National Green Tribunal
Dusharla Satyanarayana vs National Highways Authority Of India on 23 May, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 249 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Dusharla Satyanarayana
H.No. 4-11-528/5
Annapurna Nilayam, Behind IMS School
Surya Velshi Colony, DVK Road
Nalgonda, Telangana - 508 001. ...Applicant(s)
Versus
National Highway Authority of India
Rep. by its Chairman
G 5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075 and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Sravan Kumar along with
Ms. SM Kothai Muthu Meenal.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Su. Srinivasan for R1.
Mrs. M. Sumathi for R2.
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali along with
Mrs. Renuka Devi for R3 to R5.
Judgment Pronounced on: 23rd May 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.249/2020 (SZ), 23rd May 2022. Mn.
Page 1 of 45 Item No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI (Through Video Conference) Original Application No. 249 of 2020 (SZ) IN THE MATTER OF Dusharla Satyanarayana H.No. 4-11-528/5 Annapurna Nilayam, Behind IMS School Surya Velshi Colony, DVK Road Nalgonda, Telangana - 508 001.
...Applicant(s) Versus
1) National Highway Authority of India Rep. by its Chairman G 5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.
2) Union of India Rep. by its Secretary Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhavan New Delhi - 110 003.
3) State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4) District Collector Suryapet District Collectorate Suryapeta Town and District Telangana - 508 213.
5) Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Erram Manjul Telangana, Hyderabad.
...Respondent(s) Page 2 of 45 For Applicant(s): Mr. Sravan Kumar along with Ms. SM Kothai Muthu Meenal.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Su. Srinivasan for R1.
Mrs. M. Sumathi for R2.
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali along with
Mrs. Renuka Devi for R3 to R5.
Judgment Reserved on: 01st April 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 23rd May 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. This case pertains to encroachment into the Chuttugunta Lake at Raghavapuram Village, Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District of Telangana State for the purpose of expansion of National Highway No.365 BB (hereinafter referred to as "NH 365 BB") by the 1st Respondent/National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "NHAI").
2. It is alleged in the application that the 1st Respondent has initiated expansion of the NH 365 BB from Suryapet to Khammam. This expansion is to increase the width of the road from 2 Lanes to 4 Lanes for the increasing traffic in highway and reducing accidents. In the process of expansion, they have completely ignored the environmental impact on Page 3 of 45 account of their activity. The expansion of National Highway is falling under "A - Category" as Item 7 under Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, as it has 30 Km length, 20 Meters additional right of way involving land acquisition. They are expected to follow the EIA Notification and also to conduct necessary Environmental Impact Assessment of the project before proceeding with the same. Further, encroaching into the water body and making construction is against Section 50 - 52 of the Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 F, as they have not obtained permission from the authorities in respect of the same. The above sections reads as follows:-
"50.Endangering Stability of any irrigation work:
(1) Whosoever without the permission of the competent officer:-
(a) pierces or cuts through, or attempts to pierce or cut through, or otherwise to damage or destroy or endanger the stability of any irrigation work;
(b) opens, shuts or obstructs, the sulice in any irrigation work or attempts it;
(c) for the purpose of diverting or impounding the free flow of water, (the right to which vests in the Government),-
(i) makes or attempts to make any dam or refuses or neglects to remove it when required to do so;
(ii) creates or attempts to create obstruction or refuses or neglects to remove any such obstruction when required to do so; shall on conviction before a Collector be punished with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
(2) For any contravention mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) (i) of sub-
section (1) if the Collector is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it is proper to punish with imprisonment in lieu of fine he may commit the case to the special Magistrate appointed under section 55 or if no such special Magistrate is appointed, to the competent Magistrate concerned and on conviction before the special Magistrate, or the competent Magistrate, as the case may be, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year.
51. Removing obstruction and compensation for loss:
Whenever any person is convicted under section 49 or 50 the Collector or, the special Magistrate or the concerned competent Magistrate, as the case may be, may order that he shall remove the obstruction or compensate the loss on account of which he is punished, within a period to be fixed in the order. If such person refuses or neglects to obey the order within the fixed period, the Collector may authorise the Irrigation officer to remove such obstruction or compensate such loss and its cost shall be recoverable from such person as an arrear of land revenue.Page 4 of 45
52. Power to remove and take into custody person obstructing:
(1) Any person in charge of or employed on any irrigation work may remove from the lands or buildings belonging thereto, or may take into custody without a warrant, and take forthwith before a Collector or concerned Tahsildar, to be dealt with according to law, any person, who in his view:
(a) wilfully damages, obstructs or fouls any irrigation work, or
(b) without permission from the competent officer, interferes with the supply or flow of water, in or from any irrigation work so as to endanger, damage or reduce its utility.
(2) when a person is arrested and produced before the Tahsildar under sub-
section (1) the Tahsildar shall release such person binding him for appearance by taking security or bond and shall send the report to the Collector without delay."
3. The relevant extraction of the Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 F was produced as Annexure - A2 along with the application. When the applicant came to know about the same, he had filed lot of complaints before the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Minister of Environment and Forest, Union Ministry for Transport, Chairman, NHAI, District Collector - Suryapet District etc. The 1st Respondent had filled about 5.10 Acres of water body and cause irreparable loss to the lake. Irrigation Department had made a communication to the NHAI regarding the expansion work is within FTL of Chuttugunta Lake and it must be stopped and they must obtain necessary permission from the Irrigation Department vide their letter dated 02.06.2020 and even issued notice to the 1st Respondent to stop their activities. In spite of the same, they are proceeding with the work.
4. Further, being the Central Government department, officials of the 1st Respondent are of the view that there is no necessity to comply with any environmental norms and nobody can prevent them from doing their activities. On account of the encroachment into the Chuttugunta Lake which is more than 300 years old and catering to the needs of the people Page 5 of 45 in that area by providing water for irrigation and other purpose, serious damage has been caused to the lake.
5. Further, the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.75 of 2019, directed the NHAI to realign the road without damaging the water bodies and providing elevated bridges, when they attempted to expand the highway through the Reserve Forest area. The same principles can be applied for this as well. While considering the question of Sustainable Development, they are not taking into account the "Precautionary Principle" to be adopted to protect environment as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647. Since in spite of the representations made, no action was taken, the applicant has no other remedy, except to approach this Tribunal by filing application seeking the following interim as well as main reliefs:-
"Interim Reliefs:-
(i) Direct the Respondent No.1 to stop expansion and laying of blacktopping of National Highway No.365 BB in the FTL and Buffer zone of Chuttugunta Lake at Raghavapuram Village, Mothey Mandal of Suryapet District
(ii) Direct the Respondents to remove all the filled soil in the Chuttugunta Lake immediately.
Main Reliefs:-
(i) Declare the action of the Respondent No. 1 for expanding the National Highway No. 365 BB in the Buffer and FTL of Chuttugunta Lake at Raghavapuram Village, Mothe Mandal of Suryapet District of Telangana State as illegal and against the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and EIA Notification, 2006 and the Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 F.
(ii) Restrain the Respondent No. 1 to take up expansion of National Highway No. 365 BB work in the FTL, Buffer Zone of Chuttuguntal Lake and build a bridge at the Lake or alternative to filling the water body as it was directed in the order dated 09.10.2019 in O.A. No. 75 of 2019.Page 6 of 45
(iii) Direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to conduct detailed assessment study on adverse effects on Chuttugunta Lake at Raghavapuram Village in Suryapet District due to the filling, damage caused by the Respondent No. 1 and restore the same to its natural state.
6. As per order dated 02.12.2020, after considering the allegations made in the application and also reiterating the responsibility of the State Government including the Union of India and its departments to protect water bodies as contemplated under Article 48 A of the Constitution of India as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal in several cases, where there was an attempt to encroach into the water bodies, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) a Senior Officer from Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, (MoEF&CC) Regional Office, Chennai, (ii) a Senior Officer deputed by the National Highway Authority of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad, (iii) a Senior Officer from the Lake Protection Committee, Hyderabad, (iv) the District Collector, Suryapet District and (v) the Chief Engineer of Irrigation and CAD Department of Government of Telangana or any Senior Officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer who is in charge of that area to be deputed by the Chief Engineer to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action report, if there is any violation found.
7. The committee was directed to ascertain as to
(i) whether prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is required for the purpose of carrying out the project in question
(ii) whether if such project is allowed to continue in piecemeal with ultimate aim of completing the entire stretch without Page 7 of 45 conducting any prior environmental impact assessment study and without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC), will it have any impact on environment
(iii) whether there is any encroachment in Buffer Zone or Full Tank Level (FTL) of the Chuttugunta Lake
(iv) whether any prior permission has been obtained from the State Government in this regard namely from the Irrigation Department for this purpose
(v) whether on account of the widening the Highway is there any possibility of affecting the ecological equilibrium of the lake and if there is any violation, what is the action proposed to be taken by the regulators including imposition of environmental compensation
(vi) If such project has to continue, what are all the remedial measures to be taken as a precaution to protect the water body from encroachment and reducing its Buffer Zone and Full Tank Level (FTL)
(vii) If there is any violation already committed, what is the impact on account of the violation committed by the authorities
8. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Chennai was designated as the nodal agency for co- ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.
9. The 1st Respondent/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) filed a reply affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine on Page 8 of 45 that ground itself. Though the applicant stated that the damage to the land is caused from July 2020 and continues till now, is it not limitation stand in their way of filing the application. Admittedly, the notification for acquisition of land passing through the subject land was published in local dailies on 22.09.2017 in "Andhra Jyothi (Vernacular) and "The Hindu", whereby, opportunity of making objection within 21 days is provided as per Section. The Environmental Clearance is not required for the instant project in terms of MoEF&CC notification No. S.O. 2559(E) dated 22.08.2013, as the project highway is less than 100 km length and does not involve additional Right of Way or land acquisition more than 40m on existing alignment and 60m on Bypass/Realignments, other than Toll plaza location. The location of Chuttugunta cheruvu is on RHS towards Khammam at design chainage from Km.26+120 to Km.26+200 in the Raghavapuram Village, Mothe Mandal of Suryapet District. The total area of Chutugunta cheruvu in Sy.No.22 is about Ac.21-21Gts, in which, 32.5 Gts (0.79 Ac) only affected in the alignment. The Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA) & RDO, Suryapet have proposed & published the Gazette Notification U/s. 3(A) of NH Act, 1956, regarding their intention to acquire the lands vide S.O.No.3001(E) dated 12.09.2017 in two local news papers i.e., Andhra Jyothi and the Hindu paper on 22.09.2017. The notice referred by the applicant sent by the Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Suryapet dated 17.07.2020, after the land acquisition was made in this alignment by publishing Notification under section 3(A)1 of NH Act, 1956 on 12.09.2017 and it was published in local dailies on 22.09.2017. In response to the Public Notification issued U/s.3(A)(1) of NH Act, 1956, neither objections were made nor petitions received from Irrigation Dept., Telangana State against the Page 9 of 45 acquisition of land for the said public purpose. Subsequently, a Notification was published by MoRT&H vide S.0.3055 (E) dated 18.06.2018 U/s. 3(D) of NH Act, 1956. After declaration under section 3D(1) of NH Act 1956, the land shall vest absolutely with Central Government free from encumbrances, as per Section 3D (2) of NH Act, 1956. Notice U/s. 3G(3) was also published in the daily newspapers of "Vaartha" on 08.07.2018 and "The Hans India" on 07.07.2018 and award enquiry was conducted on 28.07.2018 & 30.07.2018 at office of the Thasildar, Mothey Mandal. Further, CALA cum RDO, Suryapet has also verified the title of the land owners who were present and submitted their documents for receiving compensation, determined the market value for the acquired land vide the Award No. C/1522/2017 dated:
30.08.2018. Before finalization of Final Detailed Project Report, all possible alternative routes have been explored and the alignment has been fixed only after coming to irresistible conclusion that this alignment is feasible both economically and environmentally. Awards have been passed and compensation amount has also been paid to the land owners' whose lands were acquired for this project. Any interference at this stage of project would only affect the public interest. The affected area of pond is about 50x25 sqm approx. on right side of Design chainage at Km 26+200. The existing road and cross drainage works i.e., Minor Bridge 2 x 3.8m is proposed only to be widened. At this location Cross Drainage structure would balance the water on either side of existing road.
However, an additional depth would be dug for increasing the storage capacity of Pond without disturbing the water body/Lake. Even before publication of 3A (i) notification, the 1st respondent vide letter dated 05.06.2017 evidenced by Annexure R1(1) had written to the Executive Page 10 of 45 Engineer, Irrigation and CAD Department, Suryapet, informing him that the alignment is passing through Suryapet - Khammam section of NH 365BB from chainage Km.0/0 to Km. 64/240 and requested to provide hydraulic particulars as requested by the DPR consultant of the project highway. By this communication, it could only be inferred that the Irrigation Department is made aware of the alignment details even in June 2017 itself. On receipt of the representation of the applicant, the 1st respondent vide PIU, Khammam Letter No.2274 dated 06.05.2020 evidenced by Annexure R1 (2) had given the details informing that the project activities are in full swing and any change in alignment will cause claim and legal complications at this juncture of execution of the project. Vide PIU, Khammam Letter No.2574 dated 29.07.2020 evidenced by Annexure R1 (3), the 1st Respondent had written to the Executive Engineer of I.B. Division Suryapet providing all the details and also informed as follows:
"(i) The affected area of pond is about 50 x 25 Sq.m on right side of chainage at Km. 26+200, the existing road and cross drainage works i.e., Minor Bridge 2 x 3.8 m are proposed to widened.
(ii) From the Technical point of view NHAI is widening the existing road only not a new alignment and NHAT has proposed Cross Drainage structure at the location for balancing the water on either side of existing road.
(iii) The subject project which is affecting minor area of the pond i.e., Chuttugunta cheruvu in Ragavapuram village for which we may propose additional digging pond for increase the storage capacity without disturbing the pond."
10. The 1st Respondent had also requested the TPF GETINSA EUROESTUDIOS, S.L., an Independent Engineer of the project highway to inspect and examine the Chuttugunta Cheruvu with regard to the Page 11 of 45 issues raised by the applicant. The Independent Engineer had also carried out the inspection on 22.12.2020 through the Resident Engineer along with the senior payment specialist and obtained the inspection report and the same was communicated to the 1st Respondent on 24.12.2020 evidenced by Annexure R1 (4). After elaborating the views of the inspecting team, they have remarked that "in view of the project, as affecting only a minor area of the pond i.e., Chuttugunta Cheruvu in Ragavapuram Village, we propose additional digging of pond to increase the storage capacity without affecting the pond and also it was remarked that there is a proposal for Cross Drainage structure i.e., Minor Bridge 2 x 3.8m of span at the location for balancing the water on either side of the existing pond". It was further remarked that "there is no alternative option other than widening the existing road at the above mentioned location and already Minor Bridge has been proposed for balancing the water from RHS to LHS". They have received a letter dated 05.01.2021 evidenced by Annexure R1 (5) which is said to have been sent by the Deputy Executive Engineer, I.B. Sub Division, Suryapet. The 1st Respondent had sent a detailed communication to the Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Suryapet on 29.07.2020 evidenced by Annexure R1 (3) wherein, it was pointed out that the NHAI has neither received any objection from the concerned Irrigation Department since 2 years from Section 3G publications nor had received any objection from any other Government Departments. While the 1st respondent had correspondences with the District Collector of Suryapet District and the Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Suryapet of Suryapet District, it was not known why and under what circumstances, the Deputy Executive Engineer had issued the alleged notice dated 05.01.2021 evidenced by Annexure R1 (5). On receipt of the above said letter, the 1st respondent Page 12 of 45 vide their communication dated 21.01.2021 evidenced by Annexure R1 (6) requested the Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Suryapet to inform the Deputy Director for needful cooperation in the interest of the project. The work of the road for a length of 59km was awarded to M/s. Adani Transport Limited with an awarded cost of 1,566.30 Crore and an Agreement was executed between M/s. Suryapet Khammam Road Pvt. Ltd., & NHAI on 14.06.2019. The appointed date for Suryapet to Khammam section of NH-365BB is declared as 27.12.2019 including the schedule completion date as 24.06.2022 (910 days from Appointed Date). The Civil works are in progress by the Concessionaire (Physical progress 20.99% & Financial progress 21.11% as on January, 2021). The project is intended for the public purpose and any delay in completing the project at this stage will result in huge loss. So, they prayed for accepting the contention and dismissing the application.
11. The 4th Respondent/District Collector - Suryapet District filed counter affidavit restated the allegation of ignoring the Chuttukunta water body at Raghavapuram village and provisions of EIA notification and Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012 (adopted to Telangana State), Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 F while executing the expansion of 4 Lane National Highway between Suryapet and Khammam made in the application without admitting the same. On receipt of requisition from the PD, NHAI, PIU Khammam vide Lr. No. NHAI/PIU/KMM/2017/86, Dt:
20.04.2017 to acquire an extent of 68340.31 Sq.mts land in Raghavapuram village of Mothey Mandal for four lane Suryapet - Khammam section of NH-365 BB, the Competent Authority (LA) & Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet has completed acquisition process duly followed the NH Act, Page 13 of 45 1956 and issued notification from time to time as per statute i.e., Section 3A Notification published in Government of India Gazette No.2626, Dated:12.09.2017, S.O. 3001 (E), Daled:12.9.2017, Section 3D Notification published in Government of India Gazette No.2314, Dated:22.06.2018, S.O.3055 (E), Dated:18.06.2018 and 3G Notification No.C/952/2017, Dated:05.07.2018 published in daily newspaper the Hans India (English) and Vartha Telugu Daily on 07.07.2018 and 08.07.2018 respectively.
Thereafter, award enquiry was conducted on 28.07.2018 and 30.07.2018 in Tahsildar Office, Mothey Mandal and passed award U/s 3G (1) of NH Act, 1956 vide CALA & RDO, Suryapet Proc.No.C/1522/2017, Dated:30.08.2018 for the patta lands proposed for acquisition while deferring the Government lands, Shikam, Canals and internal roads which comes under acquisition in Raghavapuram Village of Mothey Mandal which is detailed as follows:
Total proposed area : 60059.25 Sq. Mts.
Government land & Shikam : 3288.02
Government Assigned land : Nil
Canal and Streets (Roads) : 75.87
Patta land (Area to awarded) : 56695.36 Sq.Mts.
12. Thus a total extent of 56695.36 Sq. Mts of patta lands which is coming under acquisition in Raghavapuram Village of Mothey Mandal was covered under award passed U/s 3 G (1)of NH Act, 1956 as per CALA & RDO, Suryapet Award proceedings No. C/1522/2017 dated 30.08.2018 while sanctioning an amount of Rs.1,71,74,274/- (Rupees one crore seventy one lakhs seventy four thousand two hundred and seventy four only) towards land compensation and disbursed to the (79) awardees whose lands were acquired for 4 laning/widening of NH-365 BB, Page 14 of 45 Suryapet to Khammam Section covering the following survey Numbers and land status of Chuttukunta lake is as follows:
Sl. Survey Patta/Govt. Dry/Wet
No. Number
1 22 Govt. Shikam
2 23 Private Dry
3 24 Private Dry
4 88 Private Dry
5 90 Private Dry
6 91 Private Dry
7 107 Private Dry
8 108 Private Dry
13. No objections were received either from the awardees whose lands were coming under acquisition or from the any interested persons regarding the acquisition or location of the acquisition, as the present project is existing State Highway i.e., R&B Road leads from Suryapet to Khammam was identified for expansion as National Project and assigned No. NH 365 BB within the interest of the public for transportation and convenience of the commuters. It may have lesser impact on the ecological equilibrium of the lake. Therefore, the impact may be reduced by providing column bridge by the project authority and increasing the storage capacity either by digging or increasing the size of the lake. No violation has been committed by project authority as present work is being carried out in the interest of the public on the acquired land including a small piece of land covered in Chuttukunta lake. However for maintaining same FTL of lake, the column bridge may be provided by the project authority and strengthening of bunds may be implemented as a remedial source to protect the water body i.e., Chuttugunta lake which is coming under acquisition for NH 365 BB in Raghavapuram village of Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District. In addition, the restoration of the lake Page 15 of 45 to its original status, inner side of the bund revetment may be carried out in consultation with irrigation department at the cost of project authority as recommended by the joint committee constituted in this case. So, the 4th Respondent prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
14. The 5th Respondent/Minor Irrigation Department filed counter affidavit contending that the tank Chuttukunta is a Minor irrigation source located adjacent to the highway Khammam -Suryapet in Raghavapuram Village, Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District and this irrigation tank facilitate water for major ayacut and drinking purpose need of the people and cattle of Raghavapuram Village. The Chuttukunta is also one of the tank in the chain link of 12 tanks constituting over 8 village in five mandals, viz., Chuttukunta, Mamillakunta, Oo r a k u n t a , Raghavapuram v i l l a g e , N a l l a K u n t a , Namavaram Village in Mothey mandal, Peddha cheruvu, Madhavaram village, Modhula Cheruvu, Gurrapu Bandham in Tadvai village of Munagala mandal, Veerladevi Cheruvu, Bethole village, Chilkur Mandal, Kalvapelli Bandham, Malyalavari Bandham, Kalvepalli village, Garidepally Mandal, Vemuluri Project, Yathavakila village, Venkata Rangaiah Bandham Chennaipalem village, Mattampally Mandal then finally drains into Krishna River . Any changes in the Hydraulic Particulars of the Chuttukunta tank due to encroachment of the Road to the FTL area causes adverse effect on the remaining tank in the chain system. The details of the Chuttukunta Tank was as follows:-
Page 16 of 45
Name of the Tank : Chuttukunta
Location of the Tank : Raghavapuram Village, Mothey
Mandal, Suryapet District
Geo ID : 1709'14'' & 79046'28''
(Lat. & Long.)
Capacity : 6.10 Mcft
Ayacut : 33-35 (Ac-gt)
15. The alignment of the NH-365 BB is passing through the Chuttukunta Lake, Raghavapuram Village, Mothey (M), Suryapet District, Telangana State. The NH-365BB officials have not taken any prior permission and also not taken the NOC (No Objection Certificate) before starting the work from the Minor Irrigation Officials who are competent authority pertaining to Tanks & Lakes in the Telangana State. The NH- 365BB officials have executed some work by encroaching into the FTL of the tank which causes re duction in the capacity consequently the ayacut irrigated under this tank will also get reduced (Approx. reduction in the capacity & ayacut is 0.70 Mcft&4 Acre). The NH-365BB highway is being executed by encroaching into the tank FTL and they have immediately issued notices continuously to the NH-365 BB officials to stop the work immediately vide Notice given by the Assistant Executive Engineer, I.B. Section Mothey Dt:29/06/2020, Letter No.EE/IB/ SRPT/2020-21/169M, Dt:17/07/2020 & Letter No.DEE/IB SD/SRPT/2020-21 245 E, Dt:05.01.2021 and also stopped the work at site. As it came to the notice that again NH -365BB work has been resumed in the month of June 2020, again they issued notices which were referenced above and again stopped the work. The Irrigation department has made a strong objection to the NH-365 Page 17 of 45 BB authorities and stopped the work without being completely executed, by serving continuous notices and letters to the NH-365 313 authorities and doing the site inspection regularly, as this issue c a m e t o t h e n o t i c e o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t . T o s a f e g u a r d the Chuttukunta Lake of Raghavapuram Village, Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District, NH 365 BB authorities have to remove the soil which was filled in the lake area and instead of forming the road, using the soil with culvert in the middle they have to construct a fly over bridge with piers all along the length of the alignment of NH 365 BB without affecting the bun d, FTL, buffer zone and other elements if any pertaining to C huttukunta Lake. The flyover bridge with piers constructed in such a way that the water level of the bridge is not less than the TBL of Chuttukunta Lake or NH 365 BB authorities have to choose another alignment for forming the road it should be in such a way that it should not affect the FTL and buffer zone of Chuttukunta Lake and also should not obstruct the operational moves of the department authorities and any other official and also they have to take the formal NOC from the Irrigation Department before starting the work. So, they prayed for accepting their contention and passing appropriate orders. Page 18 of 45
16. The Joint Committee has filed the report signed by some of the officers with date 30.03.2021, e-filed on 27.08.2021 which reads as follows:-
"1. Introduction In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegation and its impact of the alleged water body and whether there is any violations committed by the executing authority namely, the National Highway Authorities, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Southern zone, Chennai vide order dated 02.12.2020 appointed a Joint Committee comprising the members of 1) a Senior Officer from Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, (MoEF& CC) Regional Office, Chennai, 2) a Senior Officer deputed by the National Highway Authority of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad (3) a Senior Officer from the Lake Protection Committee, Hyderabad (4) The District Collector, Suryapet District, (5) The Chief Engineer of Irrigation and CAD Department of Government of Telangana or any Senior Officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer who is in charge of that area to be deputed by the Chief Engineer to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action report, if there is any violation found. In the above said order Hon'ble NGT appointed Ministry of Environment Forest, Regional Office, Chennai as nodal agency for co ordination and for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose. The new Integrated Regional Office, Hyderabad of MoEF&CC has been established vide order dated 1-5/2013-ROHQ dated 13.08.2020. As the matter falls within jurisdiction of Telangana, it has been forwarded to IRO, MOEF&CC, Hyderabad for necessary action. Deputy Director General of Forests (DDGF, Central) has nominated Dr. E. Arockia Lenin, Scientist C, IRO, Hyderabad MoEF&CC to be part of the committee, as IRO. MoEF&CC, Hyderabad also is under the administrative control of DDGFIC).
2. Constitution of the Joint Committee:
In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble NGT, the Joint Committee has been constituted vide letter no. EP(A)/12.7/NGT(SZ) 1074/2020/TS/02 dated 08.02.2021. Joint Committee comprising the following members based on the Officers deputed/ nominated from the Authorities concerned:
i. Shri. Vinay Krishna Reddy, District Magistrate, Suryapet. ii. Shri. V. Durga Prasad, Deputy General Manager (Tech.,) & PD, PIU, Khammam.
iii. Smt. Ch. Param Jyothi, Superintending Engineer, Lake Protection committee, Hyderabad.
iv. Shri. D. Bhadru, Executive Engineer, 1.B. Division, Suryapet. v. Dr. E. Arockia Lenin, Scientist C, IRO, MOEF&CC, Government of India.
3. Terms of Reference (TOR) to the Joint Committee:
The Terms of reference (TOR) to the Joint Committee referred therein the Order dated 02.12.2020 of Hon'ble NGT in the above matter Inter-alia include the following:
i. Whether prior environmental clearance is required for the purpose of carrying out the project in question?
ii. Whether if such project is allowed to continue in piecemeal with ultimate aim of completing entire stretch without conducting any prior environmental impact assessment and without obtaining prior environmental clearance will it have any impact on environment? iii. Whether is any encroachment in Buffer Zone or Full Tank Level (FTL) of Chuttugunta Lake?
iv. Whether any prior permission has been obtained from the State Government in this regard namely from the Irrigation Department for this purpose?
v. Whether on account of the widening the Highway is there any possibility of affecting the ecological equilibrium of the lake?Page 19 of 45
vi. And if there is any violation what is the action proposed to be taken by the regulators including imposition of environmental compensation and if such project has to continue what are all the remedial measures to be taken as a precaution to protect the water body from encroachment and reducing its Buffer Zone and Full Tank Level (FTL)?
vii. And if there is any violation already committed what is the impact of nature of violation committed by the authorities if any, on the water body.
4. Background of Project:
Chuttu Kunta Lake: It is a fresh water body located at Raghavapuram (Village), Mothey (Mandal), Suryapet District of Telangana State (Geographical coordinates longitude: 79°46'28", Latitude: 17°9'14"). The total area of the lake is estimated about 21 Acre (84983.976 sq.m) (Annexure-1). According to irrigation department, this lake the concepts of 'Chain Linked Lake' in Telangana region were developed during the reign of Kakatiya dynasty. The main purpose of developing this kind of irrigation system is to supply water from the rain fed region to dry region through canal system. Chuttu Kunta lake is a kind of 'Chain Linked Lake' located at catchment area which supply water to other tanks located in the downstream area. (unique identification number: 80902801601
30). Currently, Chuttu Kunta Lake is linked with twelve other tanks located in the downstream area. The details of tanks connected with chuttukunta lakes are given below.
Location of the tank & S.No. Name of Tank/ Lake Mandal Name of the village 1 Chuttu Kunta 2 Mamilla Kunta Raghavapuram Mothey 3 Oora Kunta 4 Nalla Kunta Namavaram 5 Peddha Cheruvu Madhavaram 6 Modhula Cheruvu Munagala Tadvai 7 Gurrapu Bandam 8 Veerladevi Cheruvu Bethole Chilkur 9 Kalvapelli Bandham Kalvepalli Garidepally 10 Malyalavari Bandham 12 Vemuluri Project Chennaipalem Mattampally Present and Past status of the Chuttu kunta Lake: Chuttu Kunta Lake is located between two hillocks at the catchment area. It is non perennial and source of water based on either rainy season or lifting water for irrigation purpose through canal. Sometimes, the water level recedes to very low or dry and sometimes it reaches up to road boundary. During the site visit, the water level of lake has found to be reached up to full tank level. As per the Google earth images of chuttu kunta lake analysed from 2003-2020. The water level of lake was found to be reaching up to highway boundary in 2013 and 2018 and it was found to be partially filled with water in the year 2013 and 2020. It was found to be dry in 2017. (Annexure-2). The flora and fauna details of the lake were not known exactly. Few bird species and fresh water species were observed during the site visit (Annexure-3). The land status of Chuttu Kunta Lake: As per revenue records, the total area of the lake is calculated about 21 Acre (84983.976 sq.m). The total area of Chuttu Kunta Lake including buffer zone is owned by both government and private owners. Further, most of the area of the lake except Govt. land (Shikam) has been recorded as dry land as per revenue records. The Survey number and land status of Chuttu Kunda Lake is given below.
Sl. No. Survey Number Patta/Govt. Dry/Wet
1 22 Govt. Shikam
2 23 Private Dry
Page 20 of 45
3 24 Private Dry
4 87 Private Dry
5 88 Private Dry
6 91 Private Dry
7 107 Private Dry
8 108 Private Dry
9 122 Private Dry
Laying four lane from Suryapet to Khammam by NHAI: As submitted by NHAI, laying four lanes from Suryapet to Khammam has been accorded to NHAI, covering a total distance of 59.046km. The project starts at the existing point of 128.500 km of National Highway-65 and ends in the existing point of 50.750 km of National Highway-365BB (existing State Highway-42). The proposed alignment of laying four lane passes on the existing alignment which has been passing in the buffer zone of Chuttu Kunta Lake. NHAL has acquired the private land in the buffer zone in consultation with district administration and issued public notices in 2017 and after three year, Since, no objections have been received from public. NHAI started soil filling partially on the private land except culvert area (shikam land) located right side of the existing alignment in the buffer zone of Chuttu Kunta Lake. As the soil filling in the private land was in progress, the applicant approached Hon'ble NGT to stop the further filling of soil in the buffer zone as it affects the ecosystem of the lake. In the mean time, notices have been issued to Project authority by Executive Engineer, Irrigation and CAD department, Telangana to stop the further filling of soil by NHAI in the buffer zone.
In these circumstances, the joint committee has been formed as directed by Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 02.12.2020. Site visit of joint committee has been carried out on 10.12.2021.
Current status of the Lake: Soil has been filled by project authority at the private land which is located in the buffer zone of lake and said land has been acquired for this project purposes. Current status of the lake is given in Annexure-4.
5. Meeting of the Joint Committee:
In compliance with the Order dated 02.12.2020 of Hon'ble NGT in the above matter and in continuation to the Joint Committee Constitution vide O.M. dated 08.02.2021 of Integrated Regional Office of MoEF&CC at Hyderabad, the meeting of the Joint Committee was held on 10.02.2021 at District Collectorate, Suryapet District. As a nodal agency, the meeting was coordinated by Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Govt. of India. Nominated members for Joint Committee from IRO, MOEFCC, National Highway Authority of India and Irrigation and CAD Department of the Joint Committee were attended in the said meeting. Representatives from District Collector and Superintending Engineer were attended on behalf of nominated members. It was informed that District Collector and Superintending Engineer were unable to attend meeting due to involvement of other administrative works and meetings. As part of natural justice and as consented by all the members of the Committee an opportunity was given to the Applicant and the project authority to express their views. On behalf of NHAI, the nominated member himself has submitted the view of Project Authority. During the meeting of Joint Committee, members discussed the facts, issues and prayers in the above case and the Terms of the Reference (TOR) to the Joint Committee referred therein the Order dated 02.12.2020 of Hon'ble NGT.
5 (i). Submission from Applicant to the O.A. The applicant Shri. Dusharla Satyanarayana has taken part in the above said Joint Committee meeting and made following submissions.
a. The applicant is introduced that he is resident of Ragavapuram village and the role of his ancestor as freedom fighters in British India.
b. The applicant submitted that the love towards nature leads him to develop a man made forest area in his own land about 70 acre area. That private forest area is Page 21 of 45 located nearby of buffer zone of chuttu kunta fake. The applicant showed the evidence of the flora and faunal diversity observed in the forest area before and after developments.
c. The applicant showed the effect of health issues faced by local people by presence of fluoride in the ground water at Ragavapuram village and its surrounding area which is due to absence of ground water balance in that region.
d. The applicant has submitted that Chuttukunta Lake is located at catchment area and in between two small hillocks. The storage of water will improve the ground water level, agriculture and livelihood of this region.
e. The applicant is submitted that Government of India would spend extra money and effort to save the ecosystem of the Chuttu Kunta Lake by providing Column bridge instead of soil filling.
5.(ii). Submission of Project Authority (National Highway Authority of India) a. Project Authority has submitted that this project is Widening to four laning of the Suryapet to Khammam of NH-365BB (existing SH-42) in the State of Telangana under Bharatmala Pariyojana on Hybrid Annuity Mode.
b. Project Authority has submitted that the above said alignment has been approved on the basis of presentation made before Hon'ble Minister for (R&B), Hon'ble Minister for Energy, SC Director, Engineer-In-Chief(R&B), NHAI department and Regional Officer, NHAI, Hyderabad.
c. Project Authority has submitted that the location of Chuttugunta Lake is on RHS towards Khammam at design chainage km.26+120 to Km.26+200 in the Ragavapuram Village, Mothey Mandal of Suryapet District. Survey number 22 (affected area in the survey number 22 is 32.5 Gts) of chuttukunta lake is affected the proposed alignment.
d. Project Authority has submitted that competent Authority of Land acquisition (CALA) & RDO, Suryapet have proposed and published the Gazette Notification U/s. 3(A)of NA-Act, 1956 for acquiring land vide S. No. No. 3001(E) dated 12.09.2017. Notice on the subject matter has been issued in two local newspapers (i. Andhra Jyothi, ii. The Hindu) on 22.09.2017.
e. Project Authority has submitted that no objections/petitions were received neither from public nor from Irrigation department to said notices issued in the said newspapers.
f. Project Authority has submitted that MORT&H vide S.O. 3055(E) dated 18.06.2018 has been published under section of 3(D) of NH-Act, 1956. The land shall vest absolutely with Central Government free from encumbrances, as per Section 3D(2) of NH Act, 1956.
g. Project Authority has submitted that 3G notice has been published in the daily news papers i.e. i. Vaartha dated 08.07.2018 ii. Tha Hans India dated 07.07.2018. Award enquiry has been conducted on 30.07.2018, Subsequently, CALA&RDO has passed the Award No. C/1522/2017 dated 30.08.2018 h. Project Authority has submitted that no objections were received from Irrigation department since the publication of 3G notice.
i. Project Authority has submitted that vide letter no. NHAI/PIU KMM/2019/1049 dated 06.02.2019 a request has been submitted to District Collector, Suryapet for sanction and transfer of ownership of the property of Government land as per G.O.Ms.No. 571 dated 14.09.2012 which is under progress.
j. Project Authority has submitted that prior environmental clearance is not required as per MoEF&CC notification No. 5.0.2559(E) dated 22.08.2013 as the project highway is less than 100 km length and does not involve additional Right of Way or land acquisition more than 40m on existing alignment and 60m on Bypass/Realignments, other than Toll Plaza location. The present project is Widening of the existing road to Four Lane at this particular location without change of alignment.
Page 22 of 45
k. Project Authority has submitted that after 3 years of 3A approval a letter dated 05.01.2021is received from Executive Engineer, IB Division, Irrigation Department with a request to stimulate other modes of formation of road. A reply has been submitted to Irrigation department stating that change of project is not possible at this stage as the project is in its advanced stage.
l. Project Authority has submitted that all possible alternative routes have been explored and this alignment has been fixed finally, as it is feasible both economically and environmentally. Awards have been passed by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) and compensation amount is paid to land owners, who are affected by this project.
m. Project Authority has submitted that the affected area of the lake is minimal and about 30x25 sq.m on the right side of the design chainage at Km.26+200.
n. Project Authority has proposed to dig additional depth of the lake, strengthening of bund, widening of minor bridge 2x3.8 m, rain water harvesting structure, drainage facility for runoff from roads.
o. Project Authority has submitted that the project is in an advance stage of construction with about 26% physical progress, any interference would only affect the public interest.
6. Status of Statutory requirements:
It is humbly submitted that this project activity is exempted from the preview of ElA notification 2006 as per MoEF S.O. 2559(E) dated 22nd August 2013. The details of and ElA notification 2006 and MoEF 5.0.1533(E) dated 14.09.2006) are given below.
i. Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006: (MOEF 5.0.1533(E)dated 14.09.2006) : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and in supersession of the notification number S.O. 60 (E) dated the 27th January, 1994, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date of its publication the required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act, in accordance with the procedure specified hereinafter in this notification.
The requirement of prior environmental clearance under EIA notification 2006 for Highways is given below.
Project or Category with threshold limit Conditions if any
Activity A B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
7(f) Highways i) New i) New State General Condition shall
National Highways; Highways and; apply
and ii) Expansion of
ii) Expansion of National/ State
National Highways Highways greater than
greater than 30 Km involving
30 km involving additional right of way
additional right of greater than 20 m
way greater than involving land
20m involving land acquisition.
acquisition and
Page 23 of 45
passing through
more than one
State.
ii. MoEF S.O. 2559(E) dated 22nd August 2013: The first paragraph of page no.4 of MoEF S.O. 2559(E) dated 22nd August 2013 may be read as (Annexure-5) "And whereas the committee has submitted its report to the Ministry and on this Tor. Committee has recommended exempting highway expansion projects from the requirement of scoping and that Environmental Impact Assessment of Environment Management Plan for highway expansion projects may be prepared on the basis of model ToRs to be posted on Ministry Website and in respect of requirement of environmental clearance, the committee has recommended that expansion of National highway projects up to 100 kms involving additional right of way or land acquisition up to 40 mts on existing alignments and 60mts on re- alignments or by-passes may be exempted from the preview of notification"
iii. Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act. 1357(F):
As per the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act. 1357 F section 48 (8), 49(a) & (f) & 50 the vehicular traffic on bunds or inspection path ways are prohibited within the boundaries of tank, canal or channel relating to the irrigation work and damaging of irrigation works i.e., damages, alters, enlarges or obstructs any irrigation work, not withstanding any prohibition, passes or causes animals or vehicles to pass in or across any irrigation work, its banks or channels and endangering stability of any irrigation work. (Annexure-6)
7. Observation of the Joint Committee on the (TOR) to the committee:
Based on the deliberations held during the meeting of the Joint committee and site inspection of the area under question, the following observations are made, i. Whether prior environmental clearance is required for the purpose of carrying out the project in question?
It is humbly submitted that this project is expansion of existing alignment of State Highway. The total length of proposed alignment is 59.046 km. It does not involve land acquisition more than 40m on existing alignment. Therefore, it is submitted that this project activity is exempted from the preview of environmental clearance as per MoEF S.O. 2559(E) dated 22nd August 2013. Wherein paragraph 4 of page number 4 mentioned that "expansion of National highway projects up to 100 kms involving additional right of way or land acquisition up to 40 mts on existing alignments and 60mts on re alignments or by-passes may be exempted from the preview of notification" (the copy of said notification is given in Annexure-5).
ii. Whether if such project is allowed to continue in piecemeal with ultimate aim of completing entire stretch without conducting any prior environmental impact assessment and without obtaining prior environmental clearance will it have any impact on environment?
Consequences of degradation lakes: According to National River Conservation Directorate, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India "Conservation and Management of Lakes -An Indian Perspective" The degradation of lakes has both direct and indirect consequences for humans. The reduction or loss of various functions of lake ecosystems directly affects humans. For example, the reduction in area and depth by siltation affect the amount of water stored and ground water recharge. Recent flood events around Hyderabad were found to be direct consequences of loss of water bodies in the drainage basin. Further, the local people were informed that their livelihood is mostly depending on this lake water for drinking, agricultural and other activities.
Absence of Environment assessment study in the previous alignment: It is humbly submitted that proper environment assessment study has not been carried out for the existing alignment. For example, there were few small water bodies not taken in to the consideration during the construction of existing alignment. The applicant showed such kind of lake affected by existing alignment during site visit.Page 24 of 45
The leaching of water has been occurred from water body located at the left side of the existing highway to other side of road. However, It was submitted that EIA was conducted by the DPR consultant, and reported in Final Feasibility Report (FFR) based on which the project was taken up. Moreover, The Project Authority has agreed to go for further depth to increase the storage capacity of the water body to maintain the FTL of chuttu kunta lake as desired by Irrigation Department. Requirement of EIA study: Given the above circumstances, it is humbly submitted that prior EIA study by recognized institute and environmental clearance may be required in future, if such kind of water bodies affected due to expansion activities.
iii. Whether is any encroachment in Buffer Zone or Full Tank Level (FTL) of Chuttugunta Lake?
Present status of soil filing:
As per Irrigation Department, the FTL points for chuttu kunta lake is falling on the survey numbers of 21, 24, 23, 22, 107, 88, 91, 90 and 108 (Annexure-1). Among them, only survey number 22 belongs to government land (Shikam) and rest of the lands were owned by private owners. The survey number 23 and 108 which fall on the buffer zone of lake and owned by private owners have been acquired by NHAI for project purpose. It was observed that the land has been acquired in accordance with law and in consultation with district administration. The present soil filling has been carried out on the acquired land which is adjoining to existing road. (Annexure-3).
No soil filling has been carried out on the survey no. 22 which is owned by Government. Further, Proper intimations and public notices were issued about project to public through news papers prior to expansion of the project to four lane. The project authority have informed to the Irrigation department about the project vide this office correspondence Letters No.116 & 117 dated 15.05.2017, 146 & 147 dated 05.06.2017.
The present soil filling has been carried out on the private land, since no objections were received either from irrigation department or public. After soil filling carried out on the private land by project authority, the irrigation department has sent notices to project authority to stop the soil filling on the chuttu Kunta Lake. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the present work is being carried out on the private land acquired by the authority for project purpose; hence, it may not be treated as encroachment. However, though the acquired land is private land, necessary approval from irrigation department would have been obtained since the said private land falls on the FTL level of the lake according to irrigation department. Therefore, given the above circumstances the Hon'ble NGT may take appropriate decision as deemed fit.
iv. Whether any prior permission has been obtained from the State Government in this regard namely from the Irrigation Department for this purpose?
It is humbly submitted that land has been acquired in accordance with law as per district administration guidance. The project authority have informed to the Irrigation department about the project vide this office correspondence Letters No.116 & 117 dated 15.05.2017, 146 & 147 dated 05.06.2017. Since, no objections were received either from irrigation department or public, work was carried out. However, The irrigation department pointed out that it is mandatory to obtain permission from irrigation department, as per the State Government G.O.Ms No.168, MA&UD Department dated 07.04.2012 at para (3) (a)(ii) (2). But the project authority has denied the fact and submitted that, the said GO is applicable to constructions of building project only and not linear project. Therefore, given the above circumstances the Hon'ble NGT may take appropriate decision as deemed fit.
v. Whether on account of the widening the Highway is there any possibility of affecting the ecological equilibrium of the lake?
It is humbly submitted that as the present project is expansion on the existing State Highway, it may have lesser impact on the ecological equilibrium of the lake. Therefore, the impact may be reduced by providing column bridge as proposed by project authority and desired by irrigation department, and increasing the storage capacity either by digging or increasing the size of the lake.Page 25 of 45
vi. And if there is any violation what is the action proposed to be taken by the regulators including imposition of environmental compensation and if such project has to continue what are all the remedial measures to be taken as a precaution to protect the water body from encroachment and reducing its Buffer Zone and Full Tank Level (FTL)?
It is humbly opined that no violation has been committed by project authority as present work is being carried out on the acquired land with guidance of district administration. However, the requirement submitted by irrigation department such as proposed column bridge, maintaining same FTL of lake and strengthening of bunds may be implemented as a remedial source to protect the water body.
Recommendations of committee: It is humbly submitted that as the present project is expansion and strengthening of the existing State Highway, it may have lesser impact on the ecological equilibrium of the lake. The requirements submitted by irrigation department such as provision of column bridge (80m), maintaining FTL of lake as it is, and strengthening of bunds may be implemented as a remedial source to protect the water body. In addition, The Restoration of the lake to its original status, inner side of the bund, revetment may be carried out in consultation with irrigation department at the cost of project authority.
Therefore, given the above recommendations, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble NGT may take any decision as deemed fit."
17. On 06.01.2022, this Tribunal had considered the letter said to have been sent by the Executive Engineer - Irrigation Division No.1, Suryapet to the Project Director - NHAI, directing the project proponent to submit a new proposal for construction of elevated bridge with piers for the total length of the alignment passing through the FTL and Buffer Zone of the Chuttu Kunta lake and according to the Irrigation Department, the bridge will have a total length of 370 Meters, whereas permission is sought only for 80 Meters. This Tribunal had also considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the NHAI that the person who now raised objections regarding the length of the bridge is also member of the committee and the proposal was made on the basis of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee as suggested by the Irrigation Department, as it will be seen from the Joint Committee report.
The concerned officer who sent the subsequent reply had mentioned that at the time when he received the report, there was nothing mentioned about the distance of the bridge as suggested by the Irrigation Page 26 of 45 Department. Since they had disputed the genuineness of the length of the bridge and the subsequent direction given to the NHAI that they will have to produce the revised proposal of 370 Meters length bridge, this Tribunal directed the Joint Committee to have further inspection of the area and resolve the issue as to what is the extent of length, for which, elevated bridge will have to be constructed. Since there was a dispute regarding the contents of the Joint Committee report on this aspect and the Irrigation Department who is the ultimate authority to grant permission, this Tribunal directed the Joint Committee to inspect the area again and then come to a conclusion at consensus as to what should be the ultimate length of the elevated bridge that will have to be constructed to save the water body.
18. This Tribunal taken up the matter on 02.02.2022 and considered the further report submitted by the Joint Committee dated 31.01.2022, e-filed on 01.02.2022 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED IN THE O.A. NO. 249 OF 2O2O IN THE MATTER OF DUSHARLA SATYANARAYANA VS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Background: The Hon'ble NGT, SZ, Chennai in its order dated 06'01'2022 has directed the Joint committee to have further inspection of the area and resolve the issue as to What is the extent of length, for which, elevated bridge will have to be constructed.
Site visit: In compliance with Hon'ble NGT, SZ, Chennai order dated 06.01.2022 the Joint committee has revisited the disputed site on 13.01.2022 followed by a meeting of the Joint committee which was held at District Administration office, suryapet District in order to discuss the ambiguity over the length of the bridge to be constructed at the disputed site.Page 27 of 45
Observation of the Joint Committee:
o The Joint committee has observed that, the present project is expansion and strengthening of existing State Highway' This expansion project may minimize impact on the equilibrium of the Lake, if Column Bridge is constructed instead of direct soil filling.
o The Joint committee is also agreed to the view of the applicant and irrigation department on the requirement of Column Bridge instead of direct soil filling of the lake as they expect that future expansion of the project would have major impact on the FTL of the lake' However' the committee view that the earlier recommendation of Joint committee for the construction of 80m column Bridge is sufficient to keep the flow of water during the peak rainy season instead of 370m Column Bridge o Further, the committee observed that construction of elevated Column Bridge to the extent of 3T0m bridge is not technically feasible and it would not have any scientific meaning on the conservation point of view as claimed by applicant for the following reasons, a. Firstly, this present project is the widening of two lane State Highway which is existed already for several years. The existed state Highway bifurcates the FTL of chuttukunta tank. During the Joint committee visit on 13.01.2022, full tank level of lake and agricultural activities on the other side of FTL were observed. The present FTL of the lake would not be affected due to construction of Column 80m Bridge, instead of direct soil filling. Further, no impact on the flow and requirement of water to the agricultural fields are also observed. Therefore, the committee is in view of that, since there is no alternate alignment is possible, the extension of State Highway is planned on the old alignment. The impact of the equilibrium of the lake may be minimized by the construction of 80m Column Bridge, instead of direct soil filing.
b. Secondly, a feeder channel flowing from the paddy field is connected to chuttukunta lake through 7.6 meter minor Bridge/Culvert (3.8m with 2 vents) which is passing beneath the State Highway. Presently, this minor bridge/culvert is keeping the flow of water from the feeder channel flowing from the northern FTL area to Chuttukunta Lake. It is submitted that the poposed length of 80m column bridge is longer than existed 7.6 meter minor Bridge/culvert (3.8m with 2 vents). Therefore, the committee is in view that the 80m proposed Column Bridge is sufficient to hold enough water even during peak rainy season, as compared to 7.5m culvert.
c. Thirdly, there is another Vehicular under Pass (VUP) is being constructed just 250m from the disputed site, Construction of 370m Column Bridge may overpass the Vehicular Under Pass which is already being constructed. So, Construction of 370m Column Bridge is not technically feasible which may lead to accidents, Therefore, the Joint Committee is in view that construction of 370m Column Bridge is not technically feasible and will not have any scientific meaning for the conservation of the lake, Page 28 of 45 Prayer: Keeping the above facts and circumstances, the committee is view that as proposed by Joint Committee in the previous report, 80m Column Bridge is suffici6nt, instead of 370m Column Bridge to keep the flow of water during the peak rainy season and to conserve the ecology of Chuttukunta Lake. The project authority shall not take any additional area inside the water body for construction of bridge, as they proposed during joint committee visit. Keeping view of the above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble NGT may take appropriate action as deemed fit."
19. Thereafter, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
"4. It is seen from the report that 80 Meter elevated bridge will be sufficient and because of the underpass which is being constructed nearby, the construction of 370 Meter Column Bridge is not technically feasible which may lead to accidents and this was signed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District.
5. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.1, Suryapet District has filed a reply dated 16.08.2021 wherein they have suggested for submitting a revised proposal by the NHAI for the entire stretch of 370 Meter elevated bridge. The proposal sought for by the Executive Engineer appears to have been overruled by the Superintending Engineer when he signed the Joint Committee report as a member of the committee. They have not provided any recommendation as to how many vents will have to be provided in the remaining stretch so as to ensure the free flow of water without causing any damage to the lake which has already been divided into two by the mischief committed by the State Highway Department by bifurcating the same while constructing the State Highway road without providing any necessary safeguards to ensure free flow of water.
6. So under such circumstances, we direct the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District to submit a detailed report as to how the free flow of water in the remaining stretch of the expanded National Highway could be ensured, so that the water storage capacity and restoration of the water body can be done to some extent by getting water on both sides. They can also suggest as to whether providing additional vents in addition to elevated bridge for 80 metersand deepening of the water body could be possible to enhance the storage capacity as well. If they come with a concrete suggestion or recommendation, this Tribunal can consider those aspects and pass appropriate direction and the National Highway Authority of India can apply for fresh permission to the Irrigation Department and in turn, the Irrigation Department also can give the necessary NOC incorporating all necessary things which are going to be issued on the basis of the recommendations to be made by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District in this regard.
7. They are directed to submit the report to this Tribunal on or before
20.02.2022 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 and get ready with the matter on 24.02.2022 for hearing.
8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents including the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District by e-mail for their information and compliance of directions." Page 29 of 45
20. The matter was again taken up on 01.04.2022 and on that day, the 5th Respondent/Superintending Engineer filed a further report dated 19.02.2022, e-filed on 23.02.2022 and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"REPORT OF THE 5th RESPONDENT As per the Hon'ble NGT directions given in the order Dtate:02.02.2022, I t h e S u p er i nt e n di n g E n g i n e er , I r r i g a t i o n C i r c l e , S ur y a p et r e - v i si t ed t h e Chuttukunta on 19.02.2022. The observations are as follows Chuttu Kunta lake is located in the Village of Raghava Puram, Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District is having the following Hydrau lic Particulars:
Name of the Tank Chuttukunta
Location of the Tank Raghavapuram Village,
Mothey Mandal, Suryapet
District.
Geo ID 17°9'14" & 79°46'28"
(Lat& Long)
UID 80902801601301
Capacity 6.10 Mcft
Ayacut 33-35 (Ac-gt)
Shikam area of tank 21-21 Ac gt
Patta land within FTL 14-16 Ac-gt
Buffer area of Tank 02-25 Ac-gt
Total area of the Tank 38-22 Ac-gt
Existing R&B road area
in the FTL & buffer zone 02-05 Ac-gt
Full Tank Level +178.495 m.
Tank Bund Level +179.995 m
Weir Length 23.70 m
Bund Length 230.00 m
I No. of Off Take Sluice 1No. (on left Flank)
1. This is to bring to the kind notice of the Hon'ble NGT, this tank Chuttu kunta was originally under Panchayath Raj Department since all the tanks / kuntas are to be monitored by Panchayath Raj Department Irrigating 100 Acres below, subsequently all these tanks, even Irrigating below 100 Acres w e r e h a n d e d o v e r t o I r r i g a t i o n Department in the year 2005 vide G.O.Ms.No.216, Dated:13.06.2005 (enclosed for ready reference) and are being maintained by Irrigation Department.
2. D u ri n g t he di s c ussi on s hel d wi t h N at i o nal H i gh wa y A ut ho ri t i es o n Dt:15.02.2022 they have stated that, the alignment of 4 -lane was adopted b y not considering this parti cular wat er body i n D PR. Sim ple Cross Drai nage was t aken i nt o considerati on f or the alignm ent, b ut the said alignment is bifurcating the existing tank bed into two parts as indicated in the map by way of interference i.e., overlapped 4-lane width in the water spread area (FTL contour) for a Page 30 of 45 stretch of 340.00 m and directly affecting the water spread area (FTL Contour) to the extent of 3.36 Acres (Capacity of = 0.65 Mcft) as against the total FTL water spread area 33.63 Acres which is a clear indication of reduction of tank capacity.
3. Further since the 4-laning the NH road is a fresh new work the alignment should have been taken care at the time of initiating the proposals itself and NOC from the Irrigation Department should have been obtained prior to the commencement of the work. Hence NOC at this point of time for the said proposal cannot be issued. Further for any proposal or activity like construction of fly-over etc will also have influence on the capacity of the tank hence NOC cannot be issued. . Hence activity in the tank bed cannot be entertained.
4. After careful examination of topography and field data it is submitted that vent way is not alone the factor and criteria affected due to road alignment, the very object of the case is affecting the water spread area also. But the remedial measures proposed by the NH authorities stating that deepening o f b e d w o u l d c o m p e n s a t e t h e s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y a f f e c t e d c a n n o t b e considered because deepening below certain level i.e. sill level (+ 177.245 m) of the sluice will be a dead storage will not give relief for the water body, there by purpose cannot be served. Further as a remedial measure partial relief of 80.00 m fly- over as agreed by the Joint Committee is also differed b y t he NH aut hori ti es as i ndi cat ed i n t he pl an f urni shed b y t hem f or construction of 80.00 m bridge. The NH authorities have proposed 80.00 m fly-over in the extended road width portion and kept the old road as it is. Therefore provision of 80.00 m for ext ended width will not give any relief and no change in the status. The provision of Cross Drainage structure in the mi dst of t ank wi ll not be sol uti on as water will be i n stagnat ed on either sides of the proposed road. The NH authorities quoted that the cross drainage is connected to feeder of the tank, but in this case feeder channel does not come into picture since the cross drainage is proposed at midst of t h e t a n k . Hence no change in the status. It is to submit that, the suggestion of the Executive Engineer Dated: 16.08.2021 addressed has not been over ruled. In Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change office order File.No.EP(A)/ 12.7/NGT (SZ)/ 1074/2020/TS/02 Dated:03.02.2021, t he Executi ve Engi neer is t he Joi nt Commit tee member and t he Joint Committee in its report Dated:30.03.2021 a provision of column bridge 80.00 m was recommended as one of the remedial source to protect the water body. Further the Executive Engineer was well present on the date of Joint Committee inspection on Dt:13.01.2022 al so and the same joint Committee report wherein the Executive Engineer was present submitted to this office. In this connection it is humbly submitted that as a part of remedial measure only the Joint Committee report was signed f o r construction of 80.00 m length bridge. Further it is submitted that there is no su c h VU P ( Ve hi cl e U nd er P ass) ne ar b y t he di sp ut e d l o cat i o n a s mentioned by the NH authorities and they should not have proceeded with further work on either side of the disputed location since the dispute is pending in the Hon'ble NGT.
5. Therefore it is to bring to the kind notice of the Hon'ble NGT that based on the directions, revised survey is conducted by field officers for arriving the actual length of alignment now interfer ing the FTL area, the same is arrived as 340.00 m as indicated in the plan (indicated in plan C - E), running in the tank bed area should invariably bypass to safe guard the tank. In this connection it is Page 31 of 45 submitted that in the similar condition the NH alignment was shifted away from the tank duly separating from the State highway i.e. one namely Duggidevi cheruvu, Akkaladevi gudem village, C h i v e m l a Mandal at Km 19 + 165 M of the same NH road under construction. Another tank namely Oora cheruvu, B.Chandupatl a village located at Km 21 + 840 M of the same high way the alignment is totally shifted away from the tank and existing State Highway to avoid the encroachment in the tank. Hence in any circumstances the alignment running in the bed or any part of the tank cannot be entertained. The NH authorities should have adopted the same an in the case of other tanks mentioned in their alignment. Further it is not a mandatory to follow the State Highway alignment for executing the 4 - lane by the NH authorities (it is a separate new proposal). Accordingly the 4-lane alignment will be shifted away from State Highway and water bodies wherever required during execution and the alignment will also be run accordingly by the NH authorities.
Recommendations:
• Keeping in view of the above facts it is humbly submitted that it is a clear case of interference of road for a length of 340.00 m (indicated on plan C E) with a width of 40.00 m (approximately) i.e. covering 3.36 Acres in the water spread area of the tank (affected capacity = 0.65 Mcft approximately). Hence based on the Honble NGT directions considering the field report and e x i s t i n g t o p o g r a p h i c a l c o n d i t i o n s f o l l o w i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e submitted for perusal.
1. The alignment o f the proposed NH road has to be enrouted from the point of commencement of buffer zone (i.e. point -C) as indicated in the plan along the buffer zone line(green line) and connected at the end ( p o i n t - E ) o f b u f f e r z o n e l i n e ( g r e e n l i n e ) w h e r e t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e ( encroa c hm ent ) i s noti ced. H ence t he al i gnment has t o b e sli ght l y shifted towards Northern side i.e. adjacent to the buffer zone line (green line) of said proposed alignment by providing suitable vent way by taking care of feeder channel discharge based on catchment area. This is only the ideal and viable proposal (zero encroachment) to ensure equilibrium ecosystem of the water body."
21. On that day, we heard the learned counsel appearing for both the applicant and respondents.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that it will be seen from the report that there was encroachment into the water body and the same will have to be restored. The question as to whether what would have been the length of the elevated bridge may be considered by the Tribunal and appropriate directions can be issued. As regard the damage caused to the environment is concerned, this Tribunal may consider this aspect and pass appropriate orders. Page 32 of 45
23. The learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC argued that they have submitted the report and also filed their statement and the Tribunal may consider those aspects and pass appropriate orders, as no Environmental Clearance (EC) is required for this project.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the State Departments including the Minor Irrigation Department argued that the length of the tank is 370 Meters and if any portion of the tank is obstructed, then it will affect the free flow of water. They also have given alternate alignment to be undertaken by the NHAI so as to avoid any crossing of the lake while constructing the highway. When it was brought to their notice that they are making construction encroaching into the water body without obtaining necessary NOC, they immediately sent letters and the work was stopped. Further, in order to protect the water body, it is necessary to have an elevated bridge throughout the length of the water body and it cannot be restricted to a portion alone.
25. The learned counsel appearing for the NHAI argued that the proposal for acquisition of land for this purpose was undertaken long ago and when the DPR was prepared for the project, the existence of the water body was also mentioned and at that time, the Irrigation Department did not make any objection regarding the construction of the road or the manner in which the highway will have to be established along the water body. Further, the stand taken by the Irrigation Department that either alignment will have to be changed taking a roundabout or circuitous way around the water body or providing an elevated bridge for the entire length of 370 Meters are unsustainable, especially when one of the member of the Joint Committee is none other than the Senior Officer of Page 33 of 45 the Irrigation Department. Further, since a major portion except the tank area, the project has been started, making realignment of the project at this stage will cause unnecessary hardship and huge escalation of the project cost. They will have to go for further acquisition which will delay the project further. There was no water available in the water body, as it was shown as Shikam in the Government Revenue records and the so called buffer zone area has been used for paddy cultivation since long time. Satellite images for the last 10 years showed that there was no water in that area for the last ten years and water was seen only on one side of the lake throughout the year. There is a feeder canal from the paddy field connecting the Chuttugunta Lake through 3.8 Meters of 2 two vents passing beneath the State Highway which was in existence long ago. Before finalization of the final DPR, all possible alternate routes have been explored and this alignment was fixed only after coming to the irresistible conclusion that this alignment is feasible both environmentally and economically. Based on the Joint Committee report, they have submitted the revised drawing to the Irrigation Department vide their Letter No. NHAI/PIU/KMM/S-K/NGT/2021/4495 dated 23.11.2021 and requested for their comments, but they did not respond to the same. During the Joint Inspection on 13.01.2022, the bridge proposal starting and ending point was appraised which was shown in the photograph produced along with the report and this was signed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District. The proposed alignment provided by the Superintending Engineer is not technically feasible and the observation made by the Superintending Engineer regarding the non-existence of Vehicular Under Pass (VUP) is not correct. The proposed shifting is not feasible and that will involve in Page 34 of 45 huge financial commitments. So, they prayed for passing appropriate orders and they will abide by the directions, if any, issued by this Tribunal in this regard.
26. We have considered the pleadings, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the applicant and respondents and also perused the documents and the Joint Committee report available on record.
27. The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the 1st Respondent/NHAI had trespassed into the Full Tank Level (FTL) of the Chuttungunta Lake while establishing the expansion of NH 365 BB?
(ii) What is the nature of damage caused to the Chuttugunta Lake on account of such alleged encroachments?
(iii) If the National Highway has to be allowed to proceed with along this alignment, what is the nature of further directions to be issued applying the "Precautionary Principle" to protect the water body?
(iv) What is the nature of further directions (if any) required to be issued applying the principles of "Sustainable Development" and "Protection of Environment"?
(v) Relief and costs.Page 35 of 45
POINTS:-
28. The grievance in this application is regarding construction of National Highway No. 365 BB at Suryapet to Khammam encroaching into the Chuttugunta Lake at Raghavapuram Village, Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District.
29. The case of the 1st Respondent/NHAI was that land acquisition proceedings started much earlier and none had made any objection regarding the same and this water body is not having water on both sides, but having water only on one side of the same and the State Highway was passing through this and all precautionary methods have been taken for the purpose of ensuring free flow of water. Any change in the alignment or modification in the structure will result in heavy monetary loss to the Government.
30. One of the grounds raised by the applicant was that the project requires Environmental Clearance (EC). But in view of the amended provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 [vide S.O. No.2559 (E) dated 22.08.2013] since the expanded area is less than 100 Kms and acquisition for width of the Right of Way is less than 40 Meter, it is exempted from obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC). This was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The National Highway Authority of India Vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 693 wherein, it was clearly mentioned that in the absence of the requirement of an additional right of way or land acquisition greater than forty meters on existing alignment and sixty meters on realignment or bypass, the expansion of National Page 36 of 45 Highway which were greater than 100 Km per se did not require prior Environmental Clearance (EC). It is further held in the decision that if the project proponent was permitted to divide projects having a distance beyond 100 Km into package, which are less than 100 Km, the notification 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, the Court was in agreement with the High Court that segmentation as a strategy is not permissible for evading Environmental Clearance as per Notification.
31. So, the contentions of the applicant that the Environmental Clearance (EC) required for this project is not sustainable.
32. In order to ascertain as to whether there was any encroachment into the water body, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee and the Joint Committee has filed the report and it is seen from the report that Chuttugunta Lake is linked with 12 other tanks located in the downstream area and it is a non-perennial source of water based on either rainy season or lifting water for irrigation purpose through canal. It was also mentioned that the water level reaches very low or dry and sometimes, it reaches up to the road boundary. They have also given the details of the height of the water level on the basis of the Google image on several occasions. It is seen from the report that the total extent of the lake is 21 Acres including the buffer zone and it is owned by both the Government and private owners and except the Government land (Shikam), it has been recorded as "Dry land" as per the revenue records. Page 37 of 45
33. Further, it is also mentioned in the report that the proposed alignment of laying four lanes passes on the existing alignment which has been passing in the buffer zone of the Chuttugunta Lake. It was also mentioned in the report that the NHAI started soil filling partially on the private land except culvert area (Shikam land) located right side of the existing alignment in the buffer zone of Chuttugunta Lake. It was further mentioned in the report that when the NHAI started filling up the private land, the applicant approached this Tribunal and the Irrigation Department also issued stop memo directing further filling up of the soil in the buffer zone be stopped and in view of the intervention of this Tribunal, further filling work was stopped by the NHAI. It was also mentioned in the report that whenever water bodies are affected or likely to be affected, it is always necessary to have prior EIA Study by recognised institute and Environmental Clearance (EC) may be required in future, if such kind of water bodies are affected due to the expansion activities. This aspect will have to be considered by the MoEF&CC while considering the question of constituting any Expert Committee to examine whether segmentation is permissible for National Highway Projects beyond 100 Km and if permissible, under what circumstances as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The National Highway Authority of India Vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 693.
34. It was further observed that since it is in the buffer zone and the FTL level of the lake, prior permission from the Irrigation Department is required. It was further mentioned that there is a possibility of affecting the ecological equilibrium if the construction was permitted as it is planned, but the impact can be reduced by providing column bridge as proposed Page 38 of 45 by the project authority and decided by the Irrigation Department and increasing the storage capacity either by digging or increasing the size of the lake.
35. Further, the Joint Committee also recommended as follows:-
"Recommendations of the Committee:
It is humbly submitted that as the present project is expansion and strengthening of the existing State Highway, it may have lesser impact on the ecological equilibrium of the lake. The requirements submitted by the Irrigation Department such as provision of column bridge (80 m), maintaining FTL of lake as it is, and strengthening of bunds may be implemented as a remedial source to protect the water body. In addition, the restoration of the lake to its original status, inner side of the bund, revetment may be carried out in consultation with the Irrigation Department at the cost of project authority."
36. Thereafter, when the NHAI approached the Irrigation Department for the revised proposal for providing column bridge for 80 Meters length, the Irrigation Department returned the same with observation that they will have to submit a proposal having column bridge for the entire length of 370 Meters. Thereafter, this Tribunal had directed the Joint Committee to visit the area in question again to ascertain the aspect as to whether 80 Meters column bridge will be sufficient or the entire length will have to be covered with column bridge and the Joint Committee has filed the report, after considering the objections raised by the Irrigation Department and after consultation with the Expert Members including the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District came to the conclusion that earlier recommendations of the Joint Committee for construction of 80 Meters column bridge is sufficient to keep the flow of water during the peak rainy season, instead of 370 Meters column bridge Page 39 of 45 and the construction of elevated column bridge to the extent of 370 Meters is not technically feasible and it would not have any scientific meaning on the conservation point of view as claimed by the Irrigation Department. The present FTL of the lake could not be affected due to the construction of column bridge (80 Meters) instead of direct soil filling. They also mentioned that there is no alternate alignment possible, as the extension of State Highway is planned based on the old alignment and this will be sufficient to protect the impact on the water body. Further reason given was that, feeder channel flowing from the paddy field is connected to Chuttugunta Lake through 7.6 Meters Minor Bridge / Culvert (3.8 Meters with 2 vents) which is passing beneath the State Highway and presently, this Minor bridge/culvert is keeping the flow of water from the feeder channel flowing from the Northern FTL area to Chuttugunta Lake. The proposed length of 80 Meters Column Bridge is longer than the existing 7.6 Meter Minor bridge/culvert (3.8 meter with 2 vents). It is also mentioned as another reason for this suggestion that there is another Vehicular Under Pass (VUP) is being constructed just 250 Meters from the disputed site and the construction of 370 Meter Column bridge may over pass the Vehicular Under Pass (VUP) which is already being constructed and as such, on that ground, it is not technically feasible.
37. Thereafter, the 5th Respondent has filed another report giving the following recommendations:-
"Recommendations:
Keeping in view of the above facts it is humbly submitted that it is a clear case of interference of road for a length of 340.00 m (indicated on plan C E) with a width of 40.00 m (approximately) i.e. covering 3.36 Page 40 of 45 Acres in the water spread area of the tank (affected capacity = 0.65 Mcft approximately). Hence based on the Hon'ble NGT directions considering the field report and e x i s t i n g topographical conditions following r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e submitted for perusal
1. The alignment of the proposed NH road has to be enrouted from the point of commencement of buffer zone (i.e. point -C) as indicated in the plan along the buffer zone line(green line) and connected at the end ( p o i n t - E ) o f b u f f e r z o n e l i n e ( g r e e n l i n e ) w h e r e t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e ( encroachm ent ) i s not i ced. H ence the al i gnm ent has t o b e sl i ght l y shifted towards Northern side i.e. adjacent to the buffer zone line (green line) of said proposed alignment by providing suitable vent way by taking care of feeder channel discharge based on catchment area. This is only the ideal and viable proposal (zero encroachment) to ensure equilibrium ecosystem of the water body"
38. But such a suggestion was not given by the Superintending Engineer who was part of the Joint Committee. If he had any difference of opinion, he would have given that at that time. Further, alignment given by the 5th Respondent by providing a circuitous method is not feasible and it may require further acquisition and it may have bend as well. This could have been suggested by the Irrigation Department before the alignment was finalized by the NHAI and at that time, no objection was raised. The necessity of expansion of National Highway for smooth transportation cannot be disputed and this is necessarily to be permitted applying the principle of "Sustainable Development" but keeping in view of the protection of environment of protecting the water body and without affecting its ecological equilibrium by applying "Precautionary Principle"
to mitigate/minimize the impact on lake ecology. So under such circumstances, we feel that providing 80 Meters elevated bridge with columns and also providing as many number of vents as possible (box type vents with sufficient width) for the remaining portion will be Page 41 of 45 sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice and also protect the water body.
39. The location for providing vents can be finalized in consultation with the Irrigation Department and on that basis, if any new proposal has been submitted by the NHAI, the Irrigation Department is directed to consider the same and grant necessary permission for this purpose. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the National Green Tribunal had directed the authorities whenever they are taking steps to provide highways or railway lines crossing the water body, they must adopt elevated column bridges instead of dividing the water body by filling up any portion of the water body.
40. Considering the public project, we feel that there is no necessity to impose any environmental compensation, as the filling up was done on the private land which was acquired by the NHAI for this project, not in the area where the water was seen and recorded as "Shikam" in the revenue records.
41. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of with the following directions:-
a. The 1st Respondent/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is directed to provide elevated column bridge of 80 Meters as suggested by the Joint Committee in the first and second report above the Chuttugunta Lake where it is likely to cross the lake and also provide as many box type vents with suggested width as possible in the remaining area in consultation Page 42 of 45 with the Irrigation Department, so as to make the free flow of water unaffected.
b. Whenever the NHAI files a proposal for permission with the above design, then the Irrigation Department, Telangana is directed to consider the proposal and grant permission with other conditions (if any) required for protection of water body except directing to have more length of column bridge as suggested by them.
c. The NHAI is also directed to comply with the other recommendations of increasing the storing capacity of the lake and increasing the FTL level by digging the lake in consultation with the Irrigation Department.
d. The NHAI shall not take any additional area inside the water body for construction of bridges, as they proposed during Joint Committee visit as observed by the Joint Committee in the second report.
e. The MoEF&CC is directed to consider the question of conducting the EIA Study and obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC) when the National Highway projects are envisaged crossing the water body or having any impact on ecological equilibrium of water body, while considering the question of permission of segmentation of project to avoid obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The National Highway Authority of India Vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 693.
42. The points are answered accordingly.
Page 43 of 45
43. In the result, this Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The 1st Respondent/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is directed to provide elevated column bridge of 80 Meters as suggested by the Joint Committee in the first and second report above the Chuttugunta Lake where it is likely to cross the lake and also provide as many box type vents with suggested width as possible in the remaining area in consultation with the Irrigation Department, so as to make the free flow of water unaffected.
(ii) Whenever the NHAI files a proposal for permission with the above design, then the Irrigation Department, Telangana is directed to consider the proposal and grant permission with other conditions (if any) required for protection of water body except directing to have more length of column bridge as suggested by them.
(iii) The NHAI is also directed to comply with the other recommendations of increasing the storing capacity of the lake and increasing the FTL level by digging the lake in consultation with the Irrigation Department.
(iv) The NHAI shall not take any additional area inside the water body for construction of bridges, as they proposed during Joint Committee visit as observed by the Joint Committee in the second report.
Page 44 of 45
(v) The MoEF&CC is directed to consider the question of conducting the EIA Study and obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC) when the National Highway projects are envisaged crossing the water body or having any impact on ecological equilibrium of water body, while considering the question of permission of segmentation of project to avoid obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The National Highway Authority of India Vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 693.
(vi) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the original application.
(vii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the NHAI, District Collector - Suryapet District, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Suryapet District, MoEF&CC - New Delhi and other official respondents for their information and compliance of directions.
44. With the above observations and directions, this Original Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.249/2020 (SZ), 23rd May 2022. Mn.
Page 45 of 45