National Green Tribunal
Burugula Ramchander Rao vs Union Of India on 26 November, 2024
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Tuesday the 26th day of November, 2024.
Appeal No.23 of 2023 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Burugla Ramchander Rao,
S/o B. Gopal Rao, Aged 49 years,
R/o Narsimhulapully Village, Shayampet Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506319.
2. Nallella Sathish Kumar,
S/o B. N. Sanjeevaiah, Aged 32 years,
R/o Seetarampur, Parkal Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 50614.
3. Mitta Rajashear,
S/o M. Raja Veeru, aged 43 years,
R/o Puttapaka Village, Manthani Mandal,
Peddapalli District, Telangana- 505184.
4. Malladi Vijaya,
D/o M. Papi Reddy, Aged 53 years,
R/o Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506006.
5. Aili Sambaiah,
S/o A. Ailaiah, Aged 64 years,
R/o Pocharam Village, Parkal Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506319.
6. Penchala Sarangapani,
S/o P. Rajamallu, Aged 60 years,
R/o Pulukurthy Village, Damera Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506252.
7. Dubasi Suresh,
S/o D. Venkataiah, Aged 45 years,
R/o Pulukurthy Village, Damera Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506252.
8. Timapur Rajgopal Rao,
S/o T. Rajeswar Rao, Aged 42 years,
R/o Ookal Village, Geesugonda Mandal,
Warangal District, Telangana- 506330.
9. Bollu Sridhar Reddy,
S/o B. Venkat Reddy, Aged 36 years,
R/o Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506006.
1
10. Karratlapalli Kishan Rao,
S/o K. Linga Rao, Aged 45 years,
R/o Mogullapalli Village and Mandal,
Bhupalpalli District, Telangana- 506366.
11. Pendli Malla Reddy,
S/o Ilaiah, Aged, 55 years,
R/o Gangadevipalli Village, Geesugonda Mandal,
Warangal District, Telangana- 506366.
12. Bodakunti Surendar,
S/o B. Cheralu, Aged 40 years,
R/o Gangadevipalli Village, Shayampeta Mandal,
Hanmakonda District, Telangana- 506319.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep by its Secretary,
Union Ministry of Enviornment, Forest & CC,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh, New Delhi- 110003.
2. National Highway Authority of India,
Rep by its Chairman,
G5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi- 110075.
3. State of Telangana,
Rep by its Chief Secretary,
3rd Floor, Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad, Telangana- 500022.
4. District Collector,
Warangal District,
Warangal Collector Office NH163,
Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Telangana- 506001.
5. District Collector,
Khammam District,
Office of District Collector,
ZP Center, Wyra Rd, Yedulapuram,
Khammam, Telangana-507002.
6. District Collector,
Hanumakonda District, ,
Hanumakonda Collectorate Office,
Hanamkonda, Telangana- 506001.
7. Telangana State Pollution Control Board,
Rep by its Member Secretary,
Sanatnagar, Hyderabad- 500018.
2
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Ms. Mamatha Ralla & Mr. Shivang Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R1.
Mr. G. Chandrasekaran for R2.
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali along with Mr. Mohamed
Aathic for R3 to R6.
Ms. C.P. Kavitha Renjini for Mr. T. Sai Krishnan
for R7.
Judgment Reserved on: 21st October, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal is directed against the grant of Environmental Clearance dated 05.07.2023 in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI).
2. The appellants claim to be aggrieved farmers owning the lands that are sought to be acquired for the development of 04 lane access controlled new Greenfield highway from Mancherial to Warangal, a length of 108.406 km, in the State of Telangana by the National Highways. The project said to be impacting 14 villages in Mancherial District, 16 villages in Peddapalli District, 14 villages in Jayashankar Bhupalpally District and 10 villages in Hanamkonda District.
3
3. The appellant has assailed the Environmental Clearance on the following grounds:
(1) Three of the District Collectors have raised concerns on the alignment of the highway and had written to the State Government suggesting alternate routes. However, the suggestions made by the District Collectors were ignored by the project proponent and also by the MoEF&CC and granted Environmental Clearance.
(2) The cumulative impact of the project has not been considered and Environmental Clearance has been granted in disorganised manner. It is stated that the Environmental Clearance has been obtained in a piecemeal manner stating that the entire project is to construct a new Greenfield highway from Nagpur to Vijayawada but Environmental Clearance has been taken separately for Mancherial to Warangal stretch and Nagpur to Vijayawada stretch has not been taken into account for cumulative impact study. (3) There are 40 lakes falling in and around the proposed alignment of the new greenfield highway, which has not been considered by the authorities.
(4) The proposed new Greenfield highway passes through fertile lands without considering the other alternative routes. (5) The proposed highway is in violation of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Master Plan (KUDA-2041). (6) The MoEF&CC had not considered the social impact assessment and also the soil particulars. (7) The MoEF&CC ignored both the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle while granting the Environmental Clearance.
(8) The MoEF&CC had also not considered the representation made by the affected farmers and the fact that the NHAI had misrepresented by suppressing several facts.
4. On the above grounds, the Environmental Clearance granted is sought to be set aside.
4
5. The MoEF&CC, which is the 1st respondent, has specifically stated in its counter that highways are covered under Entry 7(f) of Clause (7) of the schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 and the amendments thereof. Meanwhile, a proposal dated 16.06.2021, namely, development of 04 lane access controlled new Greenfield highway section of Mancherial-Warangal of length 112.240 km from Ramaraopet Village to Oorugonda Village under the inter corridor route under the Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I was received from the NHAI. It was considered in the Expert Appraisal Committee and the Committee had recommended the proposal for grant of Terms of Reference (TOR) for subsequently conducting the public hearing and preparation of EIA report.
6. As per the TOR, the project proponent shall carry out a comprehensive socio-economic assessment and also impact on biodiversity with the emphasis of impact of on-going land acquisition on the local people living around the proposed alignment. The Social impact assessment shall take into consideration of the key parameters like people‟s dependency on fertile agricultural land, socio-economic spectrum, impact of the project at local and regional levels.
7. In the application for the grant of Environmental Clearance, the project proponent had reduced the length from 112.240 km to 108.406 km and that the new alignment will start from 3.834 km to 12.240 km whereas the TOR was obtained from the design chainage of 0.000 m to 112.240 km. The reason for change in the alignment was that already the widening work is under progress in 5 the proposed overlapping section and therefore to avoid duplication, 3.834 km was dropped from the project stretch.
8. Regarding the alternative route for the proposed alignment, it is stated that one of TOR imposed upon the project proponent was to describe the various alternatives considered and the reasons for selecting the final alternative. Three options were analysed, out of which the present alignment in question was recommended as it involves minimum number of felling of trees and the project cost was less as compared to the other two options.
9. As regards the impact on the water bodies, the MoEF&CC had included all the mitigative measures for the possible adverse impact. There are 04 numbers of rivers, 06 numbers of ponds and 46 numbers of streams which are crossing the proposed alignment. It was observed that there shall be no major impact on the drainage system as the major bridge-Pedda Vagu and another major bridge at Godavari River and Bokala Vagu on Maner River and also other minor bridges wherever there is crossing of the canals or the rivers will be constructed. Moreover the proposed highway will also have 01 ROB, 05 major bridges, 45 minor bridges, 01 intersection, 24 vehicular underpasses, 35 pedestrain underpasses, 04 LVUPs, 09 SUVPs, 146 box culverts and 05 flyovers.
10. The Environmental Clearance is granted by the MoEF&CC subject to the clearance from the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife (NBWL). It is also noted by the MoEF&CC that the project is passing through the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Siwaram Wildlife 6 Sanctuary over a length of 10.579 km and width of 45.00m in Mancherial District and over a length of 13.910 m with width of 45 m in Peddapally District, therefore, the NBWL clearance was not applicable. Accordingly after considering all the relevant factors, the MoEF&CC granted the Environmental Clearance.
11. Heard Ms. Mamatha Ralla & Mr. Shivang Singh for the appellants. Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R1, Mr. G. Chandrasekaran for R2, Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali along with Mr. Mohamed Aathic for R3 to R6, Ms. C.P. Kavitha Renjini for Mr. T. Sai Krishnanfor R7.
12. Whether the Environmental Clearance granted is liable to be set aside on the grounds raised by the appellants?
13. On the 1st ground of alignment raised by the appellants, the District Collector of Hanumagonda, who is the 6th respondent, has given his report stating that as per the requisition of the Project Director, NHAI, PIU Warangal and PIU khamman, the Greenfield highway NH-163G is accessed from Laxmipur Village of Parkal Mandal to Peddapur Village. It is stated that the said alignment is not passing though forest land within the Parkal jurisdiction. It is further stated that within the revenue division, there is no forest land affected or no wild animal is found in the project area.
14. Regarding the cultivable land in project areas, other lands, i.e., the extent of lands in the SRSP canal, Vagu, Kaluva etc., which are coming in the proposed alignment, all efforts are made to reduce 7 the damage of maximum number of cultivable lands in the project area.
15. The contention that the project will disturb the Kakatiya chain ponds, which will result in inundation and loss to the agriculture, the District Collector has stated that there are no ponds within the jurisdiction of Parkal Revenue Division being affected. The Collector had also categorically stated that neither the Hanamakonda City nor the Warangal City are affected by the proposed alignment as it is away from the city population and habitats of both the cities.
16. Regarding the deviation from the KUDA-2041 Master Plan, there is no objection received from any person regarding the violation, if any, against the KUDA-2041 Master Plan and the appellants also have stated that it is in violation of the master plan without mentioning where the deviations are taking place.
17. With respect to cutting of forest trees and non-forest trees, there are no forest trees within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Division and for the non-forest trees appropriate guidelines are issued by the Government of Telangana to all the concerned departments to plant the trees in the rainy season.
18. The District Collector of Hanumagonda has further stated that there was no objection raised by the District Collector to the proposed alignment of the national highway as alleged by the appellants.
8
19. In the same manner as that of the District Collector, Hanumagonda, the District Collector of Khamman, who is the 5th respondent, also stated that the Mancherial-Vijayawada corridor has been divided into three sections, namely, (i) Mancherial-Warangal, (ii) Warangal-Khammam and (iii) Khammam- Vijayawada. Of the three sections, 77.41 km length of the project falls in the Khammam District and it has already obtained the Environmental Clearance from the MoEF&CC which is as follows:
S.No. Section Name EC No.
1. Warangal-Khammam EC23A034TG157248,
dated 16.02.2023
2. Khammam-Vijayawada EC23A034TG132431,
dated 23.01.2023
20. The Appeal is only filed against the Environmental Clearance granted on 05.07.2023 issued for the development from Mancherial to Warangal of the length of 108.406 km. There is no challenge by the appellants for the above-referred 02 Environmental Clearances.
21. The 2nd respondent, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) filed its counter stating that the letters of the District Collectors Khamman and Hanumagonda are relating to Project implementation Unit-PIU Khamman and not PIU Warangal (Hanumagonda).
22. The project proponent has specifically stated that regarding the allegation of presenting the secondary data as primary data that collecting primary and secondary data is integral part of baseline studies on various environmental components such as air, water, 9 soil, ecology etc. The EAC member had some concern that some of the species presented in the report is based on the secondary data and not the primary data which was clarified by the EIA consultant that primary data have been collected not only during site survey by the expert but also through public consultations with the locals and forest officials during site visit. The species mentioned as primary data was reported by the study team based on the above facts, which was accepted by the EAC.
23. The EAC discussed the involvement of Forest Department and held that forest clearance is not required. As per the primary survey, the total number of 90 birds species were recorded. The project proponent has stated that the project length of 108.406 km and does not involve any forest land, it is only a part of the alignment is passing through private lands which is eco-sensitive zone of 10 km radius of Shiwaram Wildlife Sanctuary from km 14.884 to km 39.882 (24.998 km) for which wildlife clearance was granted by the NBWL on 12.06.2023. Therefore, it is not necessary to obtain forest clearance since the project site is not passing through notified/protected/reserved forest.
24. The contention of the appellant that 88 per cent of the proposed alignment is cultivable land and that total of 9957.47 acres of agricultural land is going to be damaged by laying the road which will result in an impact on biodiversity, livelihood and food security etc. The NHAI has responded that the above fact is false as the land notified under Section 3D of NH Act, 1956 under this project is 566 ha., which is equivalent to 1398 acres as per the S.O. of various dates. The DPR consultant appointed by the Competent 10 Authority also had done the alternative alignment study and the Competent Authority has finalized the said alignment which is free from open casting mines, hillocks and forest land.
25. The next allegation that the Environmental Clearance has mentioned only 03 ponds whereas there are about 40 lakes in the proposed project is denied and it is stated that while finalising the alignment utmost care was taken to avoid ponds. Further the alignment is not disturbing the Kakatiya chain ponds as contented by the appellants.
26. Regarding the cumulative impact assessment, the appellants have alleged that the Environmental Clearance was granted in a piece- meal manner. Further it is contended that Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), Government of India had approved the Greenfield highway connecting Mancherial-Warangal- Khammam-Vijayawada in January, 2019. In this regard, Mancherial-Warangal pertains to PIU Warangal and Warangal to Vijayawada pertains to PIU Khammam under regional office, Hyderabad.
27. Further the proposal for obtaining Environmental Clearance for the stretch pertains to this has been uploaded in „Parivesh‟ portal and the Environmental Clearance was obtained on 05.07.2023. Hence, it is stated that the Environmental Clearance has been obtained for all the Greenfield highway stretches i.e. Mancherial-Warangal- Khammam-Vijayawada under Nagpur-Vijayawada corridor. 11
28. The allegation that the proposed alignment will disturb the well- settled Warangal-Hanumagonda population is not correct as the Mancherial-Warangal Greenfield highway passes through Hanumagonda District and alignment in the Hanumagonda is not disturbing any of the habitations and passing through the fields.
29. The appellants contention regarding the violation of the KUDA- 2041 Master Plan and the proposed alignment of the new Greenfield highways had not taken into consideration the master plan is denied by the project proponent stating that there was no objection from the KUDA at any point of time for the proposed Greenfield alignment of NH 163G. The representatives of the three districts and the local bodies of the affected villages were apprised and convinced about the proposed Greenfield highway.
30. Regarding the three existing alternative routes which can be expanded instead of creating new Greenfield highway, the project proponent has stated that the MoRTH and Government of India had approved the Greenfield highway connecting Mancherial- Warangal-Khammam-Vijayawada in January, 2019 under Nagar- Vijayawada corridor. Besides changing the alignment to the existing road (Brown Field) will forfeit the entire concept of access controlled Greenfield highway and will come across more utilities, substandard curves and more land acquisition costs, thus defeating the objective and concept of express highway intended to rapid transport with safety.
31. Regarding the cutting of trees which would involve approximately 14,689 numbers of trees, the project proponent has stated that 12 approximately 1,00,000 tress will be planted by the concessionaire as per IRC SP 21 2009 guidelines.
32. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme of India in National Highways Authority of India Vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajuly and Anr. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 693 in support of their contention that segmentation is not permissible, as it is used as a strategy to evade obtaining the Environmental Clearance as per the EIA Notification, 2006.
"19. Apart from providing smooth flow of public goods and services which contribute to the economic growth, highways also benefit regional development in the country. In the normal course, impediments should not be created in the matter of National Highways which provide the much-needed transportation infrastructure. At the same time, protection of environment is important. The Notification dated 22.08.2013 exempts a National Highway, the distance of which is less than 100 km from obtaining environmental clearance. If the project proponent is permitted to divide projects having a distance beyond 100 km into packages which are less than 100 km, the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 22.08.2013 will be rendered redundant. In that event, administrative exigencies and speedy completion will be a ground taken for justifying the segmentation of every project. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that segmentation as a strategy is not permissible for evading environmental clearance as per Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 22.08.2013."
33. As stated supra, in this case, there are already two Environmental Clearances granted for the Warangal - Khammam (16.02.2023) and Khammam - Vijayawada (23.01.2023) sections. Admittedly, there is no challenge. As the NHAI has obtained the necessary Environmental Clearances for the above sections, the argument and applicability of the decision are not relevant. 13
34. The NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body, the plans of which are implemented after thorough study by experts in the field. Therefore, the allegations of the applicant that in the construction of 4 lane access controlled new green field highway between Mancherial to Warangal the alignment of the highway is not considered by the EAC and the cumulative impact assessment not done are untenable and baseless. As per the approved alignment, a portion of the applicants‟ properties along with other properties is required for the construction of the 04 lane highway.
35. The learned counsel for the NHAI also added that the proposed project required the acquisition of land and the payment of compensation is already made. Since the policy with regard to safety and alignment, etc. are considered by the EAC, proper and appropriate care has been taken and minimum loss of trees was considered. The NHAI has already made provisions for the plantation of trees as per the IRC:SP:21-2009 guidelines, by which the impact of felling of trees will be mitigated.
36. Accordingly, the reply submitted by the District Collector and other respondents is accepted. The respondents are directed to take care that the undertakings given are complied with while following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), Government of India dated 26.06.2020.
37. However, NHAI is directed to plant 1,46,890 trees, instead of proposed 1,00,000 trees following the existing norm of planting 10 trees for every tree proposed to be cut, within the project area. 14
38. The appeal [Appeal No.23 of 2023 (SZ)] is disposed of accordingly with a direction to NHAI to file within 06 months a compliance report regarding planting of 1,46,890 trees.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.23/2023(SZ) 26th November,2024.(AM) 15 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) Appeal No. 23 of 2023(SZ) Burugla Ramchander Rao, Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Appeal No. 23/2023(SZ) 26th November, 2024. (AM) 16