National Green Tribunal
P Gengaiyan vs The District Collector on 15 March, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.09: BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 179 of 2020 (SZ) (Through Video Conference) IN THE MATTER OF P, Gengaiyan (72 years) Son of Perumal Naidu, No. 43, Maharal Village, Kooduvalli Post, Thiruvallur Taluk & District. Versus 1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur. 2..The Assistant Director of Mines & Minerals O/o, the District Collector, Thiruvallur. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Thiruvallur 1 4. The Secretary, State Level Environment Impact. Assessment Authority, Panagal Building, Chennai -- 600 015. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur. 6. The Tahsildar, Thiruvallur. 7. The Special Office/Block Development Officer, Ellapuram Panchayat Union, Ellapuram, Thiruvallur District. 8. Prakash No. 2/105, Thiruvallur Street, ...Applicant(s) Theerthakarayanpattu, Palavayal, Chennai 600 052. (Impleaded as per order of the Tribunal on 28.02.2022) ... Respondent(s) Date of Judgment: 15.03.2022. CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s): Mr. R. Selva Kumar & Mr. A. Athimoolam For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 to. R3, R5 to R7. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R4. Mr. C. Vidhusan for R8 JUDGMENT
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the illegal sand mining in Periya Eri which is having an extent of 58 Hectares. According to the applicant, water in this lake was being used earlier for meeting the irrigation purpose of large area of agricultural land. Due to lack of rain, most part of the lake has become dry and taking advantage of the same, with the connivance of the officials, illegal sand mining is rampant in that area without complying with the regulations and guidelines issued in this regard.
2. No clearances required under the environment laws are being obtained for this purpose and there was no monitoring of removal of sand from these areas. Thereby, the persons involved in illegal sand mining or even persons having permission are misusing the same and extracting more sand in an unscientific manner which was detrimental to the existence of the lake itself. Though, complaints were made regarding the same, no action was taken. That prompted the applicant to file this application seeking the following reliefs:-
"The Applicant therefore pray this Honourable Authority may be pleased to forebear the respondents 1 to 4, from in any way sanctioning/granting sand quarrying license/permits over the lake-bed of Periya Eri, comprised in Survey No.216 of Magaral Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District, in contravention of G.O. Ms. No.938 dated 07.06.1988, issued by the Public Works Department and thus render justice."
3. As per order dated 22.09.2020, this Tribunal had admitted the matter and appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (1).. the District Collector, Thiruvallur District or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate duly deputed by him, (2) a Senior Officer deputed by the Director of Mines and Minerals, (3) the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Thiruvallur District and (4) a Senior Officer from State Environmental Impact.Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found,
4. The committee was directed to go into the question as to;
i)
ii)
iii) Whether any illegal sand mining is going on in that area as alleged and even if, permission is granted whether they have obtained necessary. clearance/consent/permission from the authorities for that purpose Whether they have extracted more than the permitted quantity, What is the mechanism provided by the authorities to supervise, regulate and monitor the transport of mined articles from that area If there was any violations found then, the committee was also directed to assess the environmental compensation and take steps to recover the same from the persons who have done the same apart from initiating criminal prosecution provided under the rules and also recovery of penalty for excess mining done by them as per Rules.
5. The Committee was also directed to submit their recommendations for properly regulating the same and check illegal sand mining in that area.
6. The Public Works Department was designated as the nodal agency for co- ordination and also for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.
7. The case was posted to 09.06.2021. On that day, this Tribunal had considered the Inspection Report submitted by the Joint Committee. wrongly shown as (Draft Inspection Note) of Magaral Big.Tank 1 in Thiruvallur Taluk and Thiruvallur District.dated Nil, e-filed on 22.03.2021 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
DRAFT INSPECTION NOTES ON JOINT INSPECTION OF MAGARAL BIG TANK I THIRUVALLUR.TALUK AND THRIUVALLUR DISTRICT Officers present During Inspection:
Date of Inspection: 20.01.2021
1. Er. C. Podupanithilagam, M.E., Executive Engineer, PWD., Kosasthalaiyar Basin Division, WRD.,Thiruvallur
2. Dr. Preethi, Parkavi, B.S.M.S., Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur
3. Mr. L. Suresh, M.Sc., Regional Joint Director, Geology & Mining Department, Vilupuram
4. Er. G. Karthigeyan, M.Tech., Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD., Kosasthalaiyar Basin Sub Division, WRD.,Thiruvallur
5. Mr. K. Vijayaraghavan, M.Sc., Assistant Director, Geology & Mining Department, Thiruvallur
6. Mr. Ponnumani, M.Sc., Assistant Geologist, Geology& Mining Department, Thiruvallur
7. Er. P. Murali, B.E., Assistant Engineer, SEIAA, Chennai ee a Se oe The Magaral big tank in Thiruvallur taluk and district is under the maintenance of Public Works Department / Water Resources Department. It is submitted that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, in O.A No. 1179/2020, a committee has been formed to inspect the water spread area, sluice, bund, weir and encroachments in the Magaral tank.
Accordingly, the Joint Committee is carried out inspection in the water sspread area, sluice, Bund of Magaral Tank and encroachments inside Magaral tank on 20.01.2021. During the inspection, it was noticed that there is no water in the tank bed and scrub j jungles were present in the Magaral tank. The encroachments were noticed in the foreshore area of tank by the committee.
The committee instructed the Public Works Department officials to take spot levels of the tank bed to verify any low levels below the skill level of sluice. It is also submitted that the committee instructed the Public Works Department officials. to carry the detailed study on upstream side tanks and its supply. chain to Magaral tank :to'increase its catchment potential-and.enhance the storage potential. It is submitted that the Public Works Department instructed to prepare the detailed project report after taking levels and necessary study for storing the water for irrigation purpose as well as ground water recharge.
The Public Works Department officials submitted that the Public Works Department was never taken up any desilting / dredging work in this tank and only the renovation works such as bund strengthening, maintenance of sluices and weir was taken up in the year 2011 under the World bank scheme. At present, the Maagaral tank needs to be taken up the renovation works for effectively utilization of tank for irrigation and ground. water recharge. Without environmental clearance, no. permission is recommended for.quarrying operation by» the Public works department: Further submitted.that, the Maagaral tank supply chain will be studied in detail and the water source to the tank from upstream should be properly identified and restored.
During the inspection the committee perused the Assistant Director Geology and Mining records and found that there was no savudu quarry operated / permitted since 2015.
Further it is submitted to state that the committee is decided the following action to be taken at Magaral Tank as Short term plan and Long term plan.
SI.No Action to be taken DEPARTMENT Short term Long term Plan Plan Executive | wee 1 Ta king detail levels such as} Engineer, Sluice sill level, Tank bed level, } PWD/WRD. 15 Days in-let supply channel level and Irrigation ayacut levels etc Surveying the tank and Thasildar, ----
2 issuance of Form I & If under} Thiruvallur.
the Tamil Nadu Protection of 2 Months Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007., 3 Eviction of Encroachment Thasildar, --- 6 Months process will be executed in Co- Thiruvallur, ordination with Revenue Executive Department 4 Executive = Rehabilitation and Restoration Engineer, 1 Year of the Magaral Tank. PWD/WRD.
8. Thereafter, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
"4. The applicant has filed a detailed objections to the report submitted by the Joint Committee wherein it was mentioned that nothing has been mentioned about the illegal sand mining alleged and.it was also mentioned that the ditches caused on..account of illegal mining has gone up to 60 feet or more at various points of Periya Eri. But nothing was mentioned about the alleged illegal mining in the report. Further the opening para of the report itself shows that they have really not understood the purpose for which the Committee was appointed. According to their understanding, the Committee has been formed to inspect the water quality of the area, sewage bunds and encroachments'in. Magaral Tank but in fact the allegation is regarding sand. mining is being done by unauthorised persons without getting necessary clearances or permissions etc and great loss has been caused to exchequer on account of the same. The responsible officers of the Government who are being appointed as Committee members have not correctly understood their responsibility of filing the reports before the Tribunal. They are expected to ascertain the nature of allegations made in the applications for the purpose of which committee has been appointed and they are also expected to mention those things and also if there is any violation found or any illegal mining has been brought to their notice, what is the nature of action taken by them. But quite unfortunately, they have not exercised such a role while preparing the draft inspection note. So under such circumstances, we direct the Committee to go through the application and objections filed by the applicant to the Joint Committee report carefully and come with a proper detailed report regarding the allegations made by the applicant in the application and if there is any violations found, what is the nature of action taken by the regulators in this regard. Whether any damage has been caused to the environment and what are all mechanism adopted to prevent illegal mining in such cases. Though several directions have been given by this Tribunal as the regulatory mechanism to be adopted by the regulators to prevent illegal mining in areas where permissions for mining is being granted either to the Public Works Department or through their contractors as permitted by the PWD on the basis of the clearance granted those things are not reflected in the reports. So, the Committee is directed to file a fresh proper report as directed by this Tribunal on or before 30.07.2021 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. Any failure on the part of the Committee in submitting a detailed report.addressing all the allegations, the Committee:members will be answerable for non- compliance of the directions of this Tribunal as contemplated under Section 25 and 28 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
5.The applicant is also directed to produce any documents or photographs available with them regarding the nature of illegal mining that is said to have been done or if it is continuing regarding the same as well. So, the Gommittee can come with proper report in this regard. The applicant is also at liberty to file those documents before this Tribunal as well as per Rules. "
9. The matter was again taken up.on 01.11.2021 on which date this Tribunal had considered the status report submitted by the 3% respondent dated 26.07.2021, e-filed on 29.07.2021 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"DRAFT STATUS REPORT FILED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT
1. I, A. Muthaiya son of Mr. A.L. Asokan aged about 56 years, officiating as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, Palar Basin Circle, Chennai -05 do, solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
2. I state that, I am the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department / Water Resources Department, Palar Circle, Chepauk, Chennai file the interim report 3rd respondent herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case from records.
3. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in its order dated 22.09.2020 directed that, "9.In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application and also the real state of affairs that transpires in that area, we feel it appropriate to appoint a Joint Committee comprising of 1) the District Collector, Thiruvallur District or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate duly deputed by him, 2) a Senior Officer deputed by the Director of Mines and Minerals, 3) the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Thiruvallur and 4) a Senior Officer from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found."
4, It is submitted that the order of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal the Committee constituted by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal has inspected the subject area on 20.01.2021. In the inspection report it is mentioned that, the Assistant Director Geology and Mining records reveals, there was no savudu quarry operated / permitted since 2015 in the Magaral tank and further stated that the Public Works Department was never*taken up any desilting / dredging work in this tank and only the renovation works such as bund strengthening, maintenance of sluices and weir was taken up in the year 2011 under the World bank scheme.
5. It is submitted that, the Petitioner in his affidavit states that, "6. However, for the two months there are strangers found at the site of the lake and around with earthmovers.all meant for removing the savudu sand. When the villagers. queried them they said in single tone that they are going to perform quarry operations ie., to remove the sand in the Periya Eri / Lake. When the villagers queried about their authority.to do so they said that they would get the quarry licence at any time and that on that getting the quarry permit from the second respondent they would start their sand removing operations and would continue the same day and night.
7 The applicant states that on coming to know the attempted sand quarrying in the Periya Eri, in behalf of the. villagers a representation has been given on 28.08.2020 to all the respondents, all of whom had acknowledged the same."
From the above statement of the petitioner it is clearly understood that there was no sand/savudu quarry operation commenced in the Magaral tank. The petitioner on his own assumptions and presumptions approached this Hon'ble Tribunal to forebear the respondents over 1 to 4 from anyway sanctioning/granting sand quarrying licence/permit the lake bed of Periya Eri comprised in survey number 216 of Magaral village in Thiruvallur Taluk and District in contravention of G.0.938 dated 7.6.1988 issued by the Public Works Department. There is no such licence /permit has been given to anybody by the district administration in the period mentioned by the Petitioner.
It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order in OA 64 of 2015 on 24.01.2017 directed the official respondents not to permit the 5th respondent (one Mr. Sathish Kumar) or any other person to quarry in the Peria Eri 8 comprised in Survey No.216, Makaral Village unless and until such persons are granted permission based on compliance of the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No.938 dated 7.6.1988 and follow the policy of the Government in this regard. The order is duly complied by the official respondents so far. There is no such allegation has been filed against the officials. It means that there was no savudu quarry sanctioned in the Magaral tank from the filing of the above said appeal (OA 64/2015) in this Hon'ble Tribunal. On mere 8 assumptions and presumptions without any corroborating evidence or proof or any record, the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Tribunal. The petitioner has his own liberty to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal if the officials are sanctioning/granting sand quarrying licence/permit over the lake bed of Periya Eri comprised in survey number 216 of Magaral village in Thiruvallur Taluk and District. It is humbly submitted that, without granting any permission in the subject area by the officials the petitioner's prayer is null and void.
7. It is submitted that, this Hon'ble Tribunal constitute the joint committee to inspect the Magaral tank to ascertain the illegal mining. There:was no illegal mining found in the lake bed. The scrub jungle in the lake bed shows that there was no chances of illegal mining in the recent pasts. The statement of Assistant Director Geology and Mining also: stated that there was no savudu quarry from the year 2015. The Petitioner's prayer is to forebear the respondents..1 to 4 from anyway. sanctioning/granting sand quarrying licence/permit the lake bed.of Periya Eri and stated in his petition that illegal mining to be done in the month of June and July 2020. There was no such illegal mining attempt was found during the inspection. The Petitioner himself stated in his affidavit that on coming to know the.attempted sand quarrying in the Periya Eri, on behalf:of the villagers a representation has been given on 28.08.2020. The pits mentioned by the Petitioner is found in the lake with bushes and jungles which meant that the pits are very old one., the Petitioner is trying to allege that the illegal mining will be done in the lake by mentioning with the very old. pits. The Gommittee in its report stated that detail levels such as Sluice sill level, Tank bed level, in-let supply channel level and Irrigation ayacut levels will be taken and the restoration of lake will be done. It is submitted that, due to Covid-19 and assembly election 2020' getting of funds from Government is delayed. After getting the due funds from the Government the lake restoration work will be commenced at once.
8. It is submitted that, now survey works are being taken up by the Public Works Department with Revenue Department to remove the encroachments. After surveying work completed the eviction of encroachments will be carried out from the tank bed and the tank restoration works will be taken up and restore the tank to its original standard so as to use effectively for irrigation purpose.
9. It is submitted that the allegations made by the applicant in the application that the officials are about to issue sand quarrying licence/permit over the 9 lake bed of Periya Eri comprised in survey number 216 of Magaral village, is only his own assumption. Since, there was no savudu quarry from the year 2015, the committee could not found any damage to the environment. To curb the illicit sand/savudu mining the district administration strictly instructed the enforcement authorities then and there. There is no specific allegation mentioned by the petitioner regarding the illicit mining neither in his affidavit nor his representation. It is submitted that no permissions for mining is being granted either to the Public Works Department or through their contractors as permitted by the PWD.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 26th day of July, 2021."
10. Thereafter, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
4. The applicant has filed their objection to the report and also produced some photographs. However, the report of the 3rd Respondent shows that the pits alleged by the applicant were of very old one and no savudu quarry has been permitted in that area after 2015. As regards encroachment aspect is concerned, they contended that certain survey. is undertaken and after completion of survey, they will be able to take steps.
They have not mentioned about the.maintenance work of the tank and what is the nature of maintenance undertaken, .as.even according to them, the area is still with bushés and other shrubs.
5. The 3rd Respondent is directed to file a further report regarding further action taken as undertaken by them on or.before 07.12.2021 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."
11.The matter was taken up on 25.01.2022, on which date a 3" party has filed an IA. No. 171 of 2021 (SZ) to get themselves impleaded as additional 8™ respondent and the same was allowed and the applicant in I.A. No. 171 of 2021 (SZ) was impleaded as 8" respondent in the matter.
12.The matter was taken up on 22.02.2022, on which date, this Tribunal had considered the progress report submitted by the 3% respondent dated 17.12.2021, e-filed on 20.12.2021 and extracted in Para (2) of the order which reads as follows:-
10PROGRESS REPORT FILED BY THE 3°¢ RESPONDENT 1, A.Muthaiya. san of Mr.A.t.Asakan aged ahout 5G years, officiating as Superintanding Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Department,. Pafar Basin Circle, Chennai ~05 do, solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
2. I state that, Iam the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department / Water Resources Department, Palar Circle, Chepauk, Chennai file the interim report 3r4 respondent herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case from records.
3. Tt is suomitted that, the Hor'ble National Green Tribunal in its order dated 22,09.2020 directed that . Ss i Ee "9. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the apptication and also the real state of affairs that transpires in that area, we feet if appropriate to appoint a Joint Conmittce camprising of 1) the Bistrict Callector, Thicuvallur Oistrict or a Senior Officer not below the rank of Assistant Caslector/Sub Ofvisioral Magistrate duly deputed by him, 2} a Senior Officer deputed by the Directar of Mines and Minerals, 3) the Superintending Engineer," Public Works Department, Thiruvattur and 4) a Senior Officer fram State Environmental impact Assessment Authority (SELSA), Tami! Nadu to inspect the area ir question and sabrnott a factual as well as action teken repart, if there is any violation Found."
4. It is submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Nations Green Tribunal the canstituted by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal has inspected the subjec on 20.01.2021. In the inspection report it is mentioned that the Assisrent O8 Geology and Mining records shows that there was no savucdu quarry opersted / permitted since 2015 in the Magqaral tank arn further ctated that the Fublic Works Department was never taken up any desilting / dredging werk in this tank anc ony the renovation works such as bund strengthening, maintenance of siujces and weir was taken up in the year 2074 under the World bank scheme.
5S. Itis submitted that, the Petitioner in his affidavit states that, "G, However, for the two months there are strangers found af the site oF the lake and around with earthniovers aff rmeant for removing the savuda sand. When the villagers queried them they seid in single tone thet they are going te perform quarry operations fe., to rermave the sand in the Perivya Erf / Lake. When the villagers queried about their autiority to da so they said that they would get the quarry licence at any time ernd ther on that getting the quarry permit fram the second respendent they would start their sand removing operations and would continue the same day and night.
7 The applicant states that on coming to knew the attempted sand guarrying in the Perlya £ri, in behalf of the villagers. a representation Bas been given on 28.08.2020 to aff the respondents, aff of wham had > acknowledged the same."
From the above statement of the petitioner it is dearly understead that there was no sand/savudu quarry operation commenced in the Magara! tant.
11pageNo 3B No of Corn: 8 The petitioner on his own assumptions and presumptions approached this Hon'ble Tribunal to forebear the respondents over 1 to 4 fram without any substantiating evidence sanctiening/granting sand quarrying licence/permit at the lake bed of PeriyaEri camprised in. survey number 216 of Magaral village in ThiruvailurTaluk and District in contravention of G.0.938 dated 7,6.1968 issued by the Public Works Department. There is na such licence /permit has been given to anybody by the District Administration in the duringperiod issued by the Petitioner.
It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order in OA 64 of 2015 on 24,01. 2017 directed the official respondents not to permit the Sth respondent (one Mr.Sathish Kumar) or any other person to quarry at the Perlafri comprised in Survey No.2l6, Magaral Village unless and until such persons are granted permission based on compliance of the terms and conditions stioulated in G.0.Ms. No.938 dated 7.5.1988 and follow the policy of the Government in this regard. The order is duly complied by the official respondents so far. There is na such allegation has been made against the officials. It other words that there was no savudu quarry sanctioned at the Magaral tank since the filing of the above said application (OA G4/2015) in this Hor'ble Tribunal. On mere assumptions and presumptionswithout any corroborating evidence or proof or any record, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Tribunal, The petitioner has his own liberty to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal if the officials ara sanctioning/granting sand quarrying licence/permit over the lake bed of PeriyaEri comprised in survey number 216 of Magaral village in ThiruvallurTaluk and District. Tt is humbly submitted that, without granting any permission In the subject area by the officlals the petitioner's prayer is null and void.
It is submitted that, this Hon'ble Tribunal constitute the joint carmittee to inspect the Magaral tank to ascertain the illegal mining, There was no illegal mining found in the lake bed, The scrub jungle in the lake bed shows that there was no chance af illegal mining in the recent pasts. The statement of Assistant Directar Geology and Mining also stated that there was no savudu quarry from the year 2015. The Petitioner's prayer is to forebear the respondents 1 to 4 from anyway sanctioning/granting sand quarrying licence/permit the lake bed of PeriyaEri and stated in his petition that illegal mining to be done in the month of June and July 2020. There was no such illegal mining attempt was found during the inspection, The Petitioner himself stated in his affidavit that on coming to know the attempted ann) ee Oy: ate Assistant Enginesr (Ph . oe pee " rigation Section | (VRE oo. . Superintending Engineer, BRD, : watlur + 602 OOP eg Palox Basin Circle, _ Chepauk, Chennaika.
12sand quarrying in the PeriyaEri, on behalf of the villagers a representation has been given on 28.08, 2026, The pits mentionad by the Petitioner is found in the lake with bushes and Jungigs which meant that the pits are vary old ona., the Patitioner is trying allege that the illegal mining will be done in the lake by mentioning with very old pits. The committee in its report stated that detail jevels such as Sluice sffl level, Tank bed evel, in-let supply channel lave! and Irrigation ayacut levels willbe taken and the restoration of lake will be done. If is submitted that, due to Covid-19 and assembly election 2020' getting of funds from Government is delayed.As scan) as receiving funds from the Government the fake restoration work wil be commenced at once,
8. Th is submitted that, now survey works are being taken up by the Revenue Department with Public Works Departrnent te remove the encroachments. List of encroachment in Mageral tank is received now from Revenue Department. The form T & TE has received since bean on 13-12-2021 and from Yansildar, Thiruvallur and Number of encroachments and extent of encroachment are identified. Hence, there are no hutsfhomes are identified in water spread area of Maqaral tank, but agricultural encroachments are founded, corresponding form ITD notice as reqeurds to PWD from irrigation section I, Thiravailur PWD/WRD has Been issued ta the encroachers along with revenue officials such as VAO, Magaral and Revenue Inspector, Magaral on 16-12-2021. Eviction of encroachment will be carried out duly following eviction of encroachment act, Also necessary tank restorations works wil be taken up and restore the tank to its original standard so as to use effectively for irrigation purpose.
9, itis submitted that the allegations made by the applicant in the application that the officials are about to issue sand quarrying Hcence/permit over the lake bed of Perlya Eri comprised in survey number 216 of Magara! village, is arly his own assumption. Since, there was no savudu quarry from the year 2015, Even Quarry permission granted already will be cancelled and savudu quarry permission will not ba recommended in the tank in future. To curb the ilicit sand/savudu mining the district administration 'strictly. instructed the enforcement authorities then and there, 'Itis. therefore prayed that. this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above and pass such further or other orders as this Han'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai an this th 7th day of December, 2021. FE
a) A ngineer (PWD) 4 ve wren ierig fon Section I (YRD' Superintending Edginess, WHR, : Palar Gasin Circle, ABOZ 001s epepants, DhrennakS, Page No a No of Curmn: | wt.
13. This Tribunal also considered the progress report filed by the 3" respondent dated Nil, e-filed on 21.02.2022 and extracted in Para (4) of the order which reads as follows:-
13TOINY COMMITTEE REPORT FOR MAGARAL TANK IN MAGARAL VILLAGE OF THIRUVALLUR TALUM ANG DISTRICT Date of Inspection: £5.02. 2022 The Non'ble National Green Tribunal ($2), In its onter dated. 25.01.2022, directed the joint committee te file the report on ar before 21.02.2022. In this regard th .
© committes constituted early by its order dated, 22.09.2020 vide O.A No. 279 of 2 fe ; ; .
O20 is again revisited the Magaral tank on 15.02.2022 to verify the status of tank at Fhet $e eh, action taken related to eviction of encroschment and rehabilitation arid restoration of tha tank with the folowing officials:
Officers Present During Inspection:
i. Er BR, Thangaprakasam, Member SEAC-TN on behalf of SEIAA Ssidapet, Chennai
2. Or. S, Lakshmipriya, M.Sc., PR.
Deputy Director, Geotugy & Mining Department, Thiruvallur
3. Er. C. Podupanithiiggam, M.E., Executive Engineer, PWE., Kosasthalaiyar Basin Division, WRD., Thiruvallur
4. Mr. M. Ramesh, 8.Corm., Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvatur S. Er. G. Rarthigeyan, M.Tech., Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD., Kosasthalatyar Gasin Sub Division, WRD.,Thiruvallur &. Ptr. E. Senthilkumar, Tahsiidar, Thiruvalur
4. Pir. A. Nagarajan, M.Se., Assistant Geologist, Geology & Mining Department, Thiruvatlur &. Er. K. Seivakumeri, B.E., Assistant Engineer, irrigation Section --- I, WRD., Thiruvaltur 14 The entire team made a watkthrough along the Periphery of the water spread and Tank bund including surplus course, sluices & infet and outlet channels of the Nagaral big tank, During such time, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department stated that the boundary of the tank for an area of 74.08 Ha was surveyed and the agricultural encroachments of an area of 6.40 Ha in the tank bed were identified and completely evicted fram 05,02.2022 to 10.02.2022 after issuing the form II] notice as ber the Tamil Nadu Tank Protection and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007.
Removal of Agricultural Encroachments in the tank bed, dated, 05.02.2022 15 Removal of Agricultural Encroachments in the tank bed, dated. 07.02.2022 The Revenue officials stated that there were no huts / homes Identified in the water spread area. It is noticed that the PWD excavated the deep trench for the approximate length of 2000 m alang the fore shore boundary of the tank to prevent any further encroachment in the coming seasons. The committee Instructed to the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department to sow traditional indigenous palmyra seed in the trenches formed along the boundary which will prevent the future encroachment and act as a natural landmark, The Executive Engineer, PWD/WROD Informed the committee the drive of sowing Palmyra seeds along the boundaries of 75 numbers of tanks in Thiruvailur district on the eve of 75" Independence from August 2021. He alsa mentoned that this tank also will be Included under this drive, 16 asthe, Curing the ingpection, the committer observed that there are same agncultuns encmachment it the Grazing land (Meieat Porambake bad which forme Part of catchment of the Maga the Revenue Offic SF No. 230) adjacent to the tank ral Big Tank, The committee instructed | in the tank bed als to remove the above encroschmants as done in the tank bed, since it fetches equat importance and value.
iP.7.0) 17 we . . es for iishi ie with the Deputy tirecter, Mines Fo the Magaral tank bed, It reveals that there . 4% ' ollows.
the various periods up ta 2014 as fo! Si Name of Lessee "Proceeding of the No. of Lorry Period of pap Solr | areca | toe |p : smavigi | OO No. 644/200370- 11.01.2005 to 1 | Prema violet 2. Dated, Loy aoe. 2000 28.02.2005 'i , | lene ae (1 Month) Proc No. 321/2005/9, ; ' > 2005 | 2 | N. Dayalan Dated, 08,08,2005 1500 seperti [| ns Proe Na, {3 ron) = | Rave | 354/2006/02, Dated, ooo 15.06, | 3 | M, Rajasekar 15.06.2006 3 14,09, 2006 [ Proc No. (3 Months} : 978/2008/Q2, Dated, 3000 20.03.2007 to | 4 7 R. Blumatai 20.03,2007 19.06.2007 i | | RE We. 972/208) (1 Month) 1s IM. Viavatumar | G&M-2, Dated. | 3000 14.02.2008 to | 9 pM: Mlayelumar | oo soos | 13.03.2008 R.C No, sain {1 Month}
- aber G&M-2, Dated. 3000 29.02.2008 to 6 |S. Dayalan 29.02.2008 28.03.2008 | RC No. 1135/06) "(20 days) | Bharathkumar | G&M-2, Dated. 3000 21.07.2008 to ? | €, Bharathkumar 21.07.2008 09.08.2008 , R.C No. $72/2008/ (15 days} 8 [M. Vijayakumar | G&M-2, Dated. | 2230 26.08.2008 to | | 26.08.2008 | 14.09.2008 [RC No. 466/2011/ (50 days) 9 1D. Amirtharaj | G&M-2, Dated. | 4800 22.12.2011 te 24.12.2011 09.02.2012 RC No. 154/2012/ (45 days) 10 | M, Boopathy heer 0 Dated.) ag7s 21.05.2012 to 05.201 04.07.2012 18 SI ee ee ae 6, t Foe | N8me of Leseen Bit gee nn Nol (th vane ' Proceeding oF the Na. of Lorry period of pone, evalar gal) Mistrict Collector, Loads permission | ee etal _.bermitted a _ eee, NO 8a SO days iy, Balakrishnan GEM.2, Dated. anys 19:07.2012 te ee 18.07.2042 ~ 16.09.2012 baat. RE aBT Ts days) 12/3, Balakrishnan | GRM-2, Dated. 4925 31.05,2013 30.05.2013 | 24.07.2013 RC Na. 90/2011) {80 88) 13 | R.kothandareman 3 orto Dated, 4860 oon 2014 'O14. Due to the operation of However, no quarry was operated from the year 2014, Due to the op deviated i . with lot of the earlier quarries, the terrain of the tank bed has undulated in nature ag ne major scrub jungle and bushes, The PWD officisis informed that there was no rehabilitation work taken place pertaining te this tank after the year 2014.
Inspection of Tank bed by committee, dated, 15 19 inspection of Tank bed by committee, dated. 15.02.2022 The Executive Engineer stated that, a detailed project report has been prepared to rehabilitate the tank including improvements to sluices, weir, bund and supply channel at a cost of 1.05 Crores. The work will be carried out after obtaining the gdrministrative sanction from the authority.
The committee viewed that the District Collector, Thiruvallur may be requested to allot Rs.25.00 Lakhs under the District Mineral Fund towards the renovation of ming affected Magaral tank bed from undulation.
Earlier the petitioner Thiru. G. Ramesh, Magaral Village filed the O.A No. 64 of 2015 against the District Collector, Thiruvallur (1° respondent) induding the respondents Mr, V.K. Sathiskumar {5 respondent) and Mr. Prakash (6 respondent) who have got the environmental dearance from SEIAA before the Hon'ble Tribunal for not to operate the quarries in the tank bed. The Hon'ble Tribunal In its order dated, 24.01.2017 (Annexure - If) viewed that, 20 ane Atte t ILLES, SUFVEY NO. 216, Mag 'aral Villac GE unless gp based on ;
complisnee of 2 OF the fe 07.06.1988 and tolls ferms and conditions stipulsted in G.O Ms. No. 938, pated. 'HOW the polley of the Government in this regard".
On further r perus: thee reveal perusal of the records available with the Deputy Director, Mines veals that there are 1 re ate three environmentat clearance order granted in the year 2039 and the s de ame orders were amended in the year 2017 (Annexure ~ If) by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority as detailed below:
The above orders were neither brought to the notice of the committee during first Inspection of the committee on 30,01,2021. However the istrict Collector, Thiruvallur has not executed any lease agreement for the above proponent to carry gut the quarrying operations in this tank bed.
The committee viewed that the execution of the leases for the above three environmental clearance orders by the District Collector, Thiruvallur may not be technically suitable in the present scenario until the Public Works Department carried out the rehabilitation and restoration work in the tank.
The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department who is the custodian of the tank alse stated before the Hon'ble Tribunal In his status report dated. 17.12.2021 that ever qualTy permission if any granted earlier will be recommended to be cancelled and any fresh permission will not be granted in future, 21 The GTmRiee xf as.
arnvironimeants} thegrance SO Raw r .
RRBIMEN key fancel the fonow 2 tag above orders, , Sued hy SELAA, SH. Prefect Ot eee " :
ex - Savranimn : . x sesenennnnvedicecn _Prepe eet Letter wer nee Amendment Letter NG. i Srrenaneroesnrnanceneananancnns ~ -- seqaannneeenee an g | Mr. Wak, SELAR"TNYF, Na. 2733 JECY SEIAASTN/F. NO.R7SL/ECH | Sathishkumr i ta)/1665/2014, 4 (ay 1SSs2014, \ detad. 24.02.2015 | dated. 27.41.2087 ' . _ 4 5 ' SELAA-TNSF, No. 2BBS SECS SEIAA-TN/F. No. 28847 \ @ | Mr N. Prakash 4 (ayzoiss2a14, EC/L (ayfaoig/2oid, { j Hated. o1.O8, 2014 dated 21.24.2027 \ SEIAA-TN/E. No. 4233/8C¥ GEIAA-TN/F. NOARIECL | 3 Mr 2 Ravi 4 {ayvEF2/2015, 1 (ay2G722015, \ dated.05.02. 2016 | dated, 20.12.2017 i a oy ek sale aan TANT ana executive Engineer, PWD.
SPACCIN on behalf of SEIAA Kosusthalstyar Basin Division, WRO., Thiruvalur ] Orn Beouty Girector, Revenue DivisionabOfficer, Geology & Mining Department, Thiruvathur Thiruvallar
14. Thereafter, the matter was posted for objections, (if any), to the report and for hearing.
15.The applicant has filed their objections to.the Joint Committee report wherein he had reiterated the earlier allegations made stating that earlier as per order in O.A. No. 64 of 2015 (SZ) certain encroachments were found and now it was mentioned in the report that they have only removed certain encroachments.
They have not mentioned anything about the further encroachments in that area. They wanted an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed to look into the issue.
16.It is also mentioned in the recent objections filed by the applicant that the additional 8" respondent had admitted in their impleading application that they were in possession of the quarry.
But according to the official respondents, no quarrying work is being undertaken in that area. So that is 22 quite contradictory each other. None of the authorities have spoken about "sluice gate", its level and how far the parameters in G.O.Ms.938 has been violated, steps taken by them for implementation of the directions thereafter.
17.The applicant also produced certain Google images to substantiate their case.
18.Heard Mr. R. Selvakumar and Mr. A. Athimoolam counsel appearing for the applicant, Dr. D. Shanmuganathan appearing for State respondents, Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff appearing for 4 respondent and Mr. C. Vidhusan appearing for 8 respondent.
19.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant reiterated the allegations made in the application that illegal mining is still going on and the averment made by the 8" respondent in their impleading application.will go to show that they are in possession of the quarry. That implicitly shows that he has involved in quarrying in that area without obtaining permission.
20.In addition, the learned counsel also argued that as regards the encroachments are. concerned, they have not mentioned that the entire encroachments found were removed.
21.The counsel appearing for the 8 respondent submitted that though they have obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) in the year 2015, they have not started the quarrying as the necessary mining lease agreement has not been executed and they will not carry out the mining without obtaining necessary permission/clearance from the authorities.
22.The learned counsel appearing for the State Department submitted that the report submitted by the Joint Committee as well as the Public Works Department will go to show that no mining is going on in that area and they will not violate any of the directions issued by this Tribunal.
23.Considered the submissions, pleadings and the documents produced.
24.The main grievance in this application was that illegal mining was going on in 'Peria Eri which is known as Magaral Big Tank' as well. But we have appointed 23 a Joint Committee to go into the question and the Joint Committee had submitted various reports even after considering the objections field by the applicant which will clearly go to show that at present that no quarrying activities are going on in that area. Earlier certain quarrying permissions were granted and they done the quarried the area after obtaining necessary permission/clearance and after the period was over, no fresh mining permissions were granted in that area.
25.It is true that the 8 respondent had mentioned in the impleading application that he had obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) of the year 2015. This fact was admitted in the Joint Committee report as well. But they have categorically stated that the 8" respondent had not started quarrying as no mining lease agreement was executed in their favour.
26.The Google images produced by the applicant are also not helpful to prove that at present mining activities were going in that area.
27.Under such circumstances, we don't think that there is anything that survives in the matter. If it is found that illegal mining is done by anybody on a later occasion, the right of the applicant to approach this Tribunal is left open. Further while disposing the matter in O.A. No. 158 of 2015 (SZ) and connected matters (R. Nallakannu Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests), this Tribunal had given certain directions which reads.as follows:-
1. No direction can be given for total banning of dredging or de-
siting of dams or river bods as contended by some of the applicants in some of the applications mentioned above.
2. No environment clearance is required for de-silting of dams, reservoirs, rivers etc.,
3. In the guise of de-silting or dredging of dam sites or lakes or river no illegal mining should be permitted.
4. The dredging or de-silting can be done strictly in accordance with the guidelines given by the MOEF&CC in Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and also Enforcement and Monitoring 24 Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and directions in Anumolu Gandhi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, O.A. No. 395 of 2018 (Supra) and also in O.A. No. 47 of 2016 -- Tirumalasetti Srinivas Vs. Government of India with O.A. No. 117 of 2016 -- Devineni Rajasekhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others O.A. No. 259 of 2016 -- Sakeer Vs. State of Kerala and Others.
The State of Tamil Nadu is directed to conduct regular survey of sediment deposit in the rivers or reservoirs, anaicuts, lakes, pond etc., before undertaking the work of desilting or dredging as part of maintenance of these water bodies.
The State of Tamil Nadu is directed to permit riverbed sand mining strictly in. accordance with the provisions of EIAN Notification, 2006.as amended from time to time and also in compliance with Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020. The State of Tamil Nadu is also directed to have adequate control and monitoring mechanism of these activities for effective mining/desilting/dredging by providing all necessary infrastructure, including the technical assistance and technology available for this purpose. They must also provide necessary mechanism for monitoring the dredging/desilting and transport of the minerals extracted during dredging/desilting or in the process .of sand mining. from the. point -- of dredging/desilting/mining and transportation of the same to the destination. so.as..to avoid misuse. of both minerals for unauthorised purpose or other purposes than the permission granted including registering the vehicles permitted for this purpose and providing GPS in these vehicles wherever it is possible.
The State of Tamil Nadu is also directed to instruct the enforcement authorities to take stringent action against the persons who are violating the norms and engaged in illegal sand mining or other exploitation of the mines/minerals than the permitted quantity, including launching of prosecution and collecting environmental compensation apart from collecting penalty and royalty provided under the respective Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules and confiscating or taking action against the vehicles involved in such illegal activities in accordance with law.
2510. 1i.
12.
13.
14.
15. The State of Tamil Nadu is also directed to have a permanent Expert Appraisal Committee in each District under the Chairmanship of District Collector with experts from the Mining Geology Department, PWD, Irrigation and if necessary, an outside independent agency for the purpose of carrying out the work of conducting replenishment study and for preparation of District Survey Report in this regard and directions be issued to them to carry our these things in regular manner well in advance before deciding to entrust the work of desilting or dredging or river sand mining to the concerned machinery.
The State Government is also directed to take steps for installing CCTVs in the. places allotted or identified for dredging/desilting/mining. so as to monitor the activities scientifically and..also..curb illegal mining and _ enabling identifying of the culprits effectively.
The report filed by the Joint Committee dated 14.12.2020 is recorded and accepted.
The directions given by this Tribunal are in addition to and not in-derogation to any of the direction, if any, used by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in this regard.
Any interim order.passed by this Tribunal is vacated in view of the disposal of the matter with the above directions.
Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in these applications.
The Registry is directed.to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary, State -.of Tamil. Nadu, Principal Secretary, Environment, Mining and Geology, State of Tamil Nadu and also to respective District Collectors for their information and strict implementation of directions of this Tribunal.
28.This Tribunal had given detailed directions and as per the same certain mechanism should be evolved for checking where illegal mining by installing CCTV Cameras in the Hotspots where illegal mining is expected to happen and also where permission is granted for doing mining to find out whether any unauthorised mining is going on in that area.
29.Further this Tribunal also directed the authorities to strictly comply with the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 issued by the Ministry 26 of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) in respect of river mining and also dredging and desilting of the lakes.
30.This Tribunal also noted that in the guise of desilting or dredging, no illegal mining should be done in the water bodies. Under such circumstances, we feel that there is no necessity to issue any further directions except reiterating the implementation of the directions issued by this Tribunal earlier by the State authorities to evolve the mechanism for checking illegal mining and take appropriate action against those persons if it is found that excess mining was done as applying the Public trust doctrine it is the responsibility of the State to protect the natural resources being exploited by the greedy persons who after obtaining necessary permission for exceed.the limits for their.personal benefit and such persons will have to be dealt with in accordance with law by the regulators as there is a responsibility on them: to protect environment as envisaged under Article 48 (A) of the Constitution of India.
31.Under such circumstances, we dispose of the matter with following directions:-
i) In view of the Joint Committee report, we feel that there is no necessity to. issue any further directions in this regard.
ii) The authorities are directed to carry out the directions already issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 158 of 2015 (SZ) and other connected matters and also in (Anumolu Gandhi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in O.A. No. 395 of 2018 (PB) O.A. No. 47of 2016 (SZ) (Tirumalasetti Srinivas Vs. Government of India with O.A. No. 177 of 2016 Devineni Rajasekar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others and O.A. No. 259 of 2016 Mr. Sakeer Vs. State of Kerala and other) by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal and also this Tribunal.27
iii)
v)
vi) In case in future, if it is found that any illegal mining is going on, any violation is being committed or any encroachment is found, then, the right of the applicant to approach this Tribunal is left open.
The Water Resources Department is directed to take steps for periodical maintenance of Sluice gate and also the water body to protect the same against encroachment and pollution. They are also directed to take steps to remove the encroachment, if any, identified in the water body in accordance with law Considering the circumstances, the parties.are directed to bear the respective costs in the application.
The. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents for their information and for compliance of the directions.
32. With the above observations and directions, the application is disposed of.
(Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
eceeeseeeecesaneeeeenneeeesees E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. No. 179 of 2020 (SZ) 15.03.2022, Sr. 28