MRS. SUSETHA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 08-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
/ 
MRS. SUSETHA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Environmental Law: 
Environment-Expansion of Highway project-Resettlement of persons C 
who were displaced-Construction of shopping complex in a water tank-
Protection of environment-Panchayat decided to construct a shopping complex 
to resettle those persons who were displaced due to expansion of a Highway 
project-The State Government also issued a Government Order permitting 
construction of a shopping complex therein-The village was situated near the 
sea having five water tanks in or around therein-There was no report of any D 
water shortage in the village-The tank land was mainly being used as a 
dumping yard for a long time-The High Court dismissed the writ petition 
challenging the aforesaid decision-Correctness of-Held: The water bodies 
are required to be retained-Natural water storage resources are not only 
required to be protected but also steps are required to be taken for restoring E 
the same if it has fallen in disuse-However, the same principle cannot be 
applied in relation to artificial tanks-The tank in question is not a natural 
tank-Only rain water could be collected in it-It has been a dumping ground 
for a long time-Moreover, there is no shortage of water in the area-Hence, 
there is no justification for its resurrection-High Court's judgment upheld 
The respondent-Panchayat took a decision of constructing a shopping 
complex in a water tank lying in disuse and abandoned for the purpose 
of resettlement of those persons who were displaced due to expansion of 
F 
a highway project. The State Government also issued a Government Order 
permitting construction of a shopping complex therein. The village was G 
situated near the sea having five water tanks in or around therein. There 
was no report of any water shortage in the village. The tank land was 
mainly being used as a dumping yard for a long time. 
A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court 
questioning the aforesaid decision, which was dismissed. Hence the appeal. H 
361 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The tank in question was admittedly a temple tank. It was 
not a lake. Although it was classified in the revenue records as a tank 
poramboke, but it had lost its utility a long time back. It was being used 
as a dumping yard. There were no inlet or outlet facilities. It was also 
B prone to encroachments. 1365-BI 
2. Concededly, the water bodies are required to be retained. Such 
requirement is envisaged not only in view of the fact that the right to water 
as also quality life are envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of 
C India, but also in view of the fact that the same has been recognized in 
Articles 47 and 48-A of the Constitution of India. Article SI-A of the 
Constitution of India furthermore makes a fundamental duty of every 
citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, 
lakes, rivers and wild life. 1366-FJ 
D 
Animal and Environment legal Defence Fund v. Union of India, AIR 
E 
(1997) SC 1071, MC. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund lakes Matter) v. Union 
of India, [1997J 3 SCC 715 and Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of 
A.P .. [20061 3 SCC 549, relied on. 
3.1. Maintenance of wetlands acts as a benefactor to the society. 
People united for better living in Calcutta - Public v. State of West 
Bengal, AIR (1993) Cal. 215, approved. 
3.2. Natural water storage resources are not only required to be 
protected but also steps are required to be taken for restoring the same if 
F it has fallen in disuse. The same principle cannot be applied in relation to 
artificial tanks. 1367-BI 
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (99) v. Union of India, (20061 S SCC 
47 and l. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2005) Mad. 311, referred 
G to. 
4. This Court has not laid down a law that alienation of the property 
held as a public trust is necessarily prohibited. What was emphasized was 
a higher degree of judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of sustainable 
development although is not an empty slogan, it is required to be 
H implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the Court. 
[367-G-Hl 
.... 
SUSETHA v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU [SINHA, J.] 
363 
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (99) v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC A 
47, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549 and 
Bombay Dyeing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.