ORDER
Anil R. Dave, C.J.
1. In these applications, it has been prayed that interim relief, which has been granted in W.P.M.P. No. 13204 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 10547 of 2006 on 30-5-2006, be vacated so as to enable the applicants and other government authorities to acquire lands, which are required for implementation of certain irrigation projects, which are stated hereunder:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
S. No. Petition No. Project Name District Extent of land
proposed to
be acquired
Acs. Cts.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1) W.P.M.P. No. 27706 of 2007 Thotapalli Barriage Srikakulam 31.08
Project
2) W.P.M.P. No. 27707 of 2007 Pulichintala Project Guntur 964.29
3) W.P.M.P. No. 31240 of 2007 Gudimellalanka and East Godavari 37.98
Pasarlapudi Village +21.09
(Comprehensive
Protected Water Scheme)
4) W.P.M.P. No. 34038 of 2007 Kandaleru Reservior Nellore 30.68
Left Canal of Telugu
Ganga Project.
5) W.P.M.P. No. 34093 of 2007 Koilsagar Lift Mahabubnagar 15.92
Irrigation Scheme
6) W.P.M.P. No. 34319 of 2007 Mahatma Gandhi Lift Mahabubnagar 49.23
Irrigation scheme
7) W.P.M.P. No. 34320 of 2007 Kanula Obula Reddy Prakasam 33.011/2
Gundlakamma
Reservoir Project
8) W.P.M.P. No. 35036 of 2007 Boddealli Rajgopal Srikakulam 105.60
Rao Vamshadara Project
9) W.P.M.P. No. 36054 of 2007 Hundri Neeva Sujala Kurnool 249.78
Sravanti Scheme
10) W.P.M.P. No. 1329 of 2008 Jawahar Nettempadu Mahabubnagar 14.40
Lift Irrigation Scheme
11) W.P.M.P. No. 1330 of 2008 Indira Sagar Krishna 14.06
(Polavaram) Project,
Right Main Canal,
Unit III, Vijayawada
12) W.P.M.P. No. 24219 of 2007 Kandukur Summer Prakasam 156.80
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Storage Tank for drinking water
2. The circumstances under which the afore-stated applications have been filed by the applicant government authorities in nutshell are as under:
There are several temples in the State of Andhra Pradesh and lands have been gifted to the temples for their maintenance by several persons. Such temple lands are popularly known as 'endowment lands': The said lands are managed by the Endowments Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. Writ Petition No. 10547 of 2006, which is in the nature of public interest litigation, has been filed in this Court wherein it has been submitted that the lands owned by the temples are neither being properly looked-after nor being properly managed by the Endowments Department. It has been specifically averred in the writ petition that though many encroachments have been made on the temple lands, the State, instead of removing the encroachments, has regularised several encroachments. Moreover, for one reason or the other, the State has started acquiring the lands belonging to the temples.
4. Income generated from the endowment lands is used for the purpose of maintenance of temples, payment of salary etc. to Archakas/temple priests and for the purpose of performing Nitya Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam of the Deity/(s) of the temples. Due to regularisation of the encroachments and because of acquisition of such endowment lands by the State, income arising from the lands has been substantially reduced, which is adversely affecting the regular rituals to the deity/(s) and also to the maintenance of the temples.
5. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Endowments Act') provide that before any lease, sale, exchange or mortgage of an endowment land is effected, prior sanction of the government must be taken. It has been stated that such sanctions are being granted by the State for mere asking and that has also resulted in reduction of endowment lands which, in turn, has further reduced the income generated from such lands.
6. After hearing the concerned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, this Court passed an order dated 30-5-2006 whereby it has been directed that without permission of this Court, no endowment land shall be acquired by the State or sold by the temples. It has also been directed that no compromise of any nature shall be permitted in relation to any litigation pertaining to the temple land. Thus, by virtue of the afore-stated order, the State has been restrained even from acquiring the endowment lands for any purpose-no matter how laudable or noble the object for which the land is required.
7. In the afore-stated set of circumstances, the present applications have been filed with a prayer that the interim order dated 30-5-2006 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 13204 of 2006 be vacated or suitably modified so as to enable the State to acquire some endowment lands, for the purposes stated hereinabove.
8. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the State can never be totally restrained from acquiring the endowment lands for the reason that very often, for implementation of some scheme or a project, it has to acquire lands by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Land Acquisition Act').
9. It has been submitted by him that it is the right of the State to acquire any land in accordance with law upon payment of compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the said right of the State can neither be taken away nor be abridged by passing a blanket order. It has been submitted that if the afore-stated order is permitted to operate forever, overall development of the State would be adversely affected because, in such an event, it would be impossible for the State to acquire endowment land for any public purpose. It has been further submitted that for the welfare of people at large, it is obligatory on the part of the State to take up projects like irrigation, housing schemes etc.
10. It has been submitted by him that the State has come forward with 'Jalayagnam' policy and in that context several projects have been taken up; but, by virtue of interim order granted by this Court, most of the projects are stalled. It has been further submitted that this Court, by the order dated 30-5-2006, has kept it open to the State to approach this Court for necessary permission either for the purpose of acquiring the endowment land or for the purpose of sale.
11. In view of the afore-stated circumstances, it has been prayed by the learned Advocate General that necessary permission be granted for initiating acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands, which have been covered by the applications filed by the State or its officers.
12. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Shri S. Ramachandra Rao appearing for the original petitioners and opponents in the applications has submitted that sufficient details have been given in the affidavit filed along with Writ Petition No. 10547 of 2006 so as to show as to how the State has shown its utter carelessness in the matter of protection of endowment lands. According to him, it is the pious obligation on the part of the State to protect such lands. He has also drawn our attention to the observations made in the order dated 30-5-2006 to the effect that 'the lands endowed to the religious institutions, which were safe and secure during the alien rule for centuries together, became vulnerable not only Jo private encroachments but even unlawful occupation by the government....'
13. He has submitted that it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its properties in accordance with law; and the law, therefore, must leave the right of administration to the religious denomination itself. It has been, therefore, submitted that the State should not be permitted to dispose of the endowment lands in any manner. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Advocate relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi : AIR1954SC280 .
14. He has also submitted that all actions of the State lack bona fides and the State wants to acquire the lands with some oblique motive.
15. It has been further submitted that the applications filed by the government authorities are not maintainable for the reason that this Court had heard the learned advocate appearing for the State at length before passing the afore-stated order dated 30-5-2006 and, therefore, the said order has become final and in no way the same should be vacated or even modified.
16. We have heard the learned advocates and have also perused the order, which is sought to be modified - vacated. We have also considered the judgment referred to and relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Shri S. Ramachandra Rao.
17. At this juncture, we are only concerned with grant of permission for acquisition of endowment lands for irrigation purpose. The present applications have been filed with a prayer that the State be permitted to acquire endowment lands for the purpose of implementing different irrigation projects and summer storage tanks, as stated supra. In all the cases, the lands which are proposed to be acquired are likely to be submerged upon construction of dams or canals or water storage tanks. Looking to the fact that all lands are required for the purpose of implementing irrigation schemes, we think it proper not to discuss facts of each and every case separately, but on principle, we decide these applications so that the decision which might be rendered in these applications can apply to all other similar cases where lands are proposed to be acquired either for irrigation schemes or for construction of water storage tanks, which might be either for irrigation or for drinking water.
18. By virtue of the order which is sought to be vacated or modified, this Court had passed a blanket order whereby the State has been restrained from acquiring all endowment lands. Looking to the allegations made in Writ Petition No. 10547 of 2006 and the submissions which might have been made at the relevant time, it appears that the petitioners and this Court were seriously concerned about the way in which the State had neglected its pious obligation with regard to protecting the endowment lands. It is also an admitted fact that several encroachments made on endowment lands had been regularised by the State.
19. As a matter of fact, the State, being entrusted with the function of protecting endowment lands, ought to have taken due care to see that no encroachments were made on the endowment lands. Even if someone makes an encroachment upon the endowment land, it was the duty of the State to see that the encroachment is removed in accordance with law, but, instead of taking prompt and harsh action for removal of the encroachments, the State had started regularizing them. Due to the afore-stated fact, possibly this Court was constrained to pass a blanket interim order so that the endowment lands are duly protected and the State becomes more careful in the matter of protection of the endowment lands.
20. Irrigation project is one of the most important projects which any State has to undertake, especially in a country like ours, where agriculture is given more importance for livelihood of several small farmers. In our country, due to poverty, it is not possible for all small farmers to have their own source of water so as to irrigate their lands and, therefore, it becomes a pious duty of the State to see that small farmers are helped by having irrigation projects so as to see that sufficient water is provided for cultivation. Not only small farmers, the population of the entire country depends upon agricultural produce because, ultimately agricultural produce is required for sustaining lives of all citizens.
21. Now, the State is faced with a peculiar situation. For the purpose of carrying out agrarian reforms and for the purpose of increasing productivity of soil, it is absolutely necessary to implement irrigation schemes and it is equally necessary for the State to take steps for providing drinking water to the people residing in small villages who are not in a position to get potable water round the year. The afore-stated function is also an obligation of the State.
22. For the purpose of implementing the irrigation schemes, the State has also to acquire lands belonging to the citizens. It cannot be denied that right to acquire lands belonging to citizens is a sovereign right of the State. Unless the State exercises its power of eminent domain, it cannot function effectively so as to implement irrigation schemes. If, for the afore-stated purpose, lands of citizens can be acquired, then the question arises as to why the State be not permitted to acquire endowment lands? Endowment lands are those lands, which had been donated by philanthropists or kindhearted citizens to different temples so that the temples can be maintained from the income generated from the lands so donated.
23. Thus, if lands of citizens can be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act upon payment of compensation, we see no reason to restrain the State from acquiring endowment lands especially when they are required for implementation of irrigation schemes or for the purpose of construction of water storage tanks so as to supply water either for irrigation purpose or for the purpose of day-to-day use of citizens.
24. While referring to importance of water, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India : AIR2000SC3751 , in paragraph 248 of the judgment has observed as under:
Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can be served only by providing source of water where there is none. The resolution of UNO in 1977 to which India is a signatory, during the United Nations Water Conference resolved unanimously inter alia as under:
All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.
25. The right to water can be safeguarded only when sufficient water-for irrigation or for drinking is provided to the people living in all parts of the country. The State, in public interest, has taken a policy decision to construct irrigation projects and summer storage tanks in order to see that large parts of wasteland is converted into agricultural land. It is true that for implementing the irrigation projects, some lands - either belonging to private individuals or belonging to the government will get submerged and the people connected with those lands will be deprived of the benefits being derived by them from those lands. Simply because a small section of the citizenry will be deprived of the land by implementing the irrigation projects, the multifold improvement in the area where the project waters will reach cannot be disregarded.
26. This Court, normally in the exercise of its jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and, if so, of what type and how to be undertaken or executed, is part of policy-making process and the Court is not so well-equipped to adjudicate on such policy decisions to be undertaken. The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that while implementing a project, no law is violated; and people's rights are not encroached upon, except to the extent permissible under the Constitution.
27. It is also pertinent to note that it is not open to this Court to give a direction in public interest litigation cases, which would be in direct conflict with legal provisions. On one hand, there is a power of the State, viz., eminent domain, which is to be exercised for larger benefit of the society and on the other hand, there is a duty of the State to protect the endowment lands for maintenance of the temples. The State has to strike the balance between the two.
28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SSC 739 : 2003 (6) ALT 191 (DN SC) that the right of the State of 'eminent domain' that is 'the right of compulsory acquisition of any private property' is sovereign power over powers and rights of private persons to properties. Though an obligation has been cast upon the State under the provisions of the Endowments Act to protect endowment lands, but that obligation would in no way curtail the right of eminent domain of the State and, therefore, it would not be just and proper for this Court to restrain the State from acquiring endowment lands especially when the lands are required for a very laudable purpose of implementing irrigation schemes etc.
29. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, interim order dated 30-5-2006 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 13204 of 2006 is modified to the effect that it would be open to the State to acquire those lands which are required for any irrigation purpose including the purpose of construction of dams or water storage tanks or for the purpose of construction of canals and for the purposes incidental thereto.
30. The miscellaneous applications are, thus, disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.
31. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate, Shri S. Ramachandra Rao has submitted that very often compensation is paid in respect of the land acquired at a belated stage, which puts the administration of the temples to difficulties. It has been submitted by him that the State be directed to see that the amount of compensation payable to the temples is paid as soon as possible.
32. In reply to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Advocate, learned Special Government Pleader, Shri A. Satya Prasad has very fairly assured this Court that the State Government and other competent authorities shall take possession of the acquired land only after paying compensation to the concerned temple authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(3-A) and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.