Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. AIR 2006 SC 1350 - (Public Trust Doctrine)

    Uploaded by

    Soumiki Ghosh
    The Supreme Court case Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P. addressed the public trust doctrine in environmental law. [1] The appellant society argued that the government had destroyed water tanks in Tirupathi town by allocating the land for urban development. [2] While development needs had to be considered, natural resources like lakes are held by the State in trust for the public, and cannot be disposed of without recognizing this trust. [3] The Court prohibited further construction on the land but allowed existing developments, and issued directions to preserve the remaining water resources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. AIR 2006 SC 1350 - (Public Trust Doctrine)

    Uploaded by

    Soumiki Ghosh
    1K views4 pages
    The Supreme Court case Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P. addressed the public trust doctrine in environmental law. [1] The appellant society argued that the government had destroyed water tanks in Tirupathi town by allocating the land for urban development. [2] While development needs had to be considered, natural resources like lakes are held by the State in trust for the public, and cannot be disposed of without recognizing this trust. [3] The Court prohibited further construction on the land but allowed existing developments, and issued directions to preserve the remaining water resources.

    Original Title

    Intellectuals Forum

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court case Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P. addressed the public trust doctrine in environmental law. [1] The appellant society argued that the government had destroyed water tanks in Tirupathi town by allocating the land for urban development. [2] While development needs had to be considered, natural resources like lakes are held by the State in trust for the public, and cannot be disposed of without recognizing this trust. [3] The Court prohibited further construction on the land but allowed existing developments, and issued directions to preserve the remaining water resources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views4 pages

    Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. AIR 2006 SC 1350 - (Public Trust Doctrine)

    Uploaded by

    Soumiki Ghosh
    The Supreme Court case Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P. addressed the public trust doctrine in environmental law. [1] The appellant society argued that the government had destroyed water tanks in Tirupathi town by allocating the land for urban development. [2] While development needs had to be considered, natural resources like lakes are held by the State in trust for the public, and cannot be disposed of without recognizing this trust. [3] The Court prohibited further construction on the land but allowed existing developments, and issued directions to preserve the remaining water resources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P.

    AIR 2006 SC 1350 - (Public Trust


    Doctrine)

    Introduction

    Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P. is a landmark judgment on public trust doctrine of


    environmental law. Here the grievance of the appellant society was in respect of alienation of
    tank bed lands of two tanks, which were situated in the suburbs of Tirupathi town, by the
    government in favour of some governmental agencies for the construction of houses. They
    complained about systematic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in
    their town, and alienation of the tank bed land to the Urban Development Authority and the
    A.P. Housing Board for the urban development of the land for housing purposes. They stated
    that the tanks were being put to use not only for irrigation purpose but also as lakes which
    were furthering percolation to improve the ground water table, thus serving the needs of the
    people in and around these tanks.

    Issues

     Whether the Urban Development Authority could be given primacy over the need
    protect environment?

     Whether the need of principle of sustainable development can be ignored over and
    above the Urban Development?

     Whether the action of Arunachal Pradesh Government in taking the impugned


    decisions is permissible under the light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution ?

    Arguments of Appellants

    The major argument by the appellant was that the development of towns focuses only on the
    economic growth of the people by ignoring the importance and primacy attached to the
    protection of environment and the production of valuable resources that is freshwater
    resources.

    Arguments of Respondents

    It was submitted that the tank which is in question was abandoned as far back as in the year
    1992. He further contended that Tank area was bulldozed and the entire land was levelled. It
    was also observed that even after sinking that well to a depth of all about 60 feet, the land
    was not receiving any water from any ground. Therefore, proposal for abandonment of tank
    was applied to the district collector by the Revenue Divisional officer. After that public
    notices were published for any inviting objections related to the same matter but no
    objections were filed any individual.

    Judgement

    The court stated that nowadays, because of poverty, migration of people from rural areas to
    urban areas was a common phenomenon. Because of the limited infrastructure of the towns,
    the towns were becoming slums. The court therefore could not prevent the Government from
    proceeding with the proper development of the town in question. On the other hand, the tank
    was a communal property and the State authorities were trustees to manage such properties
    for the benefits of the community. They could not be allowed to commit any act which would
    infringe the right of the Community. The residential buildings planned by the authorities were
    mainly for high and middle income families, meaning that if the proposed constructions were
    not carried on, it seemed unlikely that anyone would be left without their basic need for
    shelter. Therefore, the right to shelter did not seem to be so pressing under the present
    circumstances so as to outweigh all environmental considerations. The decision of this case
    could also not be based solely upon the money already spent by the respondents on the
    development of the land. Otherwise, once any party made certain investment in a project, it
    would be a fait accompli and the Court would not have any option but to deem it legal.
    Therefore, the Court should do the most it could to safeguard the two tanks in question.
    However, due to the persistent developmental activities over a long time, much of the natural
    resources of the lakes had been lost, and considered irreparable. This, though regrettable, was
    beyond the power of the court to rectify. The court, after taking into account all these
    principles of law, and considering the competing claims of environment and the need for
    housing, disposed of the appeals with the directions, among others, that no further
    constructions was allowed to be made, each house already constructed had to provide
    structure for roof top rain water harvesting, all the storm water in the already built colonies
    had to be recharged to ground water and no borewell/ tubewell for any purpose was allowed
    in the area.

    The Court held that the environment protection and conservation of natural resources has
    been given status of a fundamental right and brought under article 21 of the Constitution. The
    court also pointed out that articles 48-A and 51-A are not only fundamental in the governance
    of the country but also it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making
    laws and further these two Articles are to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and
    purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Analysis

    The Supreme Court observed that according to public trust doctrine, natural resources, which
    include lakes, are held by the State as a "Trustee" of the public, and can be disposed of only
    in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust.

    Doctrine of Public Trust- As the court mentioned, this doctrine, though in existence from
    Roman times, was enunciated in its modern form by the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central
    Railroad Company v. People of the State of Illinois, where the Court held:

    The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State in their character as
    sovereign, in trust for public uses for which they are adapted, the state holds the title to the
    bed of navigable waters upon a public trust, and no alienation or disposition of such property
    by the State, which does not recognize and is not in execution of this trust is permissible.

    What this doctrine says therefore is that natural resources, which include lakes, are held by
    the State as a "trustee" of the public, and can be disposed of only in a manner that is
    consistent with the nature of such a trust. Though this doctrine existed in the Roman and
    English Law, it related to specific types of resources. The US Courts have expanded and
    given the doctrine its contemporary shape whereby it encompasses the entire spectrum of the
    environment.

    Formulated from a nugatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the
    property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely
    available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any
    action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that
    attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinize such actions of the government the
    court must make a distinction between the government's general obligation to act for the
    public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of
    certain public resources. Since lot of construction had already been completed and there was
    need for housing, the court disposed of the appeals following the principles of sustainable
    development. The court prohibited further construction on the said land and issued various
    other directions to preserve the tank bed area and water.

    Conclusion

    The debate between the development and economic needs and that of the environment is
    enduring one, since if the environment is destroyed for any purpose without a compelling
    development cause, it will most probably run foul of the executive and judicial safeguards. In
    response to this difficulty, policy makers and judicial bodies across the world have produced
    the concept of sustainable development. Accordingly, the court has to follow the principle of
    sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs and
    environmental degradation.

    You might also like