SRI
(By 2.
BE’IWEEN:
IN
WP
IN
Sri
LEO
AGED AGED
VAJARAHALLI,
JAYANAGAR
Sb
BANGALORE MR REP.
BANGALORE ENVIRONMENT
S/O
(APPEARING
(TRUST
105,
THE
WRIT
THE
No.817/2008
S
THE
DATED
SALDANHA
LEO
SIDDAPPA
S.J.SALDANHA
LATE
EAST
BY
HIGH
ABOUT
HON’BLE
ABOUT
WRIT
HON’BLE
PETITION
REGISTERED
SALDANHA DR
MR
END
THIS
COURT
ROBERT
PETITION
18030/2005,
IN 9TH -
-
JOHN
39
39
560062.
&
560069.
KANAKAPURA
P2
PERSON)
B SUPPORT
MR.JUSTICE
THE
BLOCK
MRS
S
YRS,
YRS
Nos.13690/2009,
MAIN
IN
SUNIL
OF
PRESENT
CHANDRAN
JOHN
PERSON)
11TH
JUSTICE
UNDER
AND
NO.817/08(GM-RES)
C/W
KARNATAKA
PEARL
ROAD
EAST
DUYIYADAV
6036/2006
GROUP
DAY
CHANDRAN,
K.SREEDHAR
ROAD
INDIAN GARDENS
...
OF
B
PETITIONERS
S
APRIL
31343/1995,
INDRAKALA AT
*
TRUST
BANGALORE
TRUSTEE
2012
RAO ACT)
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2. AND
REP.
BANGALORE
BANGALORE N
REP. BRUHAT ARANYA
BANGALORE
REP. KARNATAKA
(BANGALORE BANGALORE
OF REP.
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE MULTISTOREYED
REP.
18TH
GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT
DEPTOF
BANGALORE
VIDHANA
NO.49, 2ND
18TH
REP. LAKE
BANGALORE REP.
STATE
.R.SQUARE
FORESTS,
CROSS
CROSS
BY
BY
FLOOR
BY
BY
BY
BY
BY
DEVELOPMENT
OF
CHURCH
ITS
ITS
DEPUTY
BHAVAN
ITS
ITS
BANGALORE
CHIEF
ITS
ECOLOGY,
SOUDHA
KARNATAKA
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MALLESWARAM
PRINCIPAL
MALELSWARAM
PRINCIPAL
PARISARA
STATE
CHIEF
STATE DEVELOPMENT - - - - -
-
URBAN
ARANYA
560002.
560003.
560003.
560001.
560001.
560001.
OF’
AND
EXECUTIVE
STREET
CONSERVATOR
BUILDING
KARNATAKA
SECRETARY
FOREST
FOREST
FORESTS
DIVISION)
MAHANAGARA
AUTHORITY
BHAVAN,
BHAVAN
CHIEF
SECRETARY
OFFICER
DEPT
DEPT
AUTHORITY
CONSERVATOR
OF
FORESTS PALIKE 3
T CHOWDIAH ROAD BANGALORE - 560020.
8. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 1 ALl ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560052.
9. INDO NORWEGIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME REP. BY ITS COORDINATOR 49 PARISARA BHAVAN CHURCH STREET BANGALORE - 560001.
10. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPT REP. BY SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001.
1I. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON 49, PARISARA BHAVAN CHURCH STREET BANGALORE - 560001.
12. BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TOWN PLANNING DEPT., MULTISTOREY BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560001.
13. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON CAUVERY BHAVAN 4
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE - 560002.
14. MIS BIOTA NATURAL SYSTEMS (I) PVT LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MS ZAHARA BEGUM, MAJOR G—2PAD MAVATHY PALACE SOMAJI GUDA HYDERBAD - 500082.
15. M/S LUMBINI GARDNES LTD REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR M.V.PRASAD RAJU S/O MR RAMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YRS 771, 7Th A’ CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560064.
16. M/S E.I.H.LIMITED REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MS HUVIDA MARSHALL, D/O S P MARSHALL AGED ABOUT 39 YRS REGD OFFICE NO.4 MANGOE LANE KOLKATA- 700001, C/O ThE OBEROI, NO.39, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560001.
17. M/sPARC REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI S.PARTHIBAN, 29, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESWARNAGAR BANGALORE - 560079. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2 SRI D.L.N. RAO, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI B.C.MUDDAPPA, ADV. FOR R15 SRI B.V.SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R7 SRI S.G.PANDIT, ADV. FOR R8
j
AND ARUNACHALA,
ADDRESS:
JAYANAGAR AGE THE
AND AGREEMENTS
FROM
ASSTS.
BANGALORE ENVIRONMENTAL IN
Sb BETWEEN RESPECTIVELY SRI
R9 SRI
(BY SRI SRI SRi
OF SRI SRI
1.
16
1.
MR.SHASWAT
WP
‘A’
AND
R14,
SRI
ASHOK
B.G.NANJUNDARDHYA, M.H.MOTIGI.
S.BASAVARAJ, UDAYA
BASAVARAJ M.BAYYAREDDY,
SUDHIR
MINISTRY
UNION
REPRESENTED
19
CONSTITUTION
25
THIS
MAIN
No.13690/2009
KENT
ADV.
ANANT
JUNE
Ri2
YEARS,
15,
WP
HOLLA
ROAD,
HARNAHALLI,
OF
AND UNIVERSITY(LONDON)
-
IV
FOR SIRSI
-
SERVED)
2006
560041.
V
OF
OF
BLOCK 1ST
FILED
INDIA
DT.
B.Sc.
KAREDDY,
SIRSI
ALBAL,
ADV.
16
R16
SCIENCE,
SCIENCE
FLOOR,
39TH
ADV.
LEASE
RESPECTIVELY;
SR
ENCLOSED
BY
20
ADV.
OF
UNDER
FOR
COUNSEL
SECREARY
APRIL
CROSS,
FOR
ADV.)
INDIA
ADV.
NO.706,
FOR
EXECUTED
R13
GA
FOR
MASTERS
AND
5
Ri
ARTICLES
2007,
FOR
FOR
R14
AS
PRAYING
1
PROPOSED
TECHNOLOGY
FOR
ANNEXURE
Ri,
R6
27
DEGREE
AAMSTEL
BY
R3,
NOVEMBER
226
TO R2
...
R4,
Ri7
PETITIONER
AND
QUASH
IN
Q,
R5
LAW
FAVOUR
RAND
&
227
RiO
2004
THE
OF S
WAUS
THE
TO
4.
SRI
COMMIYFEE HIREMATH SRI 6.
SRI
5. 3.
2.
(BY
THE
ASHOK
SRI
BASAVARAJ SHIVAPRABHU
REPRESETNED BRUHAT BANGALORE BANGALORE REP.BY
BANGALORE KEMPEGOWDA PWD DR.AMBEDKAR BANGALORE KENDRIYA
SECRETARY MINOR STATE B PWD NEW MINISTRY SECRETARY
SECRETARIAT, NATIONAL NEW
NEW
CONSTITUTION
THIS
AND
WING,
SINGHANIA
CONCERNED
OF
K.R.CIRCLE
SECRETARIAT
DELHI- DELHI-
WP
AND
MEANS
HARANAHALLI
OF
IRRIGATION,
SECRETARY
OF
CENTRAL
KORMANGALA
BANGALORE
OF
KARANTAKA
FILED
HIGHWAY
SADAN
HIREMATh
KAREDDY.
EMINENT
TO -560001. - -
-
TRANSPORT
110001.
110001.
S.
FOR
560002. 560002.
&
560034.
BY
CIRCLE,
VEEDHI
GOVERNMENT
OF
HIREMATH
PARTNERS.
UNDER
RESPONDENTS
3RD
GOVERNMENT
THE
CONSERVATION
TO
INDIA
AUTHORITIES
ASSTS.
PERSONALL
MAHANAGARA
FLOOR
GA
FOR
COMMISSIONER
6
ARTICLES
FOR
PRAYING
RI
ADV.
ADV.
AND
R4
OF
AND
TO
FOR
TO
KARANTAKA FOR
...
OF
R3
226
PALIKE
TO
CONSTITUTE
RESPONDENTS
FIND
R2
WATER.
R5)
R6
AND
MANDAMUS
OUT
227
ETC.
AND
OF A
RAMA
4.
5.
(By
3.
BETWEEN:
2. IN
1.
WP
M/S
BANGALORE-560003
BY MALLESHWARAM, BASAVANAGUDI. ROAD,
NO BANGALORE DR BANGALORE- LT
GRAHAK FORMER PARAM
BANGALORE. FORMER
C/O OF LF.S.
HOUSING SRTPDGAONKAR
BANGALORE. 8Th PADMASHREE
III MAJOR,
ORNITHOLOGICAL
18TH
R.
No.31343/1995
BLOCK,
GENERAL
ITS
FORESTS,
H.NARASIMHAJAH
M
57.
MAIN,
IYER
NATIONAL
CROSS,
(RETD.)
VISHWAJITH
MANAGING
ST
CHITRAKOOT
VISHISHT
PRESENTLY
SHAKTHI
VICE
CHIEF
FOR
JAKKASANDRA
THOMAS
SOCIETY,
KORAMANGALA
4TH
UNIVERSITY
NARAHARI(RETD)
MAJOR
560084. METROPOLITAN
SUPLEMENTARY,
JAFAR
CHANCELLOR
COLLEGE
CONSERVATOR
BAN
MAIN
I
SEVA
TRUSTEE.
SOCIETY
RAT
TOWN
BTM
PRESIDENT
APARTMENTS
GALORE.
FUTEHALLY
TO
MEDAL
7
LAYOUT
LAYOUT
HOSTEL
ASSIST
OF
HUTCHINS
INDIA
PETITIONER
OF THE
...
PETITIONERS
COURT 5)
4.
5. AND
6.
2.
3.
THE
AND THE
THE
BANGALORE-
DRDO
MINISTRY THE THE
BANGALORE- BOARD,
CV MANAGEMENT UNION REP NR
BANGALORE MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE
BAN I
COMPLEX, BANGALORE- BANGALORE- M.S.BUILDING
MALLESHWARAM 4TH DR BY
DEPARTMENT
FLOOR,
ITS
RAMAN
SQUARE,
AMBEDKAR
FLOOR,
GALORE-
BY
BANGALORE BANGALORE
DEPUTY
PRINCIPAL STATE
DEVELOPMENT
TOWNSHIP,
PRINCIPAL
OF
ITS
CAUVERY
ARANYA
OF
INDIA
KEMPEGOWDA
NAGAR
COMMISSIONER.
ARANYA
OF
J.C.ROAD
BY
URBAN
560003.
560009. 560003.
560003. 56000
CONSERVATOR
DEFENCE
OF
UNIT,
KARNATAKA
ROAD
CHIEF
ITS
WATER
MAHANAGARA REVENUE
BHAVAN
SECRETARY
BHAVAN
POST
1.
COMMISSIONER.
BHAVAN,
ORGANISATION DIVISION
CONSERVATOR
8
RESEARCH
SUPPLY
ROAD
OF
PALIKE
FORESTS
AND
ESTATE
OF
SEWERAGE FORESTS 9
7. DKJAIN Sb SHRI MANIKCHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO 0413/DJC, BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560027.
8. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE- 560001.
9. LAKES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS SECRETARY BANGALORE.
10. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-56000 1.
11. BOMMANAHALLI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
12. RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
13. MAHADEVAPURA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BY ITS CHEIF OFFICER
SRI
SRI SRI SRI
SRI M/S SRI SRI
R13 MISC.W. SRI SMTVEENAJADHAV,
SRI M/S SRI
(BY
17.
15.
16.
14.
APPAJI,
ASHOK
SRI
L.VENKATARAMA H.S.SACHIDANANDA, B.N.SHETFY,
S.KRISHNA, K.T.MOHAN,
S.BASAVARAJ, UDAYA G.KRISHNAMURTHY,
-
NO
KING BY NANDI NO
SINGHANIA NO M/S
MIDFORD BY
OFF ENTERPRISES BANGALORE-56000 PARTNERSHIP BY BANGALORE
OFF NANDI BY CHOWDAIAH
BANGALORE-560020.
KUMARA
SERVED)
BASAVARAJ
ITS
ITS
ITS ITS
41.
10823/09
1,
1,
MG MG
ABHISHEK
&
MIDFORD
MIDFORD
HOLLA,
HARANAHALLI,
ECONOMIC
MANAGING INFRASTRUCTURE
MANAGING
ADV. CHAIRMAN.
EXECUTIVE
VIYFAL
PARTIDGE,
ROAD, ROAD,
PARK
GARDEN
ADV.
ADV.
&
ADV.
FOR
DEVELOPMENT
ROAD,
PARTNERS
ADV.
ADV.
LTD.,
FIRM
MALLYA
WEST
KAREDDY,
BANGALORE-560001. BANGALORE-560001.
DEVELOPERS
HOUSE,
HOUSE,
REDDY,
FOR
ADV.
FOR
R12
FOR
DIRECTOR.
DIRECTOR.
CORRIDOR
ADV.
DIRECTOR
FOR
1.
ADV.
FOR
ADV.
SANKEY
R14
R5
ADV.
FOR
R6
ROAD
I0
RiO
FOR
R15
MIDFORD
ADV.
FOR
FOR
AND
FOR
CORRIDOR
GA
RiO
FOR
AUTHORITY
ROAD
R16
IMPL.
FOR
Ri ENTERPRISES
FOR
R7
R9
R4
TO
AND
R3
GARDEN Ri
...
ON
3,8
& RESPONDENTS
1
17
R8 LTD
3. AND
2.
THE
THE
(BY
BEIWEEN IN ILLEGAL
BANGALORE
1.
1.
WP
SRI
VIDHANA
ThE
BANGALORE-56000 THE
REPRESENTED VIDHANA
GOVERNMENT, BANGALORE-56000
M ENVIRONMENT THE
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR
REPRESENTED
GOVERNMENT, BANGALORE-
REP.
AGED
BANGALORE
R/ATNO
C.V.RAMAN B
Sb
Ri
CONSTITUTION
THIS
No.18030/2005
N
S
S
TO
BUILDING
GOVINDARAJ
STATE
STATE
LATE
STATE
S
BY
GRANT
ABOUT
WP
GUYI’AL,
TAKE
METROPOLITAN
ITS
162,
SOUDHA
SOUDHA
SRI
FILED
OF
OF
OF
NAGAR CHIEF
-
56000
OF
45
BYRASANDRA
NARASIMHAPPA
560093. IMMEDIATE
KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BY
DEPARTMENT
HOME
BY
FOREST,ECOLOGY
ADV.)
YEARS
OF
UNDER
TANK
ITS
ITS
SECRETARY
1.
1.
1.
VEEDHI
POST
INDIA
DEPARTMENT
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
11
AREA;
BEDS
ARTICLES
ACTION
PRAYING
TO
MADE
AND
TO
GOVERNMENT, TO
...
TO
226
PETITIONER
TO
CANCEL
WITHIN
AND
DIRECTED
227
THE
ThE OF
4.
6.
9.
7. 5.
8.
10.
11.
THE THE THE
THE
THE THE THE
THE ARANYA
WATER
BANGALORE-Ol
INFANTRY BAN REP. REP.
KARNATAKA BANGALORE BANGALORE BAN BANGALORE- HUDSON DR.B.R. DRB.R
BANGALORE K BANGALORE-56000 BANGALORE-56000 M BANGALORE-56000 M
BANGALORE-01
REVENUE
R
S S
PURAM
GALORE-
GALORE
BUILDING BUILDING
TAHSILDAR
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
POLLUTION COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER STATE STATE
BY BY
AMBEDKAR
RESOURCES
AMBEDKAR
ITS
ITS
BHAVAN,
CIRCLE
DEPARTMENT
ROAD
OF OF
SECRETARY SECRETARY
STATE
URBAN
MAHANAGARA
EAST
03
56000
COMMISSIONER
KARNATAAKA KARNATAKA
CONTROL
MALLESWARAM
TALUK
1. 1. 1. 1.
POLLUTION
VEEDHI
VEEDHI
OF
DISTRIST
DEPARTMENT
OF
12
FORESTS
TO
TO
POLICE
OFFICER
PALIKE
GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT
CONTROL BOARD,
AROUND TO
THE
THE
TAKE ThE
AREAS
IN
BETWEEN RAJA
FURTHER
ENCROACHMENT,
RESPONDENTS
BYRASANDRA
SRI SRI
SMT.
(BY
1.
13.
12.
WP
PREVENT
SRI
H.S.SACHIDANANDA,
BASAVARAJ
AGED
PRESENTLY, LAND
BHAGAWAThI SRI
S/O
THE
TANK,
BANGALORE LAKE KR.
BANGALORE-
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE
CONSTITUTION
12TH
VEENA
THIS
No.6036/2006
ACTION
KALUVE
ASHOK
K
CIRCLE
THE
LATE
JOINT
FLOOR,
TO
OF
S
DEVELOPMENT
GRABBERS
ABOUT
WP
TANK
VENKATESHA
JADHAV,
DIRECT
ABOVE
AND
SATHNARAYANA
LAKES
TO
FILED
HARANAHALLI,
BY TO
DIRECTOR
KAREDDY,
KAGGADASAPURA,
R/O
PUBLIC
-560001.
BED
DIVISION
56000
TO
66
KRIPA
FIND
WATER
PROTECT
THE
OF
YRS
SAID
THE
UNDER
31,
EVICT ADV.
TO
AREA
FROM
1.
INDIA
ADV.
OUT
LAND
UTILITY
ITS
RESPONDENTS
AUTHORITY
SASTRY
LAKES.
OF
GA
AND
FOR
13
THOSE
OF
ORIGINAL
THE
ARTICLES
THE
FOR
ADV.
LAND
FOR
THE
PRAYING
SASTRY
GRABBERS
Ri
THE
AIR
BUILDING
TANK
1
R13
Ri
FOR
ENCROACHMENT
ENCROACHMENT
RECORDS
ENCROACHERS
POLLUTION
AFORESAID
NEKKUNDI,
TO POSITION
...
226
R6
TO
AND
TO
RiO
RESPONDENTS
AND
DIRECT
AND
TAKE
AND
TANK
AND
IN
227
IF
LAKES,
STEPS
R12)
AND
AND
AND BED
THE
ANY
TO
OF OF BY
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
W/O
AGED
ISRO
J.P.NAGAR
NO.40,3
AGED
SMT.CHANDRAPRABHA
BANGALORE- ISRO
PARALLEL NO.47, SMT.HEMALATHAS AGED
ISRO
BANGALORE-
NO.3A
DEVARAKERE
NO.48,
SRIPGOPAL
S/O
BAN K.S.LAYOUT NO.888, AGED
Sb
AGED
BANGALORE
M
ISRO NO.553,
D/O
MEERA
BANGALORE- ISRO
DEVARAKERE
S
GALORE-
NARAYAN
A.K.PUYFARAMY
M.V.SREENIVASAN
A.N.SURESH
S
LAYOUT,
LAYOUT,
LAYOUT,
LAYOUT
LAYOUT,
ABOUT
ABOUT
ABOUT
ABOUT
ABOUT
MAIN
SURYANARAYANA
DEVARAKERE
BAHVANI,
CHAYAPATHI
5TFI
1 5Th1
TO
POST
A’MAIN
MAIN
ROAD
560078.
-560078.
560078.
560078.
CROSS
560078.
36
48
III
61
42
EXTENSION
69YRS
EXTENSION
A
YRS
YRS
YRS
YRS
PARALLEL
MAIN
EXTENSION
M
14
RAO R
12.
9.
11.
10.
8.
7.
VASANTHAPUR
SATHNARAYANA
Sb AGED
VASANTHAPURA
BANGALORE-56006
NO.26, S/O AGED
SRINANJUNDASWAMY
BANGALORE-560078.
AGED
NO.36, SRI
ISRO NO.12, VIKRAMANGARA
BANGALORE-
Sb
SRI AGED
ISRO
BANGALORE-
NO.26A, S/O
SHIASUNDARRAJU AGED
BANGALORE.
II
5/0
NO.1946,
SRI
BANGALORE—
DEVARAKERE
STAGE,
NARAYANAMURTHY
VARADARAJ
K
SRINIVASA
NIRANJANAPPA
EKAMBARAM
ALISINGRACHARYA
LATE
LAYOUT
LAYOUT
ABOUT
RAVIKUMAR
ABOUT
ABOUT
ABOUT
ABOUT
KALYANANAGAR
KALYANINAGAR
DEVARAKERE
DEVARAKERE
9TH
K.R.LAYOUT
KONNMAH
560078.
560078.
MAIN,
560078.
65
66
66
56
30
EXTENSION
MAIN
BHAYI’
YRS
YRS
POST
YRS
YRS
YRS
1.
II
ROAD
EXTENSION
CROSS 15
AND
2.
(BY
15.
14.
13.
SRI
THE
VIDHANA
THE
WELFARE
M.S.BUILDING
AGED
BANGALORE- BY AGED
ISRO
BANGALORE-560078.
DEVARAKERE
NO.37, AGED
S/O SRI BANGALORE—560078.
NO.824, AGED
ISRO Sb NO.43,
BANGALORE-560078. III 5/0
DEVARAKERE
SRIKMOHANRAO
SRI ISRO
NO.30,
BANGALORE—560078.
MAIN,
S
ITS
SRIDAHR
LAKSHMINARAYANA
LATE
DEPARTMENT
LATE
STATE
LATE
KOUSHIK
LAYOUT
LAYOUT
LAYOUT
ABOUT ABOUT
ABOUT
ABOUT
CHIEF
SKANDA
9TH
DEVARAKERE
7TH
PARALLEL
SOUDHA
ANANTHAMURTHY
K
S.L.ANNAIAPPA
‘B’
OF
MAIN
SRINIVASA
560001.
C
SECRETARY
44
60
65
54
CROSS
EXTENSION
EXTENSION,ISRO
&
KARNATAKA
A
YRS
KAMATH
YRS
YRS
YRS
OF
EXTENSION
HEALTH
RAO
16
S
AND
A
KAMATH,
AND LAYOUT
...
FAMILY
PETITIONERS ADV.)
4.
7.
9. 3.
6. 5.
8.
THE THE
THE ThE
ThE AND J.C.ROAD THE
THE
ALSOOR
BANGALORE- NO.49,
REP REP CHURCH BY MALLESWARAM M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-56000 BANGALORE-56000 CONTROL BANGALORE— BANGALORE-56000 BANGALORE-56OOO
REP REP REP
RAJARAJESWARI BANGALORE
BANGALORE REP CAUVERY
ITS
BY BY
BY BY
BY BY
BANGALORE BAN
LAKE
CITY KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
SEWERAGE
CONSERVATOR.
PARISARA
ITS
ITS ITS ITS ITS
ITS
GALORE
STREET
MUNICIPAL
BHAVAN
BOARD
DEVELOPMENT
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY.
COMMISSIONER.
CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN. SECRETARY.
560003
560002
BOARD
STATE
NAGAR
BHAVAN
WATER
MAHANAGARA
OF
OF
1 1 1
1
CORPORATION
FORESTS
URBAN
17
POLLUTION
SERVICE
AUTHORITY
DEVELOPMENT PALIKE
TERMS
ThE
AT
consolidated and
setout However,
SRI
CONSTITUTION SRI
RESPONDENT FOR
SREEDHAR
(BY
12.
11. 10,
ANNEXURE
This
SMT
K.T.MOHAN.
I.G.GACHCHINNATH,
Ru.
LAKE
AGED JAYANAGAR,
THE
All
BANASHANKARI
2ND
BANGALORE-560070. REPD. REP SUBRAMANYAPURA
BANGALORE
#480. UYI’ARAHALLI
REP
fact.
THIS
THESE
THE
MR.
here
page
OF
M.R.VANAJA
FLOOR,
these
SRI
BY
BY
SUBRAMANYAPURA
for
AND
GHOUSE,
STATE
6TH
THE
RAO
ABOUT
WP
BY
under: is
ITS
ITS
BASAVARAJ
for
PETITIONS
retyped
clear
Hence,
TO
CROSS,
E.
FISH
writ
MAINTAIN
J.
FILED
REQUEST
ADV.
SECRETARY.
COMMISSIONER.
JAYANAGAR
OF
common
OF
IMEDIATELY
SOUTh
MADE
BANGALORE-5600
26
HOBLI
understanding.
petitions
FARMERS
S/O.
and
KARNATAKA,
ADV.
2ND
FOR
INDIA
YEARS.
KAVERINAGAR.
UNDER
the
ADV.
replaced
THE
COMING
POST
STAGE,
TALUK.
MR.
KAREDDY.
ThE
MADE R7,
FOR
hearing
ORDER
above
SHOPPING
FOLLOWING: PRAYING
GRAMA
AMEERJAAN.
FOR
involve
SRI
DEVELOPMENT
SAME
TAKE
ARTICLES
R5,
18
ride
VIDE
BANGALORE.
ON
G.R.
R6.
SRI
and
Court
writ
11.
GA
the
IN
UP
PANCHAYAT
FOR
common
R8
THE RAMACHANDRAPPA.
APPACJI.
A
TO
COMPLEX.
FOR
passing
THE
lads
order
&
FIELTFIY 226
petitions
HEARING
LE’ITER
10
Rl-4.
DIRECT
JOB
AGENCY,
dated AND
-
ADV.
of
questions
SERVED)
common
RESPONDENTS
each
CONDITION
OF
09.
227
DT.
THIS
FOR
have
THE
CLEANING
11.2012
case
8.1.2006
OF
R9.
DAY,
of
order.
ADV.
been
THE
4TH
law
are
IN K
vide
granted was
within Agara.
contract
applied
notifications
green
2nd
includes
Annexure
over
30.6.2003
Bangalore management W.P.817/2008
2nd
(Hereinafter
granted
agreement
lakes
respondent.
respondent
belt
2.
the
Nagawara,
for
the
vide
the
The
area
M.
expanding
situated
the
City
City,
contract
the
inviting
area
agreement
referred
State
and
The
are
:-
development
dated
contract
of
notified
initially
maintenance
Vengaiahkere also
-
1st
of
The
Bangalore.
in
public
Karnataka
for
the
respondent
The
to
Metropolitan
brought
27.11.2004.
dated
for
development
2nd
jurisdiction
under as
by
participation
Lake
of
development
19
‘LDA’
10.4.2007.
respondent
Agara
virtue
within of
—
The
BMRDA.
and
issued
1st
the
Development
Area
for
respondent
of
lake
16th
l4t1
Hebbal
the
lakes
of
of
the
for corrigendum
short)
jurisdiction
Hebbal
of
of
notification
was
respondent
respondent The
15th
development
issued
Nagawara
2’
Bangalore
in
lakes
lakes
granted
and
respondent
respondent
constituted
for
lake
Authority
around
situate
proper
public
in
of
dated
vide
lake
who
was
vide
and
the
the
the of
reasons:
lakes
dated
the
agreement
contract
23.5.2005.
in
d)
c)
b)
a)
favour
dated
for
The
the
The
has
The
private
working
necessary.
years
of bureaucrats
maintained
The
over
(‘HELPA’
Norwegian
maintained
Hebbal
development
16t
of
lake,
tampered
lease
16th
transfer
management 19.6.2006
Petitioners
to
before
respondents
person
respondent.
the
well.
respondent
in
indulged
for
lake
Environment
and
favour
Hebbal
the
of
with
short)
the
Therefore,
is
and
and
of
challenged
20
ownership
managed
said
was
impermissible
I
Vengaiahkere
structure
of
of
in
The
14
the
17t1
Lake
after
the
consisting
lake Hebbal
16th
unscientific
to
fully
said Programme.
respondent
assistance
grant
taking
respondent
was
the
Protection
local
17
the
rights
of
lake
arrangement
for
lake
the
developed
leased
grant
in
of
vide
of
over
people
law.
the
of
was
floor
lease
de-weeding,
for
two
agreement
was
of
lake
Authority
the
in of
is
following
about
handed
lease
area
illegal.
favour of
is
lease
Indo
given
to
who
was
and
not
the
of
of
a 2
g)
e)
The
The
The
the The
weeding
to play
weaning
collecting
the ambient lake.
to ecological bird
prevented disastrous been
inflow eliminate
and
shallow
defaced,
misuse
the
2nd
responsibility
LDA
terms
migration
establishment
weed
Weeds
reclaimed.
centres,
control
respondent into
and
waters
has
a
away,
has
annual
the
the
toxic
of
impact
vegetation
portion
environment
the
natural
virtually
lease
function
lake
of
to
seasonal
distorted
21
if
of
boating
lake.
the
Li
the
elements
fee
Tampering
of
not
on
is
for
permit
the
of
of
environment
lessee.
lake.
the
and
illegal
bartered
the
in
commercial
the
vanishing
cafeterias,
as
shore
bird
lake
handed
The
the
aquatic
and
has
of
the
tank
and
from
natural
The
of
migration
lake
maintenance
the
area
unscientific
its
l6t
untenable.
destroyed
degraded
the
bed
abdication
the
over
of
obligation
life.
the
exploitation.
restaurants,
resulted
respondent
lake
have
the
structural
filters
area
seasonal
Besides,
the
effluent
lake.
to
been
with
lake
has
the
the the
de
by
by
to in of h) In respect of Nagawara Lake, similar allegations of the violations of law and acts of tampering the natural environment of the lake are made.
i) In respect of Vengaiahkere lake, it is submitted that the wet land area in the lake are damaged, bridges are built, the entire lake area under the guise of recreation is converted to a commercial exploitation hosting night parties. The nature of development made in the lake is in conflict with the natural environment required for the elegance and purity of the lake.
3. On the basis of the above allegations, the petitioners pray for canceling the lease granted in favour of respondents 14 to 17 and for a direction to the LDA and to the State authorities to assume for themselves the management and maintenance of lake and prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue Writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus quashing the Agreements of Lease executed by Respondent 2 in favour of Respondents 14, 15, 16 and 17 enclosed as Annexure Q, R and S. S-i respectively dated 20 April 2007, 27
(iv)
(iii)
(ii)
judicial
wetland
view Annexure their
profit
involved resources
quality and Respondent in
responsibility Issue rights, protects
necessary
lakes Issue Ministry
preservation management Committee necessary
principles
recommendations Intergenerational administration
Doctrine, consonance November
Issue May
1
1
1
to
to
to
exercise
ensure
2005
of
loss
action
initiate
Writ
frame
Writ
Writ
and
migratory
and
making
of
enquiry,
free
of
in
habitats
Z.
in
respectively.
directions
directions
of
the
for 2004,
or
and
of
that
in
of
Environment
a
causing
Right
or
or
2
V such
a
and
proceedings
as
biodiversity,
in
enjoyment
Order
responsible
with
leasing
wetland
wetland
traditional
by
scheme
also
of
any
on
laid
Order
23
Order
and for
entities
Equity
19
conservation
of
of
and
lakes
instituting
other
scheme
directing
directing
directing
in terms
having
Access
nesting
June
the
down
irreparable
the
out
the
from
conformance
conservation
in
in
and
of
for
diminishing
manner.
Lakshman
and
lakes
and
to and
in
destruction
nature
water
2006
by
Principle
the
the
been regarding
to
officials
birds,
the
the
Public
fix
Respondent Respondent
Respondent
Forests
customary
all the
advancing
of
necessary
to
of
tanks
personal
form
form
point
effective
damage
and
directly
publics
and
private
bodies
due
tanks,
Union
Trust
with
Rau
and
the
the
the
its
23
to
in
of in
of
of
of
of of
the terms lake private
encroachment of
denied
the
lessees
is
vii)
(vi)
(v)
of
lake.
permitted
the
participation
4.
lease
allegations
are
Agreements
lake
property heavy
effective In facts Issue the
entry the
enjoyment as and the
Mandamus commercial
states and Issue
The
The
do
respect
of
permitted
this
Polluter
applicable
lakes
S
16
is
by
and
1st
not
allegations
the
fee,
any
prohibitive
at
necessary
Hon’ble
a
to
the
prior
respondent
service.
for
permit
their
lake
concerned
for
circumstances
which
natural
other
made
of
take
of
National
Pays
directing interests
as
the
to
the
the
management
laws
bed
expense
annexed
to
degrade
necessary
Court
Writ
any
denies
in
general
of
lake
Principle. 24
Hebbal
entry Writ
The
resource,
area
the
tampering and
entering
to
commercial
in
and
or
in
Respondents
environment.
may
its
petition.
lessee
in
the
norms.
the
fee in
Order
the
are
abject
at
of
public
lake
State
accordance
original
steps
the
Annexure
plebian
deem
the
for
and
natural
counter
stoutly
should
the
is
the
into
or
case.
Water
the violation
use
nature
maintenance
to
exploitation
It
charging
Direction
fit
lessee
restored
lake
is
visitors.
the
restore
14,
environment
denied. with
in
be
Lease
has
stated
Policy.
Q,
with
benefit
the
area,
a
15
of
of
charges
R
a
stoutly
public
heavy
cost-
that
It
The
The
nor
the
of
of is 25
said that the contract given to respondents 14 to 17 is in accordance with law. The management and development of lakes involve huge expenditure and constant effective supervision and management. In view of the limitations faced by the 1st respondent and in consonance with the
National and State Water Policy, the private participation is pennitted.
5. The 211 respondent in the objection statement assert that the lease granted in favour of respondents 14 to
17 is in accordance with law and that there are no violations of law. The allegation of tampering the natural environment of the lake by the lessee is stoutly denied.
6. The 3rd respondent in the objection statement submits that the Government is not keen in leasing the lakes. However, they would not renew the lease period after its expiry. However, in the objection statement the violations of law in granting lease is stoutly denied. It is contended that if there is no violatiOn of the terms of lease by the lessee, 26
action would be initiated in accordance with law including cancellation of lease.
7. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed objections, which are similar to the one filed by 3rd respondent.
8. Respondent No.7 contends that it is only a formal party.
9. The respondents had given an endorsement pursuant to the application given by one H S Sudhir vide
Annexure “U” to the effect that no request has been made to or received by the respondent regarding the change of land use pertaining to Nagawara and Hebbal lakes.
10. Respondents 8 to 10 have not filed any objections.
11. 11th respondent in the objection statement contends that the commercialisation and privatisation of the lakes is impermissible. However, submits that the Pollution
Control Board has given clearance for establishing of a
Sewerage Treatment Plant. It is submitted that the
made lease. beyond
addition
allegations
are purity
development there
lakes
objections damage ecological
the respondent
2’
totally
is
14.
13.
regarding 12.
for
of
respondent
the
no
to
the
to
balance
Respondent
commercial
aquatic
since
relief
Respondents
shores
denied.
Respondent
made
does
enhance
lake.
made
claimed
the
they
not
life.
The
in
and
are
by
in
damage
The
support
leasing
are
the
the
the
no.16
the
allegations
exploitation.
prohibits
against
9,10,12
No.15
said
14th
activities
ecology
petition.
one
has
27
the
caused
or
to
respondent
permitted
has
them.
subscribe
the
filed
lakes
and
be
of
and
conducted
formal
commercial
denied
bird
to
It
It
objections
13
and
environment
the
is
is
under
have
migration
has
to
in
harmful
parties
stated
environment
the
permitting
the
made
not
the
in
denying
exploitation
allegations
actions
the
filed
that
and
terms
and
for
a
of
value
area
that
any
the
the
the the
the the
of
of of
allegations
the
The
and
is
allegations
to
petition.
respondent
respondent
the
submitted
during
terms
the
14th
said
the
terms
allegation
other
lake
around
respondent
17.
16.
result
15.
of
that
the
and
lease
The
of
part.
The
that
of
made
pendency
The
the
the
many
The
stands
the
of
to
tampering
rights
of
counsel
are
the
recreational
an
lease.
lease
the
Since,
lake
commercial
on
in
17th
perfectly
not
arbitration
arbitration
aquatic
the
cancelled,
of
the
of
granted
area
for
be
the
the
respondent
this
the
one
petition
the germane
lease
is
14th
legal.
life
activities
petition
natural
part
exploitation
absolutely
28
dispute
petitioners
proceedings.
in
in
the
respondent
in
favour
and
relied
the
question
for
legality
has
environment
has
whatever
lake.
is
the
consideration
pending
been of
upon
in
is
totally
to
21d
respondent
totally
would
accordance
substantiate
It
of
in
cancelled.
is
respondent
the
conducted,
favour
lease
said
between
denied
of
be
denied.
report
the
that
subject
of
in
of
no.14
lake.
with
this
the
14t
14th
It
the
the
the
on
of
in
It is
had Forest
had
lake. the Dr.P.J.
for
question
as
and
per
petitioners
lakes
passed
12,
made
writ
being
affidavit as 4 necessary
condition Respondents the day. submit
answering Having Learned
18.
representing
the
Dilip
and
which
and
obtained
in
The
petition
petitioners
directions
following:
a
filed
question
Kumar,
had
regard
5
that
spot
shall
counsel
4th
referred
is
are
of
in
the
prepared
to
extracted
respondent
now
and
lakes 4
the
the
be
4t1
study
to
averments
directed
which
IFS
and
in
know
filed
for
Registry
with
in
respondent.
explaining
the
to
statements
the
and
in
5
Respondents
and
the
this
and
within
nature
caine
also.
hereunder
regard
above
question.
29
Principal
pursuant
to
the
contents
submitted
during
status-quo
and
Writ
file
to
a
Hence
the
of
said
to
vies/response
week.
be
of
This
allegations
issues
counter-affidavit
factual
the
petition,
filed
the
in
objections Chief
to
14,
order.
of
The
Respondents
Court
a
respect
the
nature
course
paragraphs
before
of
15
factual
raised
Conservator
counter-
position
said
and
the
The
on
in
it
and
of
of
the
the
are
4.6.2008
direction
lakes
report
by
16
of
is
counsel
a
Hebbal
Court
4,
in
of
of 5
water
by
phosphorus.
treatment
and the
purification
portion
willingness
Indo-Norwegian “wetland”
forest project, vegetation,
damage representative
5. one notice the
Bangalore habitat birds,
going
vegetation
It
language) weeds
In habitat
disturbed,
shoreline. extend weeding
sloping spread
entrance.
progress
4.
was
In
a
fact
When
wetland
then
same
bund
of
the
on
department
including
seen
in.
have
drain
was
the
and
to
(Photo
shorelines
in
of
the
north-west (Photo
to
on
we
of
portion
plant
for
approved
wild
Urban
type
It
(which
and
as
to However,
we
land
that
the
the divided aquatic
system
been
This
population
system
is
visited
their
the
the
approved
modify
inflow
per
of
bird
The
saw
001).
seen
first
wetland
moorhen
002
of
the
adjoining
removal
project
verge
EIH,
Division
and
created
dumped
southern
has
feeding,
the
are
aquatic
disturbance
and
habitat.
from
wetland,
signs
(Photo
water
corner
the
to
and
birds,
is
that
it
their
by
is
LDA
however,
design.
a
The
called
30
take
obviously
that
is
mud-flats,
that
to
spot,
operations
of few
as
the
003),
with
taken
specifically dredged-up
apparent
of
(Resp.5)
breeding
operations
stretches
in
remove
in
made
the
weeds
of
004).
shoreline
which vegetation
out
shoreline
a
clean
sewage
feet
induced
active
order
the
weeds
such we
with
chicks
which
biological
The
tot
silt
expressed
LDA.
to
found
lake,
into
deeper
was
degraded
water
nitrogen
The
to
to
need
and
a
and and
he
its
that
principle
breeding
under
and
in
of
and
a
under
is
way
guided
stop
earth
has
the
the
issue
even
their near
wildfowl
wetland
that
was
causing
profuse popular
resting.
sludge,
aquatic
aquatic
sewage
spread
this
at
so
storm
gently
water
water
DCF,
as
such
their
been
now
and
The
is
and
the
the
the
on.
the
the
the
de
by
of
to
in
of
is a
paragraph
visited,
aquatic
the Environment been
Conservation by
providing
shoreline and etc. greater
(Photo
idols.
The
to these
is
eastern immersion
13.
bird
lotus
plastic be we
19.
are
shallow aquatic
12.
evident
make
wetland
much
could
masonry
too
damage
life.
13
has The
treated
Nagavara
pond,
In
photographs.
017),
Photos
vegetation
so
sheets
are
water
extent
vegetation,
end
empty
respect
a
water-bird
has
lake
poorer.
not
see.
in
it
parking
referred
model.
which
and
pond
originally
&
caused
comparing of
is
been
regions,
has
and
walls
shoreline
015
Forests,
Programme
the
by
not
Without
lake
Hebbal
erecting
of
and
will
As
been
imported
The
deepened
being
paving to
water,
lot
has
known
habitat.
Nagawara
and
Silt
to
has
per
which
(Photo
bird
cause
the
under
for
31
wetland
the
Govt.
lake
with
a
completely
has
the
structures
vegetation,
the
016
been
bird
very
habitat.
tractors
line
constructed
the
whether
shoreline
huge
are
gravel,
vegetation
near
This
also the
and
the
of
of
approve
018),
population
the
lake,
rich
show
portion
developed
extracted
front
India,
background
National
damage
been
made
lake
Ministry
the
bringing
bottom
for
cleaned
and
bird-life,
it
thus
the
and
vegetation
plan,
the
shoreline
following
had
highway.
still
cafeteria
was
dumped
and
vertical
in
raise
hereunder.
would
contents
to
Lake
thus
to
idol-
also
with
has
not
not
up,
EIH
the
the
the
the
of
as
in
a
a of
paragraph-
week,
Agara
reportedly
jogging
vegetation,
have portion
shoreline Thich
transformation absence these habitats, between vegetation,
very
(Photo of
steep previously, boating,
is
life, by
and
023-034.
Lake
the
recreation
described also it
example
In
(during
18.
completely
has
the respect
a
petition.
but
even
few
A
one
18
also
Conservation
banks
and
private
bird
and
visit
can
been
shoreline,
029),
part
2002-03)
is
birds,
Agara
now
only,
of
catering,
of
is
on
of
and
there
been relied
been and
above,
of
a
with
which
Hebbal
dive
to
obvious.
habitats
which
the
to
those
the
all
lake
with
mentioned
This
Vengaiahkere.
devoid
Now
Vengaiyankere
just
party,
even
and
tourism
facilitate
but is
q
is
connected
on
round,
opened
The
exposing
and
islands,
water-birds
on
developed
not
an
deepening
used
including
i.e.
etc.,
the
a
already
which
Vengaiyankere
Programme,
as
form
was
around
is
few
the
of
entry
and
catch
The
with
Vengaiyankere
restricted
of 32
lake
the
potential.
etc.
such
taken
all
to
boating,
to
cormorants
in
wetland
as
is
the
now.
mudflats
stone
a
led
by
fee
harbour
desilted
the
facilities
along
absence
the
extracted
has
to
fish.
portrayed
under
the
the
and
islands
was
that
habitats,
shallow
an
as
the
main
to
throughout
public
to
as
pitching
petition,
been
islands,
observation
has
Moreover,
in
model
arched
de-weeding,
also
This
the the
maximum
in
The
the
one
the
described
Hebbal.
and
and
a
(Photo
for
of
the
water-bird
eliminated
as
for
developed
lake
in
made,
rich
shoreline
only
complete
entrance lake
and
National
contrast
wetland
sees
aquatic
hereunder.
aquatic
already
photos
refilled
nature
on picnic,
bridge
which
as
birds,
034)
bird
was
this
last
has
has
the
the
for
an
made
as
in
in
it in
the
State
Doctrine
Supreme
prevented.
(1997) K
exploitation participation
Committee
lake
environment
lakes,
home
the
said
Patil
private
allegations
for
report
should
22.
21.
20.
the
1
commercial
the
to
of
Court
Supreme
point
Enterpreneurship.
The
The
appointed
in
bring
The
Public
by
not
and
should
lessee
paragraphs
made
findings
in
counsel
that
the
permit
counsel
have
home
M
Trust
exploitation.
Court
under
private
be
C
by
have
against
misused
1
MEHTA
alienation
and
this
also
bonafide
the
enjoined
relied
19
Cases
the
tampered
to
Court
recommendations
33
point
participation
The
relied
the
27
vs
guise
the
upon
observations 388
respondents
and
of
is
KAMALNATH
as
and
that
upon
natural
the
relied
of
an
to
that
the
headed
with
natural
development
the
contend
obligation
the
on
is
decision
the
resource
public
to
to
report
in
the
and
by
made
commercial
resource
corroborate
reported
paragraph
be
Justice
that
to
natural
on
private
of
totally
of
in
of
of
bring
the
the
the
the
the
the
the
to
in N
INTELLECTUALS
hereunder:
35
in
the
resources, the the
upon of use natural law resolution
for under instrument heretofore
23. public Legislatures encroach pressures pristine those
doctrine administrative our this
ownership, any increasingly “We
the
our
private,
courts
legislature
rivers,
are
legislation, exercise
case
and
the
members
made
said
country
the
good
The
resources
fully
said
of
illustrate
purity
of
find
to
forests,
the
Constitution. considered
the
or
commercial
case
FORUM,
of
of
complex
and
public
this
decision
aware
by
of the
resources.” for
some
cannot
environment
and
it
determining
responsibilities
of
pristine
the
the
necessary,
its
in
conflict
commercial
is
the
and
parks
and
Parliament
courts
not
the
that
public
trust
executive
relied
TIRUPATHI
society,
powers
extent
changing
public
be
inviolate
convert
34
the
of
classic
or
the
and
in
those
glory
permitted
But
any
cannot
interest
courts.
upon
the
any
can
in
legislative
and
who
issues
find
upon
open
use.
of
in
good
them acting
other
struggle
who,
to
of
given
or
judicial
the
vs
needs
Supreme would
the
charged
it
serve
which
lands
change.
The
abdicate
to
presented
the
faith,
necessary
open
to
STATE
If
into
ecosystems
the
use
absence
under
under
case
be
there
intent
encroach
aesthetic
preserve
between
natural
in
as
private of
eroded
for
unless
is
review
lands
State is
their
OF with
Court
is
The
the the
the the
extracted
for
an
an
in
in
to
of
a
A.P.
in &
paragraph
OTHERS
doctrine thought restrictions
to
considered
Sax trustee
Resource
demanding between
act
use.
Government, legislations,
matter
scrutiny public,
resource public
This
prohibit negatory
regard
angle
consistent
tidelands, heritage
rare
duty
affirmation
for
76
Prof.
for
public
reported
“Thus
cases
76
“The
is
of
To
of
trust.
the
the
an
to
of
and
(ibid):
it
the
Sax,
the
the
how
to
that
on
properly
(Jan. angle,
of
with when
provides
purposes.
surrendering
certain
public
articulation
Public
public
to
on
State
of
obligation
the
be
that
alienation 88.
any
Government’s affirmative
the
streams,
is
in
whose
State
However,
be
governmental
consistent
the
1970) freely
the
imposed
the
public
courts
the
2006(2)
to
action
attempts
benefit,
an
scrutinise
public
trust.
Vi Trust
purposes
power
for
protect
following
abandonment
doctrine
article
available
authority,
pp.
It
which
of
a
lakes,
35
of
must
duties
when
of
is
the
trust
high
the
SCJ,
and
by
the
resources
Doctrine
to
471-566).
an
general
to
the
the
Formulated
with
right
on
authority
use
of
such
observations
it make
property
the
restrict
the
doctrine
the
affirmation
degree
does
marshlands
of
for
is
people’s
the
Government, 293
may
this
three
public
the
the
State
only
special, ore
the
of
action
public
trust.”
obligation
a
in
not
is
(Joseph
the
have distinction
subject
State
According
of
use
such
held
are
types
from than
relied
in
common
property
Natural
existing
judicial
holds
from
right
exactly
of
are
of of
often
trust
more
those
as
with
as
free
and
the
the
the
the
no
an
L.
of
to
made:
is
is
on.
a
a a
a In
notification
24.
jealously
were
Virender
issuing
preventing not
group by frustrated lands
State status the the Activities
followed this this on held
SCC particular
of Kerban activists,
88. resources.
or 3. 2. only
cash
1.
structure
nothing
projects
(ii)
Judges
environment,
convince
be
available
criticism
577, equivalent;
Court
spent
However,
for
Counsel the
the
the
reserved
issued
of
quo
some
used
Ankleswaria
directions
that
Handbook”
humans
Gaur
the
safeguarding
property
as
types
by this
property
property
ante.
the
are
already short
which
and
did
for
this
matter.
the
noted
uses
for
said
by
Court
seems
carried
abuse
for
for
of
a
vs.
some
that
not
use
actions
are
of
The
Court
public
and
the
have
or use
subject
4
common
on
may
particular
the
demolition
decision
in
State
and
authored
must
by
not
insisted
the
allow
mega
fact
to
of
away
ensuring
development
(i)
36
the
Government
the
been
of
while
the
purpose,
petitioners
of
Colins
not
either
the condemned.
be
authorities
to
that
of
environment
a
be
general
projects,
the
by
its
purposes
The
constructed
the
baseless
environment
Haryana
party.
be
in
on
being
by
to
the
or
crores
traditional
maintained
Gonsalves,
its
decision
trust
sold,
the
Gayatri
environmental
but
several
Environmental
restoration
that
money
enforcement
public:
projects
in
bearing This
referred
that
demolition
under
it
of
must
However,
and
a
(1995)
since
even
must
form
and
rupees
zeal
on
Singh,
to
Court
spent
cases
harm
uses,
by
that
that
not
the
the
did
for
for
be
be
in in
to
of of
No.172.
2
a
to the
as
ECO.2007dated
under:
Development per
of
their
the
developmental applying Departments
be
28.3.2008,
Govt.
No.Apajee
30
added
In
tanks
own
the
meters
Order
Dept.
Under “GOVERNMENT
the
“A
developments
as
efforts
C.D.P.
the
172
terms
condition
and
23.10.2008.
point
Authority.”
of
(N.R.Jagannatha) By
Governor
from
Secretary
taking
No.Apajee
works
following
ECO
Forest,
order
shall
the
Amendment
and
No.8
the
prepared Karnataka
Bangalore,
Sd!
M.S.Building
2007
encroachments
in
has
and
custody
conditions
Environment of
and
boundaries
not
OF
to
shall
the
terms
the 37
Karnataka
been
Government
in
172
KARNATAKA
read
take
area
translation
the
cause
Govt.
by
dated
and
prescribed
ECO
of
accordingly:-
name
within
mentioned
up
of
conditions
the
Secretariat
the
and
to
taken
23.10.2008
any
the
2007
of
vacate
a
Ecology.” of
tanks
Bangalore
the
tanks
distance
that
place
kind
which
in
dated
shall
with
the
the
for
as
in
of reads
contentions
contra
been
the
Committee
order
of in
responsibility
contrary
Nagawara
strenuously
buffer
to
of
counsel
lake,
question
the
take
Government.
issued
27.
26.
25.
tank
area
approving
it
made
place
for
to
is
Sri
By
and
head
for
of
law. area,
the
In
and
submitted
for
contended
the
of
referring
D
and
the
the
the
petitioners
implementing
Vengaiahkere
with
management
L
The
by
no
petitioners
up
the
N
light
the
following
development
Justice
regard
State
keep
Rao,
that
to
said
recommendations
of
the
1
the
contended
of
this
counsel
and
the
which
to
area
N
the
38
the and
above
submissions
grant
lakes
the
K
Court
the
above
environment
like
Patil
should
said
maintenance
are
scheme
for
LDA
notification,
that
constructions
has is
of
as
recommendations
observations,
and
15th
should
impermissible
follows:
be
lease
from
already
for
respondent directions made
to
preserved
of
the
maintenance
of
take
the
of
rebut
the
passed
the
periphery
activities
by
lake.
Hebbal,
learned
up
it
lakes
have
as
was
and
the per
the
the
by
an a
with
The
necessary water
parks long
The
should for thereby breach
spots recreational ultimately
4(2)
70 is formation
are activities.
4.
regarding development
as conclusions Paragraphs Planning, Revenue, by
consisted
Committee
(1)
also
follows:
the
the
lakhs
Reference
General
Bangalore
committee
even
tank
spaces.
facilities
to
and
and
urban
Government
the
water
destroying
contamination
serve
by
BDA,
of
adjoining
breaching
the
The
Pollution
beds
used
such
effluents.
headed
of
tanks
at
areas
4,
the
of
2001,
dwellers.
proposals
is
Bigger
as
for
tanks
tanks
city
should
items
tanks.
Observed
the
BWSSB
made
4(2).
others
could
heads
recreational
for
boating
and
rich
which
which
by
lands
of
needs
Control
of
are
sites
e
in
tanks
disposal
Laxman
In
6(1),
to
Karnataka
develop and
utilize
tanks
39
soil
due
also
recreational
of
etc.
conurbation
getting
for
will
that
some
the
is
may
the
illumination,
more
k
of
with
for
to
84,
The
serve
very
is
are
areas
Board,
have
report
the
preservation
the
the
department
Rao
also
inflow
of
being
as cases
silted
other
and
standing observations
referred
85
tank
and
much
tank
present
population
who
solid
as
picnic
and
acquired
facilities.
submitted
area,
proposed.
Irrigation,
and
up.
ore
the
that
of
out beds
beds
was
building
serve
oriental
needed
wastes
sludge to
picnic
There
tanks
water
trend
spots
like
86
Is
Committee
door
which
and
and
appointed
for
for
as
made
to
of
If
in
Forest,
by
Town
the
the
are in 40
the development of picnic spots. But pending all the above proposals developments, foreshore planting may be taken up immediately; 6(1) Hebbal tank: This is a important tank situated on Bellary Road. Its extent is 65.4 bacts and the atchout is 178.4 hacts. This is one of the big tanks in Bangalore on the cast on part of the city. During the inspection of the committee, it was observed that water hyacinth is covering almost the entire water sheet. Some time back PWD got the weeds removed by m/g Larson and Tourbro Ltd. But now the weeds are back which shows that dewoeding cannot be a one time operation and it has necessarily to be a regular Feature.
However the committee felt happy that the forest department has already taken Up fore — shore development and have raised a very good nursery.
At the same time, it is to be mentioned here that many of the tanks are now completely or partially covered by water hyacinths. The Minor Irrigation Department, which is Incharge of these tanks will have to arrange for de-weeding of these tanks on a continuing basis if the water bodies are to serve any useful purpose.
Conclusion: (e) Existing tanks should be deweeded and aquatic life must be developed.
(k) The possibility of construction of more tanks along the natural valleys which now have a run off water should be examined and implantation taken up.
Whenever a tank has been successfully reclaimed or renovated, a suitable area adjoining
bureaucrats,
respondent. allegation Nagawara
addressed Ministry made headed exploitation. lakes permitting
of condition. public
Committee
environment
restaurant, the
29. 28. tourism
by
private
with
by
tank
of of
to
lake
the
the
headed
The
the
The
Justice
The
the
Environment
In
may
environmental
private
bonafide
on
Joint
and
participation
petitioners
activities
2nd
the
counsel
toilets
counsel
said
account
by
be
respondent
have
said
N
Justice
Secretary
earmarked
participation
recommendatiOn
etc.
K
report
referred
certified
purpose
of
referred
that
Path
including
and
41
the
has
N
experts
which
there
in K
to
development
Forest for
which
Patil
that
to
approved
page
for
to
Government
have
recreational
without
is
the
the
to
the
development
rest
as
54,
had
would
consisted
dated
been
contend
follows:
correspondences
lake
the
report
the
made
house,
visited
degradation
commercial
Committee
dispel
is
and
1.12.2009
policy
of
that
in
by
of of
of
India,
good
15th
the the the the
the the of
view
facilitating
Government/lAS Mansagar
Karnataka Public
While
successfully
conservation including
community in Lake
that remain
sanctioned
maintaining promoted women
techniques
‘Rational traditional
conservation encouraged
Kind Wetland The
recommendations
‘Active
session.
incorporating
Conference
organized
October2td
of
the
the
12th
Conservation
active
public
to
Private
attention
participation
an
Conference
and
World
programme.
for
women
in
lake
by
blending
wise
for
public
by
and
knowledge
through
integral
should
November,
their
employed
conserving
was
techniques.
Future’.
awareness
participation
and
youth this
Partnership
better
this
in
Lake
the
use
Thane
and
ecological
wise
is
of
Rajasthan.
adopted
Ministry
are
Plan
Ministry
also
of
of
private
the
awareness
was
Conference
results’
part
recommendations
in
traditional
drawn
youth
in
all
The
use
water
2007.
42
be
and
lakes
Declaration:
lakes
requested
(NLCP),
local
be
Involvement
certain
stakeholders
‘Conserving
of
(PPP)
Jaipur of
blended
of
services’
at
at
may
public
encouraged under
and
bodies.
all
water
to
and
Nagawara
partnerships
The
Jaipur
in
all
communities
programs
model
the
(Taal
cases,
it
be
projects
the
and
Maharashtra,
wetlands
central
participation
stakeholders
the
is
Declaration
bodies,
to
encouraged
with
valedictory
2007)
The
requested
from
has
including
Lakes
of
following
National
such
modern
lake
of
ensure
with
for
theme
being
latest
State
been
local
and
28t1
and was
the
the
as be
be
in
& a 43
promotion of rational PPP models in conserving lakes & wetlands for sustainability of the projects.
30. It is submitted that in paragraph 4 of the said correspondence, there is a categorical reference to the
Nagawara lake with rich compliments and request to the
State Government to ensure promotion of rational public private mode in conserving lakes and wet lands in sustainability of the projects.
3 L The counsel submitted with regard to contention that the boating activity would damage the environment of the lake, is an unfounded contention. In the report of
Laxrnan Rao’s committee, there is a positive recommendation
for promoting boating activity as a part of recreational
activity. The counsel referred to current practice of boating
activity in Ranganathittu which is supposed to be a major
bird sanctuary in the nation where the boating activity is permitted.
32. In respect of the sale of refreshments, it is submitted that the structures put up in the area are quite 44
away from the lake periphery and are only temporary structures to serve as shelters. As per the terms of lease no cooking activity will take place. The edibles are brought from outside and are sold. Precautionary efforts are made to prevent the littering and also to clear the garbage, if any, everyday. The counsel referred to the photographs of status of Nagawara lake before the lease and after the lease to impress that developments have been effected by the 15t1
respondent for enhancing the environmental excellence of
the lake. To corroborate the said contention, reliance is
placed upon the certification made by the Committee headed
by Justice N K Patil to the effect that the maintenance and
condition of the lake is good.
33. With regard to entry free, it is submitted that 15th
respondent collects Rs. 10/- for children and Rs.20/- for the
adults and on week ends the entry fee for adults is Rs.30/. It
is submitted that the lessee has spent about Rs.8 crores for
the development of the lake and has been paying Rs.40.00
lakhs per year to the 21d respondent with an escalation
clause. The entry fee collected per month works out to 45
around average Rs.2-3 lakhs. The respondent has suffered heavy loss and the proceedings under Debt Relief Act are initiated for the recovery of the loans borrowed from the banks, which is invested in the development of the lake. It is submitted that the entry fee collected compared to the cost of investment and the entry fee collected by the
Archaeological Department and the National Parks, Bird
Sanctuaries etc. is about 1/ 10th of the fee collected by the said entries. In that view, it is submitted that the entry fee
act as prohibitive costs for the enjoyment of natural resource
by the common man, is untenable and unfounded.
34. The contention that the propriety rights of the
lakes is handed over to 15t1 respondent is untenable although the contract is termed as a lease, which is in the
nature of a licence. The 15t11 respondent has developed the
lake and the aquatic life in the lake. The Government has been auctioning the fishing iights to Co-operative Society
run by woman. The said fact would suggest that no absolute
proprietary rights of the lake has been leased in favour of
15th respondent.
delay
Government
contract
belatedly
of the
made
the lease
in
year
activities no
of
facilities
conducted
four
for
the
lease,
violation
Government
have
of
was
36.
35.
15th
a
years.
visitors.
four
undertaken
filed and
is which
substantial
been
The
granted
respondent
are
years Order
of
The
not
maintaining
the
contention
The
giving
detrimental
was
the
The
Order.
writ
or
maintainable
after
contention
writ
norms are
granted
the
Pollution
clearance
petition
development,
for
petition
inviting
only
tender
that
The
the
grant
is
in
in
46
to
environment
undue
1 5th
untenable.
in
Control
conducting
that
notification,
after
the
cater
in
public
of
without
the
respect
respondent lease
year
inspection
favour
year
to
recreational
the
tenders
Board,
the
2004,
is
2008
of
petitioners
of
challenging
The
untenable. the
has
minimum
besides
the
the
after
after
BBMP
pursuant
that
been
recreational
recreational
challenging
lake.
validity
activities
there
a
there
having
shown
needs
delay
every
have
The
the
of
is to is 47
37. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla arguing on behalf of respondent No.16 submitted the following circumstances and the material to repel the contention of the petitioner that the lease in favour of respondent is illegal and there are violations of law. The learned Senior Counsel by and large adopted the submissions made by Sri D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.15 with reference to the status of Hebbal tank. He relied upon the observations made in the report of the committee headed by Sri Laxman
Rao. In para-6(l), the following observations are made: “Hebbal tank: This is a important tank situated on Bellary road. Its extent is 65.4 bacts and the atchout is 178.4 hacts. This is one of the big tanks in Bangalore on the cast on part of the city. During the inspection of the committee, it was observed that water hyacinth is covering almost the entire water sheet. Some time back PWD got the weeds removed by m/g Larson and Tourbo Ltd.. But now the weeds are back which shows that deweeding cannot be a one
With
was report hyacinth
had
requires
condition. that
referred
permits
inspected
after
the
regard
time
good regular
the
fore-shore
38.
lighting,
rescue
kiosks,
of
the
a
to
has
the
Hebbal
the
forest periodical
nursery.”
operation
The
following
However
It
Eco-friendly
to
Schedule
watch
been
feature.
boundary committee
developments
the
is
recreational
floating
visit
development
department
submitted
tank
Hebbal
a
towers,
constant
weeding
activities
the
by
and
1(c)
restaurant
protection,
is
headed
the
committee
tank
children
it
well
activities,
of
parking
are
that
has
48
committee
out.
and
has
phenomena
the
and
maintained
made
by
necessarily
the
have
and
arch
already
Reference
Lease
have
Justice
bay,
park,
learned
felt
wild
by
provisions
bridges,
raised
to
noted
view
happy
respondent
Agreement
in
the
growth
taken
N.K.Patil,
lightings,
and
the
Senior
is
to
points,
a
in
Hebbal
made
be
solar
tank
very
that
is
the
up
for
of
a
Counsel
in
No.16.
which
report which
which
to
water
good
tank the
per
for
area
clearance
and
Control
view
accordance lighting
children
floating given
concept
are
respondent
morning
adult
in
its
between
points,
40.
39. boats,
recreational
up
consonance
infrastructure
Board
restaurant
of
which
park,
for
for
and
With
floating
walk
No.16
It
with
kiosks,
the
peddle
6.00
visiting
and
is
respondent
lighting,
regard
are
continuation.
and
submitted
the
a.m.
facilities
that
the
with
restaurant
boats,
boundary
facility.
jogging.
done
every
the
BBMP terms
to
to
the
the
rescue
8.00
entry
lake
aqua-scooters
year
like
No.16
are
permitted
recreational
by
have
49
of
He
protection
p.m.
permitted
The
bumper
between
watch
and
fee,
learned
quite
the
further
would
been
entry
is
they
the
lease.
terms
free
towers,
eco-friendly
boats,
inspecting
activities
entry
Senior etc.
8.00
have
arch
fee
under
not
submits
to
of
is
all
The
carry
giving
electric
bridges,
a.m.
into
lease
only parking
the
Counsel
the
conducted
the
Pollution
that
the
Rs.
to
citizens
out
and lease
and
annual
lakes
solar
6.30
10/-
lake
bay,
the
the
the
for
in is
joggers
years,
persons.
idols, prevent is p.m.,
incurred foreshore
water
monthly Rs.6,34,000/-
passed of absolutely Rs.2,00,000/-.
No.16
constructed
One
respondent
further
more
41.
a
by
flowing
has
bird
and
in
pollution
separate
There
entry
Rs
area
which
submitted
It
this
no
set
watchers,
for
sewerage
.8,67,000
has
is
element
from
No.16.
up
is
further
army
case.
is
The
towards
fee
been
used
time,
pond
of
water no
Byatarayanapura
said
lake-water
collected
personnel,
entry
that,
/
It
It
plant,
without
stopped
of
senior submitted
-
is the
is
sewerage
is
towards
commercial
status
capital
constructed.
further
submitted
fee
as
gate
50
which
citizens,
per
is
increasing charged
because
on
50%
would
that,
will
between
plant
submitted operational
expenses.
the
account
is
discount
exploitation
and
that
be
terms
respondent
morning
disclose
for
to
of
contemplated
It
the
Bhadrappa
closed
the
treat
children
the
is
Rs.
of
that
of
same.
submitted
immersing
is
interim
expenses
1.50,000/-
wet
The
the
that
the
walkers
provided.
on
respondent
for
No.16
lands
below
sewerage
lease,
the
there
average
all
layout.
orders
to
that
part
and
and
has
the
the
are
10
be
to
to
is It 51
irell protected and maintained and the scientific de-weeding is taking place and whatever development done by respondent No.16 is conducive to the environmental aspects of the lake. Thus submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
42. With regard to Venganakere lake, it is submitted that out of total area of 1.6 hectares of the lake shore area, in only one acre, the infrastructure is developed for recreational activities in accordance with the terms of the lease. About 3000 saplings have been planted in the lake shore area. Respondent No.17 after taking lease, have built up island with thick and dense trees and bushes for the birds nest. The light recreational facilities provided are not
in conflict with the environmental norms. It is further
submitted that the respondent No.17 are contemplating to
construct a sewerage treatment plant, but because of the interim orders passed in this case, further developments are
stopped. It is further submitted that the developments made
are in tandem with the environmental aspects of the lake. It
is stated that about Rs.8 crores are invested for the 52
development of the lake. The lake will be opened from 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. every day. For morning walkers, there is no entry fee. For children, the entry fee is Rs. 15/— and for others Rs.30/—. The monthly income collected from entry fee is said to Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs. The monthly expenditure of the lake is about Rs.5 lakhs. In the light of the said material, it is submitted that there is absolutely no element
of commercial exploitation or damage done to the
environment of the lake. It is submitted that the committee
headed by Justice N.K.Patil, after inspection, have noted that
the lake is in good condition. There are absolutely no
adverse reports from the experts’ committee. Therefore, the contention that respondent No.17 has damaged the
environmental aspects of the lake is untenable and unfounded.
W.P.No. 13690/2009: This writ petition pertains to
Avalahalli lake and in general all the lakes. It is the contention that the lakes are not property maintained. The
petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to constitute a committee
Devanakere sewerage
encroachments. protect
petitioner
that
situated Kaggadaspura
preserve
and
the
the
various
to
find
tanks
condition
the
lakes
W.P.No.163J3d26O6
W.PNo1830312005
WP.No.31343/1995
the lakes
petitioner
out in
water
the
seeks
and are
lake. and
lake
tanks
the
to
of lakes
lake,
-
into
not
for
around
original and
the
ways
It
seeks
writ the
is
properly
and
Dodda of
lakes
keep
contended
city
lake,
and
of
the
position.
for
tank
:
mandamus
of
them
Nekkundi
in
:
Bangalore
creating
: means
a
maintained
Bangalore.
This
53
This
direction
city
This
beds
in
that
writ
good
of
writ
writ
to
pollution.
there
and
and
Bangalore
to
city.
preserve
petition
to
condition.
petition petition
the
It
and
Byrasandra
the
is
is
also
It
respondents
lot
contended
therefore,
authorities
is Therefore,
pertains of
to
and
pertains
is
pertains
submitted
letting
hopeless
prevent
restore
lakes
that
the
to
of
to
to
a
to
to
\jC
L
F ‘1•
Authority.
committee
coming
Prior
except preserve
Development
its
governance
maintenance
endeavor maintain
yore
the
mankind
maintenance
of
prevent
direction
State
wisdom
all
to
and
43.
the
the
1
under
the
and
and
on
the
has
1.1.2010,
is
are
It
headed
lakes
of
flow
the
is
Pursuant
sought
of
has living
Authority
lakes
of
maintain
all
been
petitioners
built
well
lakes
principle
of
the
lakes.
situated
the
sewerage
by
constituted
intended
beings.
the
in
taking
with
for
State
jurisdiction
which
Justice
a
to
lakes
all
to
against
of
good
In
within
multipurpose
obligation,
for
the
steps
doctrine
water
the
It
are
attend
and
54
view
is
situated
N.K.Patil
condition.
the
report
lakes
proper
the constructed
well
BBMP
respondents
into
for
of
of
mandatory
of
to
founded
2nd
the
the
the
enmity
Lakes
trust
in
submitted and
in
utility
area
on
preservation
said
preservation
BBMP
1
respondent-Lake
The
good
to
3.3.2011,
in
respondent
to
of
apprehension
Development
lake.
preserve
of
6
obligation
to the
State
Bangalore.
supervise,
condition,
were
and
unwilling
help
times
by
in
7
also
this
and
and
and
the
the
its
in
of
of to
lakes:
issued
the
connected
our
construction.
the
belonging
the
recommendations
Court
lease
prayers periphery
consideration
(ii)
(i)
45.
44.
the
observed
holders.
following
to
matters
This
In
sought
lease
view
fenced
Revenue The
records
The
diverted
of
Court
the that
holders made
in
of pertains
lake
sewage
directions for
at
land
the
the
the
to
in in
will the
Department
area
the by
these
above
Writ
or
instant
report
who
cost
or
to the
lakes be
in
55 for
as
the
garbage writ
Petition
have
of the
order, committee
the
surveyed
of
the
and writ
per
rights
petitions,
process
the
and
proper
respondents.
made
tanks.
the
t.he
petition
NoJ841/2006
will
committee
and
would
limited
would
constructions
maintenance
by
revenue
of
not
except
obligations
making
and
the
be
be
satis1r
issue
and
the
in
such
had
the
one
for
the of
of
all in
of contention the preservation
the
State.
The
46.
(iv)
(Hi)
lake,
said
that
With
and
appears
The
the implementing,
implementation The
the
condition revenue
respondents
department
co-ordinator Legal technical
concerned.
saplings undertake
directions
the
maintenance
regard
Member
lessees
ecological
Services
to
Forest
above
department
of
be
‘‘
shall
opinion
after
planting
to
the
for have
——-——-
an
56
Secretary
Authority
herein
executing
the
lakes.
have
of
of
among
both
unsubstantiated
and
Department
getting
damaged all
respondents
the
from
leases
of
to
the
and
monitoring
including
undertaking
the
be
environmental
shall
the
of
tanks
the
adhered
in
the
all
trees
the
necessary
the
work
act
experts
question,
and
forest
environment
State
shall
as
and
and
allegation.
the the
the
to
in
of
a
lakes
for
the the in 57
The recreational activities undertaken are the one pennitted by the terms of the lease and are not in conflict with the environment and ecological aspects. The material produced by the lessees discloses that there has been an annual inspection by the Pollution Control Board and by BBMP and they are giving the clearance certificate annually for continuation of the recreational activities. The contention that the boating activity would destroy the environment of the lake and diminish the potentiality of the bird migration also does not appear to be well substantiated because, in the report of the committee headed by Sri Laxman Rao, a specific proposal is made for boating facilities in the lakes.
The report of the committee headed by Justice N.K.Patil also approves pedal boating and battery operated boating, which are pollution free. The sale of eateries undertaken is shown to be done quite away from the shore area. There is no cooking activity. The edibles are brought from out side and sold. The constructions installed are also of temporary in nature only to serve as shelters. 58
47. In view of the above discussed material, it cannot be said that the lakes which are leased in favour of respondents 15 to 17 are not properly maintained. There is no contra material placed on record to show that the recreational activities undertaken are in conflict with the ecology and the environment of the lakes.
48. With regard to entry fee, it appears that the
Hebbal lake appears to be more visitor friendly than
Nagawara and Venganakere lakes. It is therefore directed that the respondents 15 to 17 shall also make entry free for the children up to 12 years. However, for using the recreational facilities, any separate fee charged have to be paid by the users, including the children.
49. Therefore, in view of the reasons and discussions
made above, we find no substance in the contention that the
lease granted in favour of respondents 15 to 17 is in
violation of law. The public participation in the development
of the lakes is in accordance with the National and State
water policies. The decision of the Supreme Court in
rights
disclose way
is bed
permanent
that
held
condoned
area
Supreme
houses
In
law. as
amount
Tirupati’s
the
M.C.Mehta
on
styled
the
hand.
river
of
area.
found
there
and
to
encroachment
and
said
The
be
any
were
to
as
around
construction
Court
the
In
should
case
improper
encroachment
that
construction
a
-vs-
In
case,
obligations
ratio
transfer
the
default
lease,
constructed
the
has
Kamalanath
found
the
cited
the
the
be
laid
instant
appears
also
constructions
as
in
private
or
of
no
case,
tank-bund
of
that
an
law.
otherwise. down
land
enjoyed
no
or
houses
further
and
exceptional
case,
by
there
application
the
damage
to
resorts.
59
in
has
However,
the
by
be
the
encroachment
favour
by
by
were
constructions
area
there
no
a
of
same
the
The
the
misnomer,
Housing
caused
the
application
resorts
In
case,
artificial
was
to
of
agreement
is
Supreme
the
Housing
is
the
lessees the
the
no
not
encroached
with
Supreme
to
said
and
facts
Board.
lessees.
issue
on
permitted diversions
because
the
in
to
Board
a
context,
diversions
does
the
Court
although
the
on
direction
the
lake
of
Court
hand.
bank
tank
facts
was
The
and
any
The
not
the
by
in
in
of it 60
terms and conditions suggest that lease is more in the nature of a licence without any absolute rights during the lease period. The fact that the fishing rights are granted by the government to some other organisation would itself suggest that the lessees have no absolute control over lakes and Lake Area. The terms and conditions imposed and the permitted recreational activities in the lease does not appear to be detrimental to the environment of the lake since the report of the Committee headed by Justice N.K.Patil, which is constituted by bureaucrats, experts and the Judge of this
Court, after inspection, they found that the lakes are in a good condition.
50. This Court on two earlier occasions by order dated
7.4.2011 had issued certain directions and in W.P.No. 1841 of 2006 also this Court has issued certain directions for the preservation and maintenance of lakes. Keeping in view the direction issued by this Court, we feel it that it is just and proper that a direction issued have to be consolidated and after hearing the parties, some more directions are necessary
Accordingly,
to
be
4.
2.
5. 3. issued
1.
The
The
trees be
have embankments
Flow rejuvenation Removal fencing.
tanks
of demarcating
It
peripheral
is
stopped.
we
unauthorised
to
forest
just
to
of
and
make
in
advance
sewerage
be
of
saplings
and
Kamataka
properly
department
silt
the
lake
the
The
of
have
necessary
as
the
following
water
V
I
ORDER
some
boundaries
area
also,
in
channels,
construction
protected
to
61 cause
_-
the
be
have
have
shall
into
scientific
of
buffer
done
that
order:
of
the
lakes
to
undertake
to
which
and
preservation
and
be
periodically.
survey area
-
be
tanks
within
dc-weeding
removed.
and
maintained.
to
undertaken
feed
of
tanks
make
of
the
the
and
to
the lakes
plant
lake.
of
30
have
for
proper
proper
lakes.
lakes,
mtrs
and
the
the
by to
8.
6.
7.
Authority
maintenance
The
City shall Commissioner Commissioner be
Deputy In
area,
development
the For
lakes the
Commissioner,
respect
the
Commissioner
Municipal
proper
Chief
within
the
be
Committee
the
and
Commissioner
Executive
Bangalore
maintenance
the
of
and
of
Corporation
Committee
Deputy
of
of
Bangalore
City
BBMP
lakes
City
development
of
Urban
62
for
BBMP
Municipal
area,
Officer,
Conservator
Municipal
in
Metropolitan
proper
and
Bangalore Development
area.
Development
responsible
shall
of
development
of
Lake
maintenance
be
Corporation,
Corporation
lakes
District,
of
responsible
Development
MetropOlitan
Forest
Area,
for
within
Authority,
Authority
proper
of
shall
and
and
the
the the
the
the for
9.
10.
and
who
to also
maintenance
and Committee, Committees lakes
Member
be
Executive Principal
taluka
development Municipality
shall In
Commissioner
There
concerned
development
maintenance
respect
entertain
shall
responsible
be
by
areas.
Secretary
the
above
shall
Secretary,
oversee
Officer.
which
shall
members
of and
and
of
complaints
committees
be
stated
lakes
of
of
of
and
development municipal
an
Lake
District
for
send
of
shall
lakes.
lakes.
63
Department
State Apex
District,
committees.
supervise
situate
of
proper
Development
quarterly
supervise
Committee
and
Water
The
for
Committee
Legal
give
in
areas,
proper
Apex
of
the
maintenance
Commissioner
for
Services
of
Resources
lakes
report
proper
The
the
maintenance
Revenue,
Committee
municipal
and
Authority
maintenance
consisting the
development above
to
about
they
directions
Authority
the
Deputy
Officer
stated
Chief
Apex
shall
and and and
can
the
of
of of 64
11. The first respondent is directed to comply the
above said directions by passing necessary orders
in accordance with law for ensuring proper preservation, maintenance and development of lakes.
In the terms indicated above, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/’ JUDGE
Brn/bk/nm/