TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O.Ms.650 Revenue department dated 13.11.2008, Government alienated an extent of 250 hectares of grazing ground poramboke lands comprised in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 of Thervoy village for establishment of second Industrial complex in Tiruvallur District to be transferred to the name of SIPCOT subject to certain conditions. Petitioner association claims to have been formed working for the benefit of residents of Thervoy kandigai village. (ii) Grievance of the Petitioner association is that the lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are being used as grazing lands as well as afforestation programme under the village community forest programmes. An Agreement to the afforestation of about 250 hectares in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 as part of social programme was entered into on 04.2.2008 by the department of Forest and Thervoy panchayat. According to Petitioner Association, after the execution of the agreement, village community and their representatives have been actively participating in the afforestation programme. While so, acquiring Meikkal poramboke lands for industrial estate would cause depletion of forest area. Further case of the Petitioner is that conditions imposed in the said G.O. do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to the industries proposed to be set up. 6. SIPCOT / 7th Respondent has filed counter contending that the lands transferred are not forest lands and there is no prohibition to transfer such lands and the lands in question were not acquired, but transferred by the revenue department to SIPCOT. The lands are though classified as grazing lands are not used for grazing for the past many decades which are covered by thorny bushes and shrubs are only converted into industrial land without any disturbance to water bodies and there is no forest or forest land in S.F.Nos.32/2 and 33/2. It is further averred that any industry established in any area will have to get clearance of the 5th Respondent with respect to pollution level and no effluent will be discharged as apprehended by the Petitioner and the catchment area will be preserved. 7. Submitting that only in exceptional circumstances Meikkal poramboke could be transferred, Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia raised the following contentions:- Without obtaining environmental clearance as per Notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi dated 14.09.2006, there cannot be development of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It was further argued that there is no forest land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 and therefore, provisions of Forest Conservation Act would not apply. 10. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned standing counsel for 5th Respondent Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board [TNPCB] submitted that so far no application has been received for the proposed SIPCOT blocks and as and when application is received, 5th Respondent would examine and consider all the aspects before grant of consent to the industries proposed to be set up in the said land as per the provisions of relevant Acts. 11. Raising serious doubts about the bonafide of Petitioner Sangam, Mr. P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General for 7th Respondents submitted the following contentions:- Petitioner's Sangam came into existence only ten days prior to the filing of the Writ Petition and lacking in bonafide. For development of industrial park/estate by clearing bushes and shrubs, no environmental clearance is required as per the Notification dated 14.9.2006. Before transfer of land to SIPCOT on 11.1.2007 there was public notice in the village and statement of public was also recorded. After due hearing, G.O.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area. 14. Land and grounds of challenge: The lands are located in Thervoy kandigai village about 65 kilometres from Chennai and has proximity to Ennore Port and also Gummidipoondi Industrial Estate. The proposed lands are classified as Meikkal Poramboke. 15. In Thervoy kandigai village, details of grazing ground poramboke are : S.No. Extent in (Hect) 32/2 348.97.0 33/2 107.30.0 33/1 6.50.0 239 91.42.0 ---------- Total 554.19.0 Hectares (or) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not considered; (v) Change of user from Meikkal poramboke to industrial estate is arbitrary and not in accordance with the Policy of Government. Though, non-obtaining of environment clearance as per Notification dated 14.9.2006 was raised as first point, we propose to deal with that contention after considering other grounds of challenge. 18. Scope of Judicial Review:- In 1994 (6) SCC 651 [Tata Cellular v. UOI], Supreme Court observed that Judicial quest in administrative matters is to strike the just balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters as per Government Policy, and the need of fairness. Any unfair action must be set right by judicial review. 19. Considering the scope of judicial review and referring to various case laws, in 2009 AIR SCW 4623 [Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and another], the Supreme Court has held as under:- 25. ....... There is no difficulty to hold that the authorities owe a duty to act fairly but it is equally well settled in judicial review, the court is not concerned with the merits or correctness of the decision, but with the manner in which the decision is taken or the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial review is not concerned with the merits or correctness of the decision, but the manner in which the decision has been taken. 22. Bearing in mind the above parameters, we proceed with the question whether the impugned notification transferring the land Meikkal poramboke to SIPCOT for forming industrial estate is vitiated by abuse of power and arbitrariness. 23. Sustainable Development:- The neo-expansion of Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees two important fundamental rights, right to life and right to personal liberty. In the area of environmental justice, the right to live is most relevant. After Maneka Gandhi's case [AIR 1978 SC 597], the right to live has seen new dimensions and one of the new emerging facets is the right to live in a clean environment. In this wave length the Apex Court in Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti's case [AIR 1990 SC 2060], once again reiterated that, every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus anything that endangers or impairs the quality of life or living of the people, will attract the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal human rights. The development is not related only to the growth of GNP. In the classic work, Development As Freedom, the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen pointed out that the issue of development cannot be separated from the conceptual framework of human right ........ The right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples' well-being and realization of their full potential. It is an integral part of human rights. ...... 30. In 1996 (5) SCC 647 [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others], the Supreme Court dealt with the principles of Sustainable Development as a concept recognised in the international sphere. The Supreme Court made it clear that the traditional concept of development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable and that Sustainable Development is an acceptable principle in the present day context. The emergence of the concept of Sustainable Development as pronounced in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the later decision of giving a definite shape to the said concept in the year 1987 by the World Commission on En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the very nature of the activity carried on . Consequently the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas . The Polluter Pays principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of Sustainable Development and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to state that by virtue of constitutional protection provided under Article 21 contained in Chapter III as well as Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A (g) falling under Chapter IV viz., Directive Principles of State policy, the principles drawn from the Sustainable Development concept have become the Law of the land. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o apply these principles in making laws and that these Articles are to be kept in mind in extending the scope and purport of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, along with the various laws enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave thrust to the accepted social principle that all human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that the present as well as the future generations are ensured of its maintenance and protection. 34. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court liberally dealt with the doctrine of 'Public Trust in the context of protection of natural resources such as lakes, forests etc., and held that such doctrine has now become part of Indian Jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment and therefore as a trustee, the State is under a legal obligation to protect such resources. 35. In (2004) 9 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be implemented taking pragmatic view and no ipse dixit of the Court and referring to various decisions, in 2006 (6) SCC 543 [Susetha v. State of T.N. and others], Supreme Court has held as under:- 21. In Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group [(2006) 3 SCC 434] referring to a large number of decisions, it was stated that whereas the need to protect the environment is a priority, it is also necessary to promote development stating: The harmonisation of the two needs has led to the concept of sustainable development, so much so that it has become the most significant and focal point of environmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations. Brundtland Report defines 'sustainable development' as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs. 22. Treating the principle of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the duty of the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. 70. The United Nations Water Conference in 1977 observed 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. 71. Similarly, this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [(2000) 10 SCC 664] observed as under: 248. Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. .... 72. In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 137] this Court gave a number of directions to reduce the pollution created by vehicles. 73. The need of the hour is inculcating a sense of urgency in implementing the rules relating to environmental protection which are not strictly followed. Its result would be disastrous for the health and welfare of the people. 74. The concept of sustainable development whose importance was the resolution of environmental problems is profound and undisputed. 38. Development and construction acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous contentions and facts involved in the case on hand. 39. Whether notification is vitiated by arbitrariness:- Taking document No.4419 dated 25.9.2006 in respect of S.No.251, valuation of land was taken as ₹ 4,777.50 per cent. For total extent of 393.40.0 Hectare (or) 971.70 acres, fixed the value of the land at ₹ 46,42,29,675/-. The District Collector has recommended that total amount of the above said land i.e. ₹ 92,84,59,350/- along with the value of 18 Mango trees i.e. ₹ 18,000/- totaling ₹ 92,84,77,350/- could be collected. While forwarding the report of the District Collector, in his report, Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration has expressed the views that an amount of ₹ 62,97,90,920/- could be collected from SIPCOT for approval of the lands. 40. Even though, land cost was ordered to be collected from SIPCOT for effecting transfer in the impugned order, Government ordered transfer of lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 to SIPCOT without sale price subject to the conditions that SIPCOT has to make available the equal extent of land transferred to Animal Husbandry department within three years. In case such alterna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the relaxation of the condition in transfer of Meikkal poramboke vis-a-vis G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001. Exercising judicial review, court is not primarily concerned whether particular decision is taken in the fulfillment of policy; but only concerned with the manner in which the decision was taken. 45. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT] is a wholly owned Corporation of Government of Tamil Nadu engaged in promoting industries all over Tamil Nadu and thereby generating employment opportunities besides wooing the foreign and local investments to Tamil Nadu. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that SIPCOT has been playing a key role in the industrialization of the State by establishing industrial complexes in the strategic locations. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per the industrial policy of Government of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu has intended for development of more industries to generate employment opportunities to the unemployed youth. For promoting industries and thereby to generate employment opportunities in Gummidipoondi Block, the Government is said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to the resolution passed by the village panchayat on 30.1.2007 saying 'no objection' for the project. Subsequently, there was a resolution dated 12.3.2007 retracting earlier resolution dated 30.1.2007. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the panchayat resolution dated 30.1.2007 did not keep in view the Grama Sabha resolution and rules were not followed before passing the resolution on 30.1.2007. In so far as resolutions passed by Grama Sabha panchayat, drawing our attention to Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha [Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings] Rules, 1998, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. P.Wilson submitted that neither rules were complied with nor there was quorum nor agenda was prepared and therefore, no reliance could be placed upon the said resolution allegedly passed by the Grama Sabha. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the said Grama Sabha meeting was held on 15.8.2009 which is a public holiday in contravention of Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha [Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings] Rules, 1998. 50. On 30.1.2007, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orestation Programme during 2008-2009, Forest department selected an area of 250.00 hectares in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 for afforestation work and Forest Ranger has entered into MOU with Thervoy kandigai panchayat President and village pople in February 2008. Since Government have issued orders to transfer the lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 to SIPCOT for setting up industrial park, the afforestation programme was shifted and carried out at Periyaveppathur village of Ponneri Taluk during 2008-2009. Hence, no afforestation works were carried out in Thervoy Kandigai village under Tamil Nadu Afforestation Programme. 53. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, MOU with villagers was only to have participation of the villagers in the afforestation programme wherein the rights and responsibilities of the villagers vis-a-vis Forest department have been brought out. MOU is executable only when afforestation work is taken up. Entering into MOU with villagers would not lead to an inference that the land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are to be deemed as forest land. 54. Placing reliance upon an unreported decision in W.P.No.20918/2008 [S.Chakravarthi v. District Collector, Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o far as, the existing trees, it is for the competent authority to decide the relevant questions. 56. Change of land use from Meikkal Poramboke to Industrial area:- Now we proceed to deal with the question whether the decision to change the land use from Meikkal poramboke as industrial area is unreasonable. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are Meikkal poraboke used as grazing ground by the livestock of Thervoy Kandigai village and other villages. It was submitted that the village has 90% literacy rate and the main occupation of the District is agriculture and allied activities and most of the farmers are marginal farmers holding small extents of land and their income is augmented by raising cattle. It was further submitted that the entire Meikkal poramboke lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are being used as grazing land and conversion of grazing land to industrial use will have disastrous consequences and the village communities would loose the grazing land and their livelihood. 57. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per RSO-15 (ix), grazing ground poramboke shall not be assigned. RSO-15 (ix) reads as under:- RSO-15 (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent v. Union of India and others], notification was issued changing the user of land from green use to office use and that notification came to be challenged. Holding that Government is the best person to decide whether a particular plot could be used for what purpose, Supreme Court held as under:- 2. ..... When a challenge is made to any notification issued by any authority in exercise of its statutory powers, the court can merely examine whether in issuance of such notification there has been any illegality or any infraction of any provision for which the court could interfere with the matter. ...... Upholding the notification, Supreme Court made it clear that construction of a building for the Defence Research and Development Organisation is equally an important task as a green pasture for the citizens. 62. In their counter-affidavit, SIPCOT has averred that sanction of 1127 acres of dry lands and unusable land with thorny bushes was classified as Government grazing poramboke. Having regard to the location of the land in industrially backward area where educated are plenty or unemployed, to provide job opportunity to the educated youth, Government proposed to set up i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- per hectare should be deposited in the local fund account. 65. In the impugned notification, G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 is referred to and it has been stipulated upon SIPCOT to identify the alternate land of the same extent within a period of three years either in the same District or in the adjacent District. The relevant clause reads as under:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 66. Ofcourse, clause 5 (ix) of the impugned notification states that in case if alternate grazing land is not identified, SIPCOT to pay the land cost, interest for three years and also developmental charges at the rate of ₹ 6000/- per acre. Onbehalf of the Petitioner, much arguments were advanced contending that clause 5 (ix) is totally opposed to the Policy of the Government and G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 which would vitiate the impugned notification. 67. Much emphasis was laid upon G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 wherein Government ordered that grazing land are not to be transferred for other purpose unless alternate land of same extent is developed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e land, SIPCOT to pay money. It was contended that such relaxation would amount to bartering away the interest of cattle which is opposed to G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 and the Policy of the Government. 71. The above contention does not merit acceptance. G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 is one of the Government Order of Animal Husbandry Department. The impugned notification cannot be examined vis-a-vis another Government Order. In the larger public interest, it is open to the Government to relax the conditions stipulated in another Government Order. 72. It is not as if Government had arbitrarily taken a decision. While the Government keep in view the interest of the villagers and also the cattle, in a welfare state duty of the Government is to proceed with the work of development also and take steps for the growth of Industries without affecting the environment. State Government to balance the need of environment, interest of villagers livestock and the need of economic development. 73. In (2000) 2 SCC 599 [Consumer Education research Society v. Union of India and others], State of Gujar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principle of polluter pays keeping in mind the principle of sustainable development and the principle of intergeneration equity . 75. To provide for alternate land of the same extent is the Policy decision of the Government. In appropriate circumstances, Government can take a decision to relax it. Petitioner cannot seek for a direction for implementation of such Policy decision. In (1990) 2 SCC 352 [Hindi Hitrakashak Samitiand others v. Union of India and others] question of holding entrance examination for pre-medical and pre-dental course for Hindi and regional language which was the Policy decision of the Government came to be challenged. Observing that there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative for such Policy decision, Supreme Court held as follows:- 8. It is well settled that judicial review, in order to enforce a fundamental right, is permissible of administrative, legislative and governmental action or non-action, and that the rights of the citizens of this country are to be judged by the judiciary and judicial forums and not by the administrators or executives. But it is equally true that citizens of India are not to be governed by the judges or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llage is 554.19.0 hectares or 1368.85 acres. Out of which 1127.00 acres has been transferred to SIPCOT for establishment of industrial complex. As submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there is balance of about 241.85 acres available for use as grazing land. That apart in the counter filed by the Respondents 3, 6 and 7, it is clearly stated that SIPCOT has come forward to set apart about 100 acres of land from out of 1127.00 acres of land transferred to it for use of grazing land to cater the needs of livestock in the village. As we pointed out as per the recommendation of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, the total land required, available live stocks in Thervoy Kandigai village would be around 190.30 acres. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and that SIPCOT has come forward to develop 100 acres of land for use as grazing land available land of 341.86 acres of land would be more than sufficient to cater all the requirements of livestocks available. 80. That apart, so far cattle were feeding themselves with the natural vegetation grown in 1368.85 acres. In our considered view, by intensifying fodder development in 341.86 acres, loss of larger extent c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate such poramboke. It was therefore contended that when the Village Panchayat has got right to regulate Meikkal poramboke, Government on its own cannot transfer Meikkal poramboke. 86. Sec.125 of the Act with respect of vesting of public roads in village panchayat. Panchayat roads vested with Village pancyayat for maintenance of roads and other allied purposes. Contention that Sec.134 is analogous to Sec.125 is farfetched. 87. Placing reliance upon CDJ 2005 MHC 387 [Vengaivasal Village Panchayat by its President v. The State of Tamilnadu others], it was contended when the consent of Village Panchayat was not taken and when Government ignored the concept of Panchayatraj, transfer of land to SIPCOT is liable to be quashed. In the said case, 'Vandipathai poramboke' [cart-track] within the meaning of public road defined u/s.2(28) of the Act was sought to be reclassified as 'Natham poramboke'. As per Sec.125(1) of the Act public road vested with Village Panchayat. In view of Sec.125(1), public road in question vested with Panchayat, Division Bench of this Court has held that the power conferred on the Government under Sec.125(2) is not absolute and independent, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 134 of the Act. 92. As per Rule 7 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Restriction and Control to Regulate the use of Porambokes in Ryotwari Tracts) Rules, 2000 The Village Panchayat may levy a fee for the use of any poramboke in accordance with the schedule of rates approved by the Collector, which shall not be less than seven per cent of the market value of the land for non-commercial purpose and fourteen per cent for commercial purpose. 93. Petitioner has not produced any document to show that poramboke land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are included in the list of porambokes maintained by Thervoy Village Panchayat nor any document produced to show that Village Panchayat has levied any fees on the use of those poramboke lands. Absolutely, there is no iota of material to show that poramboke land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are in Ryotwari tracts or that Thervoy village panchayat regulated its use at any point of time. In the absence of any such materials, grievance of the Petitioner as to violation of Sec.134 of the Act does not merit acceptance. 94. Environmental Impact [Water catchment area and Anicut]:- Next ground of challenge is in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave adverse impact of environment due to:- Felling of trees; Pollution caused; Discharge of industrial wastage and effluents; and Industrial governance not properly followed. 98. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that before clearing the bushes, SIPCOT has engaged services of ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited to consider various aspects on eco-system and the development plan. Contending that prior environmental clearance was not required, learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the land transferred is less than 500 hectares and even as per the notification dated 14.09.2006, EIA clearance is considered not necessary even as per the guidelines of Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI. Of course, ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited which considered the proposed SIPCOT industrial park, examined various aspects of development plan viz., (i) field inspection; (ii) geology and hydrogeology status; (iii) water availability; (iv) cost of project and means of finance and (v) socio-economic benefits. But opinion and report of private consultancy ITCOT would not meet the requirement of obtaining environmental clearance as per Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pacts of the project or activity. Para (8) deals with Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC). Para (9) contemplates validity of environmental clearance. Para (10) provides for post environmental clearance monitoring. 103. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the land developed as industrial area is less than 500 hectares and therefore, prior environmental clearance may not be required for developing the land as an industrial estate. 104. The above contention ignores important aspects of notification. Clause 7 (c) of schedule of notification deals with Industrial Estates/Parks/Complexes which reads as under:- Project or Activity Category with threshold limit A B Conditions if any Mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation (for a specified production capacity) 7(c) Industrial estates/parks/complexes/areas, export processing Zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Biotech Parks, Leather Complexes. If at least one industry in the proposed industrial estate falls under the Category A, entire industrial area shall be treated as Category A, irrespective of the area. Industrial estates with area greater than 500 ha. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,J], we have directed the Forest department to count the trees and file a report. As per the report filed by the Forest department, there are 844 trees available [Odiyan trees (Lannea Coramandalica) numbering more than 600). 107. We are of the view, before proceeding with further development, SIPCOT has to obtain environmental clearance from the competent authority, Ministry of Environment and Forest as per the notification dated 14.9.2006. However, SIPCOT is entitled to secure the lands by fencing the area. Once the environmental clearance certificate is sought for, most of the points raised would be taken care while processing the application for environmental clearance. 108. In fact, 7th Respondent SIPCOT has filed an affidavit to the effect that when SIPCOT identifies suitable investors/entrepreneurs, SIPCOT would comply with the environment norms as per the GoI notification No.S.O.1533 dated 14.9.2006 and also obtain environmental clearance in accordance to law. Developing the area by removing trees and thereafter approaching the authority for obtaining environmental clearance may not serve any useful purpose. In our considered view, even for development of industrial e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting shrubs and clearing the lands at Survey Nos.32/3 and 33/3 be modified to the extent that the 7th respondent shall be restricted to clear the subject lands including shrubs and grasses except the land which is earmarked for grazing and fodder development programmes and in respect of the remaining land, the 7th respondent is permitted to clear the bushes and grasses, but as per the undertaking that there shall not be felling of trees and to that extent, the interim order is modified..... 113. Alleging that on 02.6.2009, there was felling of trees which continued till 27th and 28th June 2009 and that SIPCOT was clearing the shrubs and bushes using Bulldozers, JCP and Porcelain and that trees are being cut, Petitioner Sangam has filed the Contempt Petition. 114. Contending that there was no disobedience of interim order, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Contempt Petition was filed as a counter-blast to the Criminal complaint in Crime No.176/2009 registered against the villagers. It was submitted that SIPCOT has kept the Boards to the effect that the land belongs to SIPCOT. Those Boards were removed, regarding which one Sakthivel, the Project Officer has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of poramboke lands [shown as 167.59.0 Hectares in the letter of District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District in Rc.672/2007 B2 dated 18.5.2009] and develop the same as grazing land by growing fodder within a period of three years. This direction shall have prevalence over clause 5 (ix) of G.O.Ms.No.650 Revenue Department dated 13.11.2008. (vi) Once the above fodder cultivation is developed in the above said lands, the fodder/land to be placed at the disposal of Thervoy Kandigai village panchayat so as to benefit the cattle of Thervoy Kandigai village. (vii) 7th Respondent is directed to identify the remaining alternate land either in the same District or in the adjacent District and place at the disposal of Animal Husbandry Department within a period of three years. This direction shall have prevalence over clause 5 (ix) of Notification. (viii) 7th Respondent-SIPCOT is at liberty to remove the encroachers in accordance with law (1) Anbazhagan, (2) Nagappan, (3) Muralikrishnan and (4) Arunachalam who have cultivated lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 and other such encroachments of cultivation. (ix) In so far as, 15 encroachers mentioned in Para-110, Respondents 3 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
