd Urban Development
Department, a High powered Committee
was constituted
to examine G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated 0g.03.1996 with
five
specific terms of reference assigned. Strictly
speaking,
none of the five terms of reference dea_l lvith
the singular
terms of reference submitted by the very
sarne
Department to the EpTRI for a Report, which
was limited
to delineating the watershed of the catchment
area of
Osman Sagar Lake covering Vattinaguiapaliy
Village
Administrative Area and assessing the area
outside the
catchment a_::ea_
5. Be that as it may, as learned Additional
Advocate
General has repeatedly been stating that
though there is
no plausible explalation available for the
inaction on tJ.e
part of the High powered Committee in submitting
a
Report over the past four years and seven
months, in
accordance with the terms of reference
arrd though the
State Government has for reasons best known
to it, given
an open-ended mandate to the High powered
I
Committee
to continue functioning without fixing any cut off
date, if
the Committee and the Govemment are granted a
reasonable time, a Report shall be submitted
to the State
Government w:thin four weeks, it is directed
as follows:-
(i) The High powered Committee shall submit a ..

I Report to the State Government within four

weeks

f
 1l

reckoned from 13.08.2021, the date on which such a

request was made before this court through al affidavit
frled in this regard by the Principal Secretary to
Government, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department.
(ii) While submitting the said Report, the High
Powered Committee sha1l specihcalll' deal u"ith the
second Report submitted by the EPTRI in Ma1', 2006 and
give its findings thereon, specifically in the context of
excluding the non-catchment area, from G.O.Ms.No 111
dated 08.03.1996, as delineated by the EPTRI and
forming a part of Vattinagulapally Village.
(iii) The Report of the High Powered Committee shall
be uploaded on the website of the Municipal
Administrationald Urban Development Department
contemporaneous to being submitted to the State
Government.
(iv) The State Government sha-lI examine the said
Report, particuiarly the aspect of exclusion of the non-
catchment area, as declared by the EPTRI in Table 1 of
its second Report of May, 2006 and take a decision
thereon by the end of September, 202 1 which sha1l also
be uploaded on the website of the Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department
within two days.
(v) The Chairperson of the High Powered Committee
shall file an affidavit within one week from today
undertaking inter alia to abide by the conditions and the
timelines recorded hereinabove.
(vi) In the event the Report is not submitted by the
High Powered Committee within the timeline as recorded
/
above, no further extension shall be given and the
 -7
l3

Committee shall stand automatically disbanded on

12.09.202L In that eventuality, those parties who claim
that their land rs covered in the parcels enumerated in
Table 1 of the EPTRI Report of May, 2006, sha-11 be
entitled to approach the court for appropriate relief.
6. List on 04. 10.2021 for further orders.,,

B. The petitioners' contention is that liberty was granted

to the petitioners to approach this Court if the Report is not

submitted by the Committee upto , and tO.Og.2O2l

therefore, they have approached this Court for

implementation of the EPTRI Report.

9. Another important aspect of the case is that recently

the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.69, MA & UD,

dated 12.04.2022 and modified the restrictions in

G.O.Ms.No. 11 1 to protect the water quality of Osmansagar
and Himayatsagar lakes and the Government has
constituted a Committee to frame guidelines and detailed
i

regulations for protecting the quality of two water bodies.

The petitioners'contention is that as per the EpTRI Report,

which is the Report submitted by the expert body on the

subject, the area which is subject matter of the present writ

petitions, forms part of non-catchment area of

I
 1l

Vattinagulapally Village and does not flow into Osmansagar

or Himayatsagar lakes and therefore, the petitioners' land

cannot be subjected to provisions of G.O.Ms.No.69, dated

12.04.2022 aiso. The petitioners have prayed for the

following reliefs.

"For the reasons aJoresaid, it is humbly prayed

that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue aI
appropriate writ, direction or order, particularly one in
the nature of mandamus:-
(a) to declare that the application of
G.O.Ms.No.69, daLed L2.O4.2022, lo the lands of the
petitioners which fall outside the catchment area of
Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes as i1lega1 and
arbitrary ald consequentlY,
(b) to declare that the petitioners' Iand be

subject to the same developmental regulations as the

adjoining lands (i.e., Kokapet SEZ, Financial District and
Neopolis),
(c) and pass such other order(s) as this Honble
Court deems fit and proper in the extraordinarv
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

10. This Court has directed the State Government to file a

counter alfidavit and the Special Chief Secretary has filed

the affidavit in the matter. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit is

reproduced as under:-

t
 15

5. It is sultmitted that Government have received

representations from various individua_ls with
a request
to exclude the areas located in Vattinagulapally Village
which are not fa.lling in catchment area water
shed of
Osmansag;rr la_l<e from the purview of G.O.Ms.No.
l l l MA
dated 08.03.1996. The erstwhile Government of
Andhra
Pradesh has referred the matter to Environment
Protection Training arrd Research Institute (EIrfRI)
and
requested to delineate the catchment a-rea in
Vattrnagulapally village. Accordingly EPIRI has
conducted an exhaustive hydrologrcal and topographical
study and submitted that there is a well deiined
ridge line
(i.e., hill range) running through the Vattinagulapally
village which divides the village into two distinct
zones
and EPTRI demarcated the land into catchment
and non_
catchment areas. As per EpTRI report the following
Survey Numbers of Vattinagulapally village falls
in non_
catchment area that drains into Musi River
i "
downstream of Osmal Sagar Reservoir.

village name Survey Numbers

falling in Non- I

catchment area
Vattinagu iapally 173,178 to 214,
216 to 260 and
5t2

11. The learned Additional Advocate General, on

lnstructions, has stated in open Court that the area
in
question falls in non-catchment area that drains into ,i
Musi
)
River, 1.e downstream of Osman Sagar Reservoir. The
 1(r

stated
General has categorically
iearned Additional Advocate
which is subject matter of the present writ
that the area

petiti.ons, as per the EPTRI Report'

is falling outside the
and Himayatsagar lakes' He
catchment area of Osmansagar

that the stand of the State Government is that

has stated
fa1Is outside the catchment area of Osmansagar
the area

and Himayatsagar lakes and

the petitioners' land shall be

the same development regulations as are

subject to
to the adjoining iands which are not subject to
applicable

G.o.Ms.No.1 1 1, dated 08'03' 1996'

stand of the State

1.2. In the light of the categorical
before this Court that the lands of the
Government

petitioners a-re falling outside

the catchment area of
lakes' the question of
Osmansagar and Himayatsagar
of G'O'Ms'No'69' dated l2'O4'2022 to the land
application
and the petitioners' iand
of the petitioners does not arise
shall certainly be subj ected to same development

applicable to the adjoining lands' as stated in

regulations
Additional Advocate General'
the open Court, by the learned
l
 \7

i3. Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for the

petitioner in implead application, i.e., I.A.No.3 of 2022 in
W.P.No.215B2 of 2022" He has drawn the attention of this

Court towards the order, dated 26.08.2021, passed 1n

W.P.Nos.93B6 and 18896 of 2007 and W.P. (PIL) No.64 of

202 1. His main thrust is to ensure preservation of lakes in

que stion.

14 . In the considered opinion of this Court, the concern

shown by the learned counsel is genuine one and it is the
bounden duty of this Court as well as ail citizens of this

country to ensure that the lakes are not dried up, they are

kept intact and the catchment area is not disturbed.

However, the facts of the present writ petitions reveal that

Vattinagulapally Village has a unique geography and

drainage pattern AS compared to other villages 1n

G.O.Ms.No.111. There is a prominent ridge subdividing the

area of Vattinagulapally Village and the water on the

western side of the ridge flows into Osmansagar 1ake,

whereas the lr,'ater on the eastern side of the ridge flows into
I an existing storm water drain and thereafter into the Musi
 18

river downstream of Osmansagar lake' The area in question

as per the EPTRI Report is not at all under the catchment

area and therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the

implead petitioner, the I.A.No.3 of 2022 in W'P'No'21582 of

2022 stands disPosed of.

With the aforesaid, the writ petitions are allou'ed

Miscellaneous applications, pending if an1', shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs

//TRUE COPY// ^,38i['s[lBit]iH

sEcrroN 8J''t'*

To,
.Il?f l}"4:;3'Ri?h?.ft.i9]l^{312[Yi{,iJ^:,fl lPe:ii",.:?:fl 'lft:Sth,Floor'
,llfi1ffi r+ft
si#,";,xHil"rr"
Ul6i:NijLiq*ffiiqiffi

: m1*tli}lffilif#..u-pqg;U,.r': :
H eh

1 ffi$fl$tmt*fltr, 'Deve'Pmen

MBC,,
1V{
 E

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2810412022

I
^--.--,/ ctr
(
,t
(d z! iin2olz
Dr-

COMMON ORDER

WP NO: 21801,21582 AND 21818 OF 2022

AND
I.A.NO.3 0F 2o22lN W.P.NO.21582 0F 2022

DISPOSING OF THE I.A.NO.3 OF 2022

&
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS

WITHOUT COSTS

\5
<<-
$