T.N. GODAYARMAN THIRUMALPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 10-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
T.N. GODA YARMAN 11-l!RUMALPAD 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 10, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972-Section 26 A-Encroachers 
constructed bund/fish tanks resulting in blockage of free flow of water into 
Kolleru Lake-Notification under, declaring Kolleru Lake Area as a 
sanctuary-Recommendations by Committee regarding its implementation-
Directions to demolish all fish tanks constructed inside the Sanctuary and 
also prohibition of use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture--Validity 
of-Held: Notification regulates aquaculture, pisciculture, prawn culture 
and shrimp culture in public interest and in the interest of ecology-Thus, 
D issuance of Notification justified-State Government directed to implement 
the recommendations by the Committee-Environment Laws. 
E 
In Kolleru Lake, one of the largest shallow fresh water lake in the State 
of Andhra Pradesh, encroachers constructed bund/fish tanks which resulted 
in blockagl!' of free flow of water into the lake. Therefore, the State 
Covernment issued Notification dated 04.10.1999 under section 26A of the 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and declared 1/3 area of the Kolleru Lake 
as wild life sanctuary. High Court upheld the validity of the Notification. 
Thereafter, Central Empowered Committee made recommendations with 
regard to the implementation of the Notification. It issued directions for 
F 
demolition of all fish tanks constructed inside the Kolleru Wild Life Sanctuary 
in a time bound manner and prohibited use or transportation of inputs for 
pisciculture in the said sanctuary. 
The question which arose for consideration in these batch of cases is 
with regard to the validity of the recommendations made by Central Empowered 
G Committee regarding implementation of the Notification dated 4.10.1999. 
Objectors contended that although final Notification has been upheld, 
the terms and conditions of the Notification indicate that the demolition of 
bunds can only take place after acquisition by the Covernment of private lands 
consequently, the Government should first acquire the rights of the objectors 
H 
1024 
t 
+ 
T.N. GODA YARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. lJ.0.1. 
] 025 
before ordering demolition of the fish tanks/bunds; that till the acquisition A 
by the Government the owners of these private lands are entitled to construct 
bunds in their own lands; that from 1976 upto 4th October, 1999 permissions 
to construct bunds have been given; that mud bunds constituted a part of 
traditional fishing practice and as such direction for demolition of these bunds 
should not be given; that the objectors have made huge investments over the B 
years, that they were permitted to put up bunds under permissions given by 
the collector; and that equity demands that a balance be struck between 
preservation of the lake and the livelihood of persons surviving on aquaculture 
and pisciculture. 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD: 1. The final Notification seeks to regulate, in public interest 
c 
and in the interest of ecology and activities, such as aquaculture, pisciculture, 
prawn culture and shrimp culture, basically to preserve the identity of the 
lake which otherwise is likely to become extinct within 12 years. Having 
regard to the larger public interest and in view of the fact that the Notification D 
under section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ha~ been issued 
pursuant to the orders of the High Court in Kunapuraju Rangaraju 's case, 
the Notification issued needs to be enforced immediately. The State 
Government and its officers are directed to implement the directions of Central 
Empowered Committee. The use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture 
should be stopped immediately. The demolition of all fish tanks in a time-bound E 
manner should commence. 11034-C-D; 1036-C-DI 
2.1. In the previous year on account of the bunds/fish tanks free now of 
water into the sea was blocked for 40 days. In any event, the rights of those 
fishermen surviving on a traditional method of fishing have not been taken F 
away, they have been duly protected. Only those who had illegally constructed 
bunds and who were using harmful manures have been prevented from doing 
so by reason of the said Notification. The material placed.on record shows 
that there is obstruction to the free now of water in the lake bed area due to 
raising of bunds whereby the retention capacity of the lake is diminished, as 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.