National Green Tribunal
Satyanarayana Bolisetty vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 18 March, 2021
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item Nos. 10 & 11:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.65 of 2020 (SZ)
With
Original Application No.74 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Satynarayana Bolisetty
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
WITH
D. Pal & ors.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 18.03.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
O.A. No. 65 of 2020(SZ)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay
For Respondent(s): Mr. Surya Prabhu for Mr. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for
R1
Mr. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R 2 to 6
1
O.A. No. 74 of 2020(SZ)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta
For Respondent(s): Mr. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R 1 to4
ORDER
1. When the matter came up for hearing today Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay represented the applicant in O.A. No. 65 of 2020 and Mr. Ritwick Dutta represented the applicant in O.A. No. 74 of 2020. Mr. Surya Prabhu for Mr. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for respondent 1in O.A. No. 65 of 2020, Mr. Madhuri Donti Reddy appeared for respondents 2 to 6 in O.A. No. 65 of 2020 and 1 to 4 in O. A. No. 74 of 2020.
2. The 5th respondent has filed counter in O.A. No. 65 of 2020 on behalf of 3rd respondent as well. We have received the Joint Committee report dated nil e-filed on 28.02.2021 and received on 17.03.2021 which reads as follows:
Before the Honourable National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai In Application No. 65 and 74 of 2020 (SZ) Joint Committee Report on O.A. NO. 65 and 74 of 2020(SZ) filed before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai.
1. Introduction Vide order dated 30.04.2020 in O.A. No. 65 of 2020, the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) has constituted a joint committee comprising of (1) Senior Officer from the Regional Office of MoEF&CC, Chennai (2) Senior Officer from Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority (3) Senior Officer nominated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Forces/Chief Wildlife Warden (4) District Collector, East Govdavari District and (5) District Forest Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada to go into the question as to whether the area in question was a mangrove forest subject to the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications 2011 and 2019 requiring any clearance for any project, whether any clearance from MoEF & CC or Forest Department is required under the 2 Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and whether permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden is required for commissioning the project as according to the applicant it is adjacent to coringa Wildlife Sanctuary. In order to ascertain the anterior position of the area in question, the committee is directe to verify the forest cover map maintained by the Forest Survey of India prepared through satellite images for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and if any violation is found they are directed to mention the nature of violation and also the nature of damage caused to environment and assess the environmental compensation required for restoration of damage causd to environment, including restoration of mangroves in that area. The committee shall verify the satellite image of forest cover prepared by the Forest Survey of India for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and compare the same with the present condition in order to ascertain the extent of damage, if any caused either to forest cover or mangroves and assess environmental compensation.(Copy of the Order dated 30.04.2020 in O.A. No. 65 of 2020 is at Annexure-I). Thereafter vide order dated 29.05.2020 in O.A. No. 74 of 2020, the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) has directed the same committee to submit a consolidated report in both cases. (Copy of the order dated 29.05.2020 in O.A. No. 74 of 2020 is at annexure-Ii) As per the above directions of the Hon‟ble NGT, Chennai, a joint committee was formed duly comprising of the following officers:
(i) Dr. C. Palpandi, Scientist-C from Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Chennai
(ii) Dr. K. Prijilal, Research Officer, from Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Chennai
(iii) Shri D. Muralidhar Reddy, IAS, District Collector, East Godavari Distict
(iv) N. Nageshwara Rao, IFS, Conservator of Forrest, Rajahmundry
(v) Shri B. Sunil Kumar Reddy, IFS, District Forest Officer, East Godavari District
(vi) Shri A. Ramaro Naid, Environmental Engineer, APCZMA, Kakinanda.
Accordingly, the Joint Committee has inspected the site along with the petitioners as well as respondents on 10.12.2020.
2. Observations of the Joint Committee.
(i) During the visit the District Administration presented the reasons for selecting the specific site for housing for poor "Peddalandarik Illu"program, which is at annexure-III
(ii) The area is question i.e. the proposed housing site is about 2.923 km awa from the Coringa Wild Life Sanctuary and is about 2 km distance from Kumbabhishekam Fishing Harbour.
(iii) During the visit, it was observed that the land was levelled with additional soil/gravel taken from outside the area. Which has changed the natural texture of mud as seen in the photo taken during the site visit (annexure-IV)
(iv) It was also observed that mangroves and other trees such as Prosopis plant were started to regenerate at some locations, which indicates that earlier these species may be there.
(v) It is also noticed that due to levelling/landfill the flow of the stream has been obstructed. Due to this mangroves and other trees got damaged in 3 that location. As requested by the Joint Committee the district administration has agreed to remove the obstruction,
(vi) At present no construction was started in the proposed site except levelling.
(vii) Several Industries like Concor India Ltd. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Indian Coastal Guard and APTIDCO Housing Project are adjoining to this Dummulapeta proposed Housing site.
2.1 Ascertain the anterior position of the area in question with respect to existence of mangroves by analyzing satellite imagery obtained from Forest Survey of India for a period of 6 months prior to the filing of the application and compare with present conditions and ascertain the extent of damage if any and assess environmental compensation if required. As per the recent Forest Survey of Indi Satellite Imagery (available data collected and updated during 2017-2019). Forest cover map and forest type map along with the distance analysis map were taken and is at annexure-V With respect to Forest Cover Map, the area in question falls under Non forest and Open forest (All lands with tree cover including mangrove cover0 of canopy density between 10% to 40%) as per the recent Forest Survey of India Satellite Imagery the area in question falls under Non Forest. The area in question is 2.92 km away from the Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary as per GIS Based Decision Support System For Comparing the present condition, the Committee used the Google earth image dated 14.02.2020 with 28.10.2019 since data in FSI satellite image was updated during 2017-2019 only and it found that some destruction were occurred in the green cover. The comparative map highlighted with Yellow Square is at annexure-VI. The historical map from 27.05.2005 to till date is also reveals that there were some green patches was there as evident from annexure-VII.
2.2 Whether the area in question was a mangrove forest subject to the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011 and 2019 requiring any clearance for any project As per the CRZ,Map 2011, the area in question is in CRZ-IA. The CRZ map- 2011 is annexure-VIII As per CRZ Notification 2011, CRZ-IA areas are ecologically sensitive and the geomorphologic features which play a role in the maintaining the integrity of the coast. (a) mangroves, in case mangrove area is more than 1000sq mts. A buffer of 50 meters along the mangroves shall be provided.
(b) Corals and coral reefs and associated biodiversity; (C) Sand Dunes; (d) Mudflats which are biologically acitive; ((e) National parks, marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats and other protected areas under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), the forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980) or Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986); including Biosphere Reserves: (f) Salt marshes; (g) Turtle nesting grounds; (h) Horse shoe crabs habitats;(i) Sea grass beds;(j) Nesting grounds of birds; (K) areas or structures of archaeological importance and heritage sites.
As per CRZ notification 2011, no new construction shall be permitted in CRZ-I except the following:
(a) Project relating to Department of Atomic Energy; (b) pipelines conveying systems including transmission lines;(c) facilities that are essential for 4 activities permissible under CRZ-I;(d) installation of weather radar for monitoring of cyclones movement and prediction by Indian meteorological Department; (e) construction of trans harbour sea link and without affecting the tidal flow of water, between LTL and HTL ; (f) Development of green field airport already approved at only Navi Mumbai.
This district administration informed that they have initiated the process of change in the CRZ category of the said land from CRZIA to CRZ II 2.3 Whether any clearance from MoEF&CC or Forest Department is required under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. As per EIA Notification 2006, Townships and Area Development projects covering an area of greater than 50 ha will come under category B projects and required Environmental Clearance from SEIAA. During the site inspection the joint collector/member to the committee informed that the area of this project is 47.275 ha only. During the site inspection the District Forest Officer/member to the committee informed that the land is not a Notified Forest Land as per the record. The status of the land as per revenue records is Ayan Porambokhu.
As per the CRZ map, 2011 the area in question is in CRZIA, CRZ clearance was required but townships and area development projects are not permissible in CRZIA area.
2.4 Whether permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden is required for commissioning the project as according to the applicant it is adjacent to Coringa Wildlfie Sanctuary.
According to EIA notification 2006, the list of projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance is given in Sl. No. 8(b)- Townships and Areas developing programme needs prior clearance if it covers an area more than 50 ha. and or built-up area 150000sqmts. But, the area in question involves only 116 acres, thus may not required Environmental Clearance. As per the clarification given in File NO.6-60/2020 WL Part (1) of GOI, MoEF&CC (wild life division). Dated I6.07.2020, for projects not requiring EC clearance, Wildlife clearance may not be insisted. Therefore no wildlife clearance is required for this project.
3. Environmental Compensation As per the Forest Cover Map, the area in question falls under Non Forest Land Open Forest (ALL lands with tree cover (including mangrove cover) of canopy density between 10% and 40%). Therefore, the Committee was not able to access the exact density of Mangrove prevailed there. Out of 116 Acres, the work has been taken up on 58 acres. As per the Committee‟s analysis mangroves cover up to an extent of 30% of the filled up area may have been affected. In view of this, the Committee is recommending that the district administration may take up mangrove plantation in alternate land for an extent of equivalent to the affected area adjacent to Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary.
4. Conclusion As per the CRZ, Map 2011 the area in question is in CRZ-IA. Townships and Area Development projects are not permissible in CRZ-IA area. The district administration mentioned during the field visit that there is a proposal to change the CRZ category of the said land from CRZ IA to CRZ II. The district administration should not proceed with further development 5 of the township in the said area till the necessary permissions from the competent authorities are obtained.
Dr. C. Palpandi Dr. K.G.Prijilal Shri Nageswara Rao,IFS
Scientist „C‟ Research officer Conservator of Forest
MoEF&CC, Chennai MoEF, Chennai Rajahmundry
Shri B. Sunil Kumar Reddy, IFS ShriD. Muralidhar Reddy, IAS Shri A. Ramarro Naidu District Forest Officer District Collector Environmental Engineer East Godavari District East Godavari District APCZMA, KaKinda
3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in both cases submitted that there are certain anomalies in the joint committee report and they want to elucidate either by way of objection or by filing affidavit. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents submitted that they want some time for filing the counter and also objection to the Committee report as the District Collector was busy with the Local Body elections in that area.
4. It is also mentioned in the report that there is no work going on at present at the site and Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents also submitted that by virtue of the status-quo order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which is enforce, no work is being carried out in that area. However, considering the circumstances we feel some more time can be granted to the parties to file the objections to the Committee report and also complete the pleading so that the matter can be heard in detail on that date. Since the Committee as prima-facie found that there exists mangroves and there was destruction but they have not assessed the environmental compensation but only observed that the 6 Government can be directed to take remedial measures for re-
rejuvenation of mangroves and other trees in that area considering the eco-sensitiveness of that area, we feel that that alone is not sufficient.
Considering the nature of damage alleged to have committed, they must quantify the damage caused to the environment taking into account the amount required for re-rejuvenation of the mangroves and loss of green cover and restoration of the same in that area to protect the environment.
So, the Committee is directed to assess the environmental compensation as well and liability etc can be considered by this Tribunal at the time when the main matter will be considered. The Committee is directed to submit further report assessing the environmental compensation for the loss that has been caused on account of alleged destruction of the green cover including the mangroves taking into account the amount required for restoration of the damage to the environment and submit further report on or before 26.04.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
5. The Committee is also directed to consider the vulnerability study of these areas as has been sought to be assessed by the applicant in O.A. No. 74 of 2020 while submitting the further report. The committee is at liberty to hire the experts, if any, required for this purpose.
76. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee as well as to the official respondents by e-mail immediately so as to enable them to comply with the direction.
7. For consideration of further report and completion of pleading, post on 26.04.2021.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.65/2020 (SZ) O.A. No.74/2020 (SZ) 18th March, 2021. AM.
8