-Dr Lubna Sarwath, State President, Water Resources Council – Womens Indian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
The National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi that has been constituted under the NGT Act 2010, with a huge responsibility and bestowed with extraordinary powers to protect environment and life, owes an explanation to the people of Hyderabad as to how implementation of GO 111, that has been upheld by the Apex Court in 2000, endorsed by the Southern Bench in 2016, and, unauthorized constructions admitted by the respondent officials in 2016, becomes ‘policy matter’ of the state in 2018. And how a bounden duty of Principal Bench was pronounced as ‘exercise in futility’.
Was it not this dereliction by Principal Bench in 2018 that emboldened the Government of Telangana to issue a new Government order on 12th April 2022 removing all the construction restrictions, in the 10kms radius buffer zone of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar drinking water reservoirs, imposed under Para 3 of GO Ms 111 dated March 3,1996 without any statutory and expert backing and against the Apex Court order of 2000?
As a citizen if one does not question the dereliction of the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, that has created an existential threat to the Hyderabadis, then our loyalty towards our city, state and country are indeed questionable.
Appeal Vs Judgement: The Disconnect
Pertinent to observe is how the Green Tribunal Principal Bench , responded to a petition transferred to its bench from Southern Bench in 2017, for protection of the catchment areas of two heritage century-old drinking water reservoirs/dams, viz., Osman Sagar and the Himayat Sagar. In other words, what was appealed was strict implementation of G.O.111 dated 8.3.1996, wherein, Annexure – I of the said G.O mentions 84 villages which are falling within 10 kilometers of the catchment area of Osman Sager and Himayat Sagar.
While the prayer before National Green Tribunal Southern Bench in March 17, 2016 was to direct seven authorities, viz., the State of Telangana, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Lake protection committee, Collector RR District, Tahsildar, District Panchayat Officer, Panchayat Secretary, to remove all illegal unauthorized constructions from the prohibited area, the final judgement, pronounced on December 19, 2018, by Principal Bench, was that a ‘High Power Committee’ ‘shall deliberate expeditiously and submit its recommendations on Terms of Reference within six months hence.’
The gap and disconnect between the appeal in the petition and the final judgement pronounced cannot be missed.
Roller coaster is observed in the judgements pronounced by two different benches in the same case. While judges from the Southern Bench Chennai, in 2016, ordered status quo on illegal constructions and ordered Official respondents to submit list of all the encroachments and illegal constructions in the GO111 10kms buffer zone prohibited area, the Judges of Principal Bench New Delhi disposed the case on December 15, 2018 that ‘this essentially is a matter falling within policy domain of the state’ and that ‘it would be an exercise in futility for the Tribunal to enter into the controversy at this stage.’
Conspicuously missed by the Principal Bench in 2018, was assertion by the Southern Bench in order dated 17.03.2016 as follows: ‘The validity of the said G.O was ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD V. PROF. M.V. NAYUDU by the judgment dated 22.12.2000 passed in Appeal (Civil) Nos.368 to 371 of 1999.’
Further, Southern Bench, on 17 May 2016 ordered that ‘status quo..shall continue to all the areas which are covered by GO No. 111 dated 08.03.1996.’
Thus, citizen are bound to be confused that Principal Bench envisioned protection of catchment area of drinking water reservoirs, that is already backed by expert scientific reports, as essentially ‘policy domain’ matter and an ‘exercise in futility’.
Thus, Judiciary allowed executive body of Telangana to override science and law while itself evaded natural principles of justice.
RR Collector admitted Illegal Constructions
The deriliction of Principal Bench is more conspicuous when one examines the survey report submitted by the officials within a month upon orders of the Southern Bench.
In compliance with the order dated 17 march 2016, ordering joint survey and identification of unauthorized and illegal constructions in the GO111 prohibited area, then RR District Collector and DPO filed separate affidavits on April 23, 2016. They submitted data on layouts and structures viz., 426 layouts and 12442 structures that can be tabulated as follows for better understanding:
Enumeration of structures category-wise:
| Structures | Residential | Government institutions | Commercial | Industrial | Total |
| Standalone | 4567 | 86 | 780 | 96 | 5529 |
| Layouts | 6340 | – | 570 | 3 | 6913 |
| Total structures= Standalone+ Layouts | 10907 | 86 | 1350 | 99 | 12442 |
Number of structures village-wise:
| Range of Structures | Number of Villages |
| 0 structures | 8 |
| <50 | 40 |
| 51-200 | 26 |
| 201-300 | 8 |
| 301-400 | 1 |
| >400 | 6 |
| >600 | 2 |
Type of Structures village-wise:
| Type of Structures | Number of Villages |
| Industrial (Rice Mills, brick manufacturing, cold storage units, marble and furniture industries, etc | 23 |
| No Commercial structure | 21 |
| >20 commercial structures | 9 |
| 111 commercial structures (Surangal Village of Moinabad Mandal) | 1 |
| 617 commercial structures (Shamshabad Village of Shamshabad Mandal) | 1 |
| <10 commercial structures | 60 |
Number of layouts village-wise:
| Number of Layouts | Number of Villages |
| 0 Layout | 24 |
| <10 | 72 |
| <20 | 79 |
| 61 (Shamshabad Village of Shamshabad Mandal) | 1 |
| 30 (Surangal Village of Moinabad Mandal) | 1 |
| 28 (Narkhoda village of Shamshabad Mandal) | 1 |
| 22 (Chilkur village of Moinabad Mandal) | 1 |
Whereas, the prayer of the petition is to remove all illegal unauthorized constructions from the prohibited area of GO111, and, while the officials within a month duly submitted detailed enumeration of the layouts and structures, why Principal Bench did not deem it fit to give eviction orders of unauthorized and illegal structures and layouts in spite of written admission by the official respondents? Why justice not rendered in terms of National Green Tribunal Act, and in terms of Supreme Court Order of December 26, 2000, and in terms of the GO111? How does formation of a non-expert committee by official respondents, constituting of three IAS officials, address the illegality already committed and acknowledged and prayed against?
For citizens who look up to the judiciary for remedy from the high handedness and violations done by the Government, the queer way in which illegal constructions in GO111 were handled in 2018 by the Principal bench of National Green Tribunal, should be an eye opener. In light of the facts that its own orders have been contaminated by the Government of Telangana and none other than the Chief Minister at the helm of the announcements of repealing Para 3 of GO111, the Principal Bench can suo moto proceed to undo its wrong and abide by its mandate.
This website uses cookies.