Vattinagulapally lands outside lake catchment area: HC

‘Owners can develop their lands that do not come under GO 111’

April 29, 2022 11:18 pm | Updated 11:18 pm IST - HYDERABAD

The Telangana High Court on Friday said that owners of lands under survey nos. 173, 192, 193, 225-228, 230-233, 240 and 243 in Vattinagulapally village of Ranga Reddy district can develop them and these lands would not come under GO 111.

A Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili pronounced this verdict, disposing of the writ petitions filed by owners of these lands. Already, the State government had revoked GO 111, which had prohibited heavy construction work and operation of industrial units in the catchment areas of Himayatsagar and Osmansagar.

The Bench however, appreciated the concern expressed by lawyer Chikkudu Prabhakar, who impleaded in one of the writ petitions and sought preservation of the two lakes. “The concern shown by the advocate Prabhakar was genuine,” the Bench noted.

“It is the bounden duty of this court as well as all citizens of this country to ensure that lakes do not dry up, are kept intact and the catchment area is not disturbed,” the judgment read.

But, the Bench noted that Vattinagulapally (which is among the 84 villages coming under the purview of GO 111) has a unique geography and drainage system vis-a-vis other villages. A prominent ridge subdivides areas of Vattinagulapally. Water on the western side of the ridge flows in Osmansagar while water on its eastern side, flows into an existing storm water drainage and eventually joins Musi river.

The government constituted a high-power committee of five IAS officers to determine which lands of Vattinagulapally fall outside the purview of GO 111. The panel engaged an expert and an autonomous body, Environmental Protection Training and Research Institute (EPTRI) for the purpose. As per the EPTRI report, lands of the petitioners did not come under the catchment area of the two lakes.

Recently, the State issued GO 69 to modify the restrictions under GO 111 to protect water quality of the two lakes. However, this too did not affect the petitioners’ claims as their lands were outside the catchment area of the two lakes.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.