BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Application No. 153 of 2014 (SZ) In the matter of: The President Karur Mavatta Nilathadi Neer Padhugapu Matrum Sayakazhival Pathikkapatta Vivasayigal Sangam Karur Rep.by its President Mr. K. Ramasamy.. Applicant AND 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Principal Secretary Environment and Forests Fort St. George Chennai- 600 009 2. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 100, Anna Salai Guindy, Chennai-32 3. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Karur 1
4. The District Collector Karur District Karur 5. The Karur Municipality Rep.by its Commissioner Karur District and Taluk Respondents Counsel appearing: Applicant: Shri A. Yogeshwaran, Advocate Respondents: M/s. M.K. Subramanian and M.R. Gokul Krishnan, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 and 4; Shrimathi H. Yasmeen Ali, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3; Shri K. Balasubramani, Advocate for respondent No. 5. ORDER Present: 1. Hon ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member 2. Hon ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member Dated: 30 th July, 2014 (Hon ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) The application herein is filed by the applicant aggrieved by the 5 th respondent, Karur Municipality as a part of its project to build a 2
bus stand at Karupampalayam Panchayat, Thirumanilaiyur, Karur seeking for issuing directions to the respondents (i) to remove all obstructions created across the Thirumanilaiyur Rajavaikkal and canals branching from it (ii) to restore the Thirumanilaiyur Rajavaikal to its natural status and (iii) to maintain the Thirumanillayur Rajavaikal (for short canal ) free from obstructions. 2. The case of the applicant can be briefly stated as follows: The State Government issued an order on 20.06.2013 to construct and set up a bus stand at Karupampalayam panchayat, Thirumanilaiyur, Karur. As per the proposal, the bus stand was to be constructed on the lands comprised in S.Nos. 95 part, 97 part, 98 part 113 part, 114 part, 115 part, 116 part, 117 part, 118 to 122, 123 part, 146 part, 147 part, 148 part, 149, 150 part, 151 part, 152 part, 243 part, 246 part, 247 part, and 248. The proposal for the construction of bus stand was in 8.29 acres and approach road in 0.91 acre and roads on 2.94 acres altogether in an extent of 12.14 acres. The authorities have not seen that the canal is a major irrigation canal and irrigation channels are branching from the said canal through part of the lands comprised in the S.Nos.referred to above. While the construction of bus stand is a welcome step, it should not be at the cost of environment and livelihood of several 3
hundred people. The present proposal of the respondents envisages filling up and blocking the canals for conversion to facilitate the setting up the bus-stand. 3. The respondent authorities filled the canals and leveled the surface, blocking the canal completely and also closing several small canals branching off the canal, about two months ago. These lands were affected by the discharge from the dyeing units and the lands have now only been recovered and the farmers in the area are cultivating their lands. The sole source of irrigation in the region is the Thirumanilyur Rajavaikal and the canals branching from it. The present decision and the filling of the above canal will result in the deprival of water for irrigation to the farmers. 4. The applicant has submitted several representations to the respondent authorities requesting them to remove the debris and clear the water way of the canal. However, no action was taken by the respondents till date. The photographs of the area filled in by the respondents would clearly show the damage caused by the illegal action of the respondents. It appears that there is no permission obtained from the Public Works Department or the Revenue Department for the said filling of the canal and other branch canals. 4
5. In the matter of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. K.C. Kenchappa and Ors. (Appeal (Civil) 7405 of 2000 dated 12.05.2006), the Hon ble Supreme Court has directed as follows: The importance and awareness of environment and ecology is becoming so vital and important that we, in our judgment, want the appellant to insist on the conditions emanating from the principle of Sustainable Development. We direct, in future, before acquisition of lands for development, the consequences of adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment. The above direction has been flouted by the respondent authorities in filling the canal and other canals branching from it. 6. The respondent authorities have not considered the environmental impact of their actions and the same is contrary to law and the action of the respondents is contrary to the Principles of 5
Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle and Inter Generational Equity. The respondents have failed to see that a water body cannot be destroyed or appropriated for any purpose. 7. Hence, the applicant seeks to issue directions to the respondent authorities (i) to remove all obstructions created across the Thirumanilaiyur Rajavaikkal and channels branching from it (ii) to restore the Thirumanilaiyur Rajavaikal to its natural status and (iii) to maintain the Thirumanillayur Rajavaikal free from obstructions. 8. Per contra, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents /Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for short Board ) in their reply would state that the proposed site for the construction of the new bus stand was inspected on 14.07.2014 and found to be located adjacent to the road connecting Thirumanilaiyur and Sukkaliyur on the southern side, but the canal was found to be passing on the northern side of the road at a distance of about 375 m from the new bus stand. The existing bus stand is functioning in the northern side of Amaravathy river and the new bus stand is proposed on the southern side of Amaravathy river at about 450 m from the river. The canal is flowing in between the river and the proposed site for the new bus stand at a distance of 75 m from the river. During inspection, the site was 6
found cleared of wild vegetation by the Karur Municipal authorities and is now a vacant site. The construction works were not yet started. The site is surrounded by the Thirumanilaiyur-Sukkaliyur road and dry agriculture lands on the northern side, closed dyeing units and dry agriculture lands on the western side, industrial buildings and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation depot on the eastern side and dry agriculture lands on the southern side. The irrigation canal is maintained by the Public Works department/local Body. In any growing city, there will have to be increase in the public facilities to cater to the needs of the growing population. The construction of a new bus stand in Karur is for the public need. The applicant has not mentioned any specific environmental issue in the above construction of the bus stand. 9. There were 487 yarn dyeing and bleaching units functioning in Karur District. All the units (members of 8 Common Effluent Treatment Plants and individual Effluent Treatment Plants) except a few which were closed by disconnecting power supply as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court, Madras in W.P.No. 24650 of 2003) dated 16.11.2009. Out of those closed units in Karur, only 62 units which were issued with orders of suspension of closure direction and restoration of power supply operate with Zero Liquid 7
Discharge to treat and reuse the effluent. All other units remain closed. The applicant has mentioned that the lands have been recovered and the farmers are cultivating their lands. The status of dyeing units and construction of bus stand has no relevancy. 10. As per the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification No. S.O.1533 dated 14.09.2006 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, prior Environmental Clearance (for short EC ) is not required for the construction of the bus stand. However, there are 8 types of projects mentioned in the said notification which require prior EC. If the above proposed project attracts item No. 8 of the Notification dated 14.09.2006 as per the specifications and conditions mentioned therein, the above project requires prior EC from the competent authority. 11. Hence, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents/board submits that the Tribunal may be pleased to pass appropriate order as it may deem fit and proper in this case. 12. The 4 th respondent/district Collector, Karur would state in reply that the present application is premature as no work has commenced in the proposed site which is selected for the location of the new bus stand. Several writ petitions were filed before the Hon ble High Court of Madras in Madurai Bench challenging the 8
resolution passed by the 5 th respondent/municipality dated 28.12.2012 with regard to the selection of the land for the location of the new bus stand in W.P.(MD).Nos. 188, 372, 1404, 1648 and 4310 of 2013 and all these were dismissed by the Hon ble High Court on 05.12.2013. Thereafter, the resolution was accepted by the Government and a Government order was passed in G.O.87 dated 20.06.2013. The said Government order was also challenged in several writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos. 18881, 19749 of 2013, 536, 2746, 5774 and 5999 of 2014 on the same issue which has been raised by the applicant herein in this application and the Hon ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court after considering all the submissions passed a detailed order on 28.04.2014 dismissing all the writ petitions and cost was also imposed to the petitioners in two of the writ petitions. It is true that as per the said Government order, the Karur Municipality has passed the resolution dated 20.06.2013 for the formation of the new bus stand for the welfare of the people of Karur, due to over density and due to the scarcity of place in the present bus stand in Karur Town. The land which was selected and allotted for the formation of the new bus stand does not pass through the canal. Further, there was no cultivation neither agriculture nor irrigation was carried out in the locality of the land for the past several years and the 9
proposed land was barren wet land which was allotted for the construction of new bus stand. 13. As per the Government order dated 20.06.2013, the proposed new bus stand which is yet to be constructed in the Thirumanilaiyur Village in the 95 part, 97 part, 98 part 113 part, 114 part, 115 part, 116 part, 117 part, 118 to 122, 123 part, 146 part, 147 part, 148 part, 149, 150 part, 151 part, 152 part, 243 part, 246 part, 247 part, and 248 part in an extent of 12.14 acres. Further, as per the village revenue records, the S.Nos. 153, 154, 241 and 242 alone were mentioned as canal that too situate far away from the proposed land. The averment that the respondents have filled and blocked the canal is denied and the canal is not passing through the survey numbers mentioned in the Government order which were selected for the new bus stand. With regard to the averments that no action was taken by the respondents for removal of debris and to clear the water way of the canal, not even the preliminary works were started till now and no tender has been floated for the preparion of design, drawings and for estimation of sanction of funds and then going for actual field work. 14. Pertaining to the averment that the respondents have violated the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of 10
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board vs. K.C. Kenchappa and others in Appeal (Civil) No. 7405 of 2000 dated 12.05.2006, the said Judgment has enumerated certain conditions to be fulfulled while goring for sustainable development and the respondent will follow the conditions as imposed by the Hon ble Supreme Court when the stage arises. 15. The allegation that the respondent has not considered the environmental impact is false and no preliminary works have been commenced. The respondent will instruct the 5 th respondent to follow the procedure and to get clearance from the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents before commencing the work and whatever conditions imposed by them would be strictly adhered to. The respondent has no intention to destroy any water sources. 16. The respondent being the District Administrator would further add that from the year 1998 onwards the Karur Municiplaity is trying to shift the existing bus stand as the same is so congested and frequent traffic jams are occurring. Before finalizing the land for the proposed integrated new bus stand for the Karur Municipality all the parameters were considered and consulted the relevant departments including, Police, Revenue, Public Works, Regional Transport Authority and Highways and thereafter only the said land 11
was proposed and the G.O.No.87 dated 20.06.2013 was passed. The present site is the most suitable for the proposed bus stand as the same is 3 km from the present bus stand and railway station, 0.5 km from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus depot, 5 km from the Collectorate, new court complex and police head quarters, 2.5 km from the Municipal office, Government hospital and Taluk office, 4 km from the Government Arts College, important schools, NH 7 and NH 67 roads, especially the access road of the proposed bus stand is situated just at the entry point of Karur Town. The buses from the four directions will reach the proposed bus stand without any traffic congestion. The resolution has been approved by 47 council members out of the total strength of 48 members. The location of the bus stand in the new site is in public interest and caters to the needs of the public at large. 17. The 4 th respondent/district Collector would therefore finally conclude that as per the rules and regulations which were initiated by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Chennai and by the superior authorities of the revenue department and also as per law, the respondent is following the procedure while performing her duties to the public as the law permits. As per the original revenue records and by verifying the title over the disputed land which was 12
selected for the formation of the proposed integrated new bus stand and by ascertaining the right over the property and also by verifying the selected site through the subordinates of the 4 th respondent is performing the duties for the welfare of the public. The applicant has filed this application by suppressing the real facts and had not come out with clean hands and came forward with false averments with mala fide intention to cause loss and hardships to the respondents. 18. On the above submissions, the 4 th respondent seeks to dismiss the Application. 19. The 5 th respondent/karur Municipality in reply would state that several writ petitions were filed before the Hon ble High Court, Madras challenging the resolution of the 5 th respondent/municipality dated 28.12.2012 with regard to the selection of the land for location of the integrated new bus stand in W.P.(MD).Nos. 188, 372, 1404, 1648 and 4310 of 2013 and all the writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of Madurai of the Hon ble High Court, Madras on 05.12.2013. Thereafter, the resolution was accepted by the Government and a Government order was passed by the Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply in G.O.Ms.No. 87 dated 20.06.2013. The said 13
Government order was also challenged in several writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos. 18881, 19749 of 2013, 536, 2746, 5774 and 5999 of 2014 on the same issue which has been raised by the applicant herein in this application and the Hon ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court after considering all the submissions passed a detailed order on 28.04.2014 dismissing all the writ petitions and cost was also imposed to the petitioners in two of the writ petitions. 20. Denying vehemently that the 5 th respondent/municipality has blocked and filled the canal, only a Government order has been passed accepting the resolution of the 5 th respondent/municipality with respect to the identification of land for setting up a new integrated bus stand and not even preliminary works have been started and tenders were floated now for preparation of design, drawings and estimation. The canal is not passing through the lands in the S.Nos. which are selected for formation of the bus stand. Further, there were no agricultural activities in that locality for the past several years and the site is totally a barren land. During the operation of the interim injunction against from going ahead with tender process for appointment of consultant for preparation of a detailed project report for establishing the bus stand, the 5 th 14
respondent cannot commence even preliminary works without a project report. 21. The Canal is not passing through the S.Nos.which are selected for formation of the bus stand. The canal is running through S.Nos. 153,154, 218, 223, 237, 241, 242, 254 and 256 of Thirumanilaiyur village and the lands in the above S.Nos. are not included in the G.O.Ms.No.87 wherein the site for formation of the bus stand was approved by the Government. Further the lands selected for the bus stand in S.Nos. 95 part, 97 part, 98 part 113 part, 114 part, 115 part, 116 part, 117 part, 118 to 122, 123 part, 146 part, 147 part, 148 part, 149, 150 part, 151 part, 152 part, 243 part, 246 part, 247 part, and 248 part where only part of the lands were donated for formation of the bus stand and the remaining parts of the lands were held by the land owners themselves. There were no agricultural activities in that locality for the past several years and the site is totally a barren land. Moreover, there is no water course in the canal within the boundary of the proposed bus stand. As regards the removal of debris and clearing the waterway, the 5 th respondent is not connected with the above activities. With regard to the averment that the prior permission from Public Works and Revenue Department was not obtained, the Government order 15
has been passed accepting the resolution of the 5 th respondent for identifying the lands required for the setting up of the bus stand and not even preliminary works were started. The conditions imposed in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. K.C. Kenchappa and Ors. (Appeal (Civil) 7405 of 2000 dated 12.05.2006) by the Hon ble Supreme Court would be followed by the 5 th respondent while the stage arises. 22. The 5 th respondent has to obtain clearance from the 2 nd and 3 respondents/board before commencing the work and whatever condition imposed by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondent/ Board will be strictly adhered to and the 5 th respondent has no intention to destroy the water sources. 23. The 5 th respondent has considered all the parameters and consulted the relevant departments like, District Collectorate, Police, Revenue, PWD, Regional Transport Authority and Highways before finalizing the land for the proposed bus stand and only thereafter the site was finalized. The necessary clearance certificates from the concerned authorities with regard to the location of the bus stand were obtained. The proposed bus stand is situate well beyond the safety distance from Amaravathy river basin and other water sources. From the year 1998 onward, the 5 th 16
respondent is trying to shift the existing bus stand as the same is congested and frequent traffic jam is occurring. However, by one way or other the respondent s efforts to shift the bus stand was stalled and now only it came to the stage of passing of a Government order by the Government approving the present site for establishing the new bus stand for the 5 th respondent/municipality. 24. The present site is the most suitable for the proposed bus stand as the same is 3 km from the present bus stand and railway station, 0.5 km from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus depot, 5 km from the Collectorate, new court complex and police head quarters, 2.5 km from the Municipal office, Government hospital and Taluk office, 4 km from the Government Arts College, important schools, NH 7 and NH 67 roads, especially the access road of the proposed bus stand is situated just at the entry point of Karur Town. The buses from the four directions will reach the proposed bus stand without any traffic congestion. The resolution has been approved by 47 council members out of the total strength of 48 members. The location of the bus stand in the new site is in public interest and caters to the needs of the public at large. 25. On the above plea, the 5 th respondent/karur Municiplity 17
seeks to vacate the status quo order dated 11.06.2014 of the Tribunal and to dismiss the application as devoid of merits. 26. From the above pleadings made by both side, the following points emerge for determination. 1. Whether the applicant has made out a case calling for interference of the Tribunal for exercise of its jurisdiction under the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled for any direction to the respondents as asked for in view of all or any of the reasons mentioned in the application. 27. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the applicant Shri T.Mohan, learned counsel would submit that the 5 th respondent/karur Municipality has proposed to construct an integrated central bus stand in 8.29 acres and approach road on 0.91 acres and roads on 2.94 acres, altogether on 12.14 acres through the lands comprised in many field survey numbers shown in the application, pursuant to a Government order dated 20.06.2013. Though the construction of a bus stand is a welcome step, it should not be at the cost of environment and livelihood of several hundreds of people including agriculturists. The authorities have not seen that the canal which is a major irrigation canal and 18
other channels branching off from the main canal run through a part of the land comprised in the survey numbers. The proposal envisages filling up and blocking the canal by converting the lands for the purpose of the bus stand. Those lands were originally affected by the discharge of effluent from the dyeing units and in the recent past they have been recovered and the farmers have begun to cultivate the lands. If the respondents are allowed to construct the bus stand by filling and blocking the canal, which is the sole source of irrigation in the region, it would certainly hamper the cultivation by deprival of water for irrigation. 28. Pointing to the map prepared by the Director of Land Records (Annexure-II), the counsel would submit that the canal is actually passing through the S.Nos. 242, 243 and also in 247 part and hence it would be futile on the part of the respondents to state that the main canal is not passing through the lands wherein the proposed bus stand is to be constructed. The 5 th respondent has not obtained any permission for filling the said canal or other channels branching off from the main canal either from Public Works Department or Revenue Department. 29. Placing reliance of the judgment of the Apex Court of India in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. K.C. 19
Kenchappa and others in Appeal (Civil) No. 7405 of 2000 dated 12.05.2006, the learned counsel would add that the act and activities of the 5 th respondent are in thorough violation of the said judgment. In the instant case, the consequences and adverse impact of development on environment was not comprehended and the construction of the bus stand on the said lands would certainly gravely impair the ecology and environment. From the documents produced, it would be quite clear that the directions of the Apex Court have been flouted by the respondent authorities. Not only the respondents have not considered the environmental impact of their activities, as also law, the Principles of Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle and Inter Generational Equity. Whatever be the purpose, a water body should not be allowed to be destroyed. During the recent past, when water was released from Chettipalayam check dam from Amaravathy River, only the farmers dependant on this canal were left without water. Thus, it becomes that the obstruction made by the respondents in the water course have to be removed in order to safeguard the interest of entire villagers and agriculturists. Though it is contended by the 3 rd respondent that an inspection was made on 14.07.2014 to the effect that the lands in question were found to be free from any construction, the said inspection report was not produced before 20
the Tribunal. But, from the said contention, it would be quite clear that the branch channels have also to be filled. Any kind of construction or conversion works cannot be done without obtaining clearance under EIA Notification, 2006. It is futile on the part of the respondents to contend that the canal and channels have become defunct over the years and ceased to exist as canals and channels. The contention putforth by the respondents that there were no agriculture lands in the area to be irrigated by the canal has to be rejected as false. Since the authorities have filled and blocked the said canal and the channels, their contention that the application is premature is thoroughly unfounded. Equally, the contention that the application was filed after the dismissal of the Writ Petition before the Hon ble High Court, Madras has to be rejected for the simple reason that the applicant in this application was neither the petitioner before the High Court nor he had anything to do with those proceedings. So long as the fact that the canals and channels are running through the subject lands remain as true and correct, the 5 th respondent s illegal construction of the proposed bus stand is to be injuncted apart from directing the respondents to restore the canal in its original condition. Hence, the application has to be ordered granting the reliefs as prayed for. 21
30. As seen above, the applicant has sought for a direction to the respondents to remove all obstruction created across the canal and the branch channels and for restoring the same to their natural state and to maintain them free from obstruction. 31. On the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The Tribunal paid its consideration on the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for both sides and also all the materials made available. Point No. 1 and 2: 32. Admittedly, the 5 th respondent/karur Municipality, made a resolution on 28.12.2012 with regard to the selection of the land for location of the integrated new bus stand. The State Government also passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 87, Municipal Administration and Water Supply dated 20.06.2013. The said Government order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD).Nos. 18891,19749 of 2013, 536, 2746, 5774, 5999 of 2014 before the Division Bench of the Hon ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court after considering the merits of the case and material placed, made a detailed order on 28.04.2014 dismissing all 22
the writ petitions with cost. It is pertinent to point out that the subject matter covered under the G.O.85 dated 20.06.2013 which was challenged before the High Court is exactly the same in the present application. While all the writ petitions were dismissed on 28.04.2014, the present application was filed on 30.05.2014. The applicant who calls himself as the president of Karur Mavatta Nilathadi Neer Pathukappu Matrum Saayakazhival Pathikkapatta Vivasayigal Sangam, an organization for the sole purpose of securing the welfare of the farmers in the area and protecting the environment and ecology of the region cannot be allowed to say that he had no knowledge about those proceedings. The contention putforth by the applicant that he was not a party in those writ proceedings cannot be a reason to allow him to re-agitate the same before this forum. 33. It is not in controversy and also evident from the date of G.O.No.85 dated 20.06.2013 that the proposed integrated new bus stand for Karur in Thirumanilaiyur village is to be constructed in S.Nos. 95 part, 97 part, 98 part, 113 part, 114 part, 115 part, 116 part, 117 part, 118 to 122, 123 part, 146 part, 147 part, 148 part, 150 part, 151 part, 152 part, 243 part, 246 part, 247 part, and 248 part in an extent of 12.14 acres. As per the proposal, the bus stand 23
has to be constructed in 8.29 acres with approach road in 0.91 acres and roads in 2.94 acres. 34. Speaking on the jurisdiction of the NGT, section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows: 14. Tribunal to settle disputes:- (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. 2. Definitions:- substantial question relating to environment shall include an instance where,- (i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environment obligation by a person by which,- (A) the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals is 24
affected or likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or (B) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial ; or (C) the damage to public health is broadly measurable; (ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution. 35. What are all averred by the applicant seeking the above reliefs in his application are as follows: The proposal to construct the bus stand, while a welcome step, ought not to be at the cost of environment and livelihood of several hundred people. The lands were affected by the discharge from the dyeing units and the lands have only now recovered and the farmers in the area are cultivating their lands. The sole source of irrigation in the region is the Thirumanilaiyur Raja Voikkal (canal) and channels branching from it. The present decision and the filling up of the said canal by the respondents will result in the farmers being deprived of water for irrigation. 25
36. It is quite evident from the above averments or allegations made in the application that they are as generic as they could be. They do not indicate any direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation of a person showing either the applicant or a group of individuals are affected or likely to be affected by environmental consequences. They do not point out any damage to environment or property which is substantial. They do not speak about any environmental consequences related to a specific activity or pointing to source of pollution. Thus, in short, it can be stated that the applicant has not shown any substantial question involving or relating to environment or enforcement of any legal right relating to environment. Thus the averments in the application do not make out a case requiring exercise of jurisdiction of the Tribunal as envisaged under the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010. 37. It is a specific pleaded case of the applicant that the canal (Thirumanilaiyur Raja Voikkal) and the channels branching off therefrom are the only source of irrigation in the said region and the proposed construction, if allowed would be blocking the lands in the survey numbers through which the canal and its branch channels are passing through which would result in deprival of water for farmers for irrigation. This contention is flatly denied by all the 26
respondents. The map prepared by the Director of Land Records placed before the Tribunal was perused. It is true that the main canal is passing through S.Nos. 242 and 243. Thus, it would be quite clear that the main canal does not pass through any of the other survey numbers. In so far as those 2 survey numbers are concerned, the explanation tendered by the respondents side has to be accepted. It is contended by the respondents side that the main canal flowing through those 2 survey numbers is at a distance of 75 m from the proposed site for the new bus stand. Hence, merely because the main canal is passing through the sand 2 survey numbers, the entire project proposal for the bus stand cannot be rejected. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the channels branching off from the main canal are shown to be flowing along S.Nos. 95 part, 97 part, 98 part, 113 part, 114 part, 115 part, 116 part, 117 part, 118 to 122, 123 part, 146 part, 147 part, 148 part, 150 part, 151 part, 152 part, 243 part, 246 part, 247 part, and 248 part and they are part and parcel of the proposed land and this also stood unnoticed by the authorities. It is admitted by both sides that there are no channels branching off from the main canal in those survey numbers. It is not the pleaded case of the applicant that those channels branching off from the main canal did exist in the near past and they were obliterated by 27
the 5 th respondent. Also, no evidence is adduced to indicate as to the existence of the channels in the past. According to the 3 rd respondent/district Environmental Engineer, an inspection of the site for the proposed new bus stand was made on 14.07.2014 in respect of which he has filed a sworn affidavit from which it could be seen that the proposed bus stand site is located on the southern side adjacent to the road connecting Thirumanilaiyur- Sukkaliyur roundtana. But, the main canal is passing on the northern side of the road at a distance of 375 m from the proposed new bus stand. It is also seen from the affidavit that the new bus stand is proposed on the southern side of the Amaravathy River about 450 m from the river and the main canal is in between the river and the proposed site for the new bus stand at a distance of 75 m from the river. It was also noticed by him that the site is surrounded by dry agricultural lands on the northern side, closed dyeing units on the western side, and industrial buildings and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus depot on the eastern side. The District Collector, the 4 th respondent, has also filed an affidavit to the effect that no cultivation neither agricultural nor irrigation was carried out in the location of the land for the past several years and the proposed lands were barren wet lands which were allotted for the new bus stand. 28
38. It is not the case of the applicant that he is an agriculturist having any holding in that region, nor is he an affected party. It is pertinent to point out that though the applicant averred that hundreds of agriculturists were affected by the said proposal for construction of a new bus stand, no complaint was made by any agriculturists. If aggrieved as contended by the applicant they would have approached the forum calling for interference. The Tribunal is unable to see any reasons or circumstances to doubt, disbelieve or reject the statements made by both the District Collector and the District Environmental Engineer concerned. 39. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the rulings of the Apex Court made in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. K.C. Kenchappa and others in Appeal (Civil) No. 7405 of 2000 dated 12.05.2006 relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be applied to the present factual position, since the said ruling was rendered where lands were acquired for development. But in the instant case, no acquisition of lands for construction of the new bus stand is pleaded or shown. 40. Needless to say that the construction of the integrated new bus stand to cater to the needs of the growing population that too 29
when it is faced with over density and to increase the public facility is a positive step towards the welfare of the public at large. It is brought to the notice of the Tribunal that even the resolution of the 5 th respondent/municipality with regard to the selection of the lands for location of the new bus stand was challenged before the Hon ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by filing a number of writ petitions and when the writ petitions were dismissed, the GO. No.85 dated 20.06.2013 was again challenged by filing a number of writ petitions referred to above. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the writ petitions, the present application has been filed which does not make out a case for granting the reliefs sought for. 41. The application is devoid of merits and hence dismissed. No cost. (Justice M. Chockalingam) Judicial Member (Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran) Expert Member Chennai 30 th July, 2014 30
31