National Green Tribunal
Paryavarana Parirakshana Sangham ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 13 April, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.1:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 153 of 2016 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Paryavarana Parirakshana Sangham,
Through its President Mr. Y. Krishnamurthy
Sompeta, Srikakulam District,
Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with
Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R3.
Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. L.G. Sahadevan for R4.
Judgment Pronounced on: 13th April 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. 153/2016 (SZ) 13th April 2022. Mn.
Page 1 of 84 Item No.1:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI (Through Video Conference) Original Application No. 153 of 2016 (SZ) IN THE MATTER OF
1. Paryavarana Parirakshana Sangham, Through its President Mr. Y. Krishnamurthy Sompeta, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. E A S Sarma 14-40-4/1, Gokhale Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam- 530 002 ...Applicant(s) Versus
1. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110 003.
2. Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority Through its Chairman, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indira Parayavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, Aligunj, New Delhi.
3. State of Andhra Pradesh Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500 022.
4. M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd, Nagarjuna Hills, Punjgutta, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Also at:
M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd, Project office at: Sompeta Town, Sompeta Mandal, District, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent(s) Page 2 of 84 For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta along with Mr. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R3.
Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. L.G. Sahadevan for R4.
Judgment Reserved on: 28th January 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 13th April 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the activities being carried out by 4th respondent on the basis of the permission granted as per G.O.M No. 329 (Revenue Assn. I Department) dated 09.09.2015 for a "Multi Product Industry Zone" in Sompeta Wetlands against the provisions of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 which is situated in Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.Page 3 of 84
2. It is alleged in the application that Applicant No. 1 is an organisation which aims at preservation of the Sompeta Wetlands. They were approaching the Government for this purpose on several occasions. The 1st applicant is a practicing Doctor and discharging his duties as the President of the Association and he has been authorised by resolution of the organisation evidenced by Annexure - A to file the litigation.
3. The Applicant No. 2 is the former Secretary to Government of India in Ministries of Power and Finance. He was also the former Principal Adviser (Energy) Planning Commission. He also held the positions of Secretary in Department of Urban Development and Energy and Environment in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. He obtained voluntary retirement from the Government in the year 2000 and after retirement, he was the Principal of Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad for last three years. For more than 11 years, he had been actively involved in promoting the Right to Information Act among the people.
4. Sompeta Wetland is a protected wetland under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. Allocation of wetlands for industrial purpose constitutes a violation of statutory requirement under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 in addition to running contrary to the Principle of Sustainable Development, the Precautionary Principle, the Public Trust Doctrine and the Eco-centric approach propounded by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.Page 4 of 84
5. The Environmental Clearance granted to the 4th Respondent earlier for establishing a Coal based Thermal Power Plant was challenged before the erstwhile National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) by filing Appeal No. 4 of 2010 and 3 of 2010 respectively. The NEAA in its order dated 14.07.2010 set aside the Environmental Clearance granted to the said project. The respondents, therein, filed Review Application against the order which got transferred to the National Green Tribunal after its establishment in 2010 as Appeal No. 23 of 2011 and by Judgment dated 23.05.2012 in T. Mohana Rao Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors., the National Green Tribunal concluded to the effect that Ministry of Environment and Forests and State Authorities had failed to give adequate opportunity to the people to represent their views at the public hearing and directed them to revisit the EIA report from the stage of public hearing pending which the Environmental Clearance to be treated as suspended. The Tribunal further directed that:
―36. ...... the EC granted which is kept in suspension by the MoEF vide their order dated 15th July, 2010, shall continue as such till the directions issued by us are complied, and would also be subject to the report of the Chief Conservator of Forests.
37. MoEF may also finalise and notify the important wetlands in the Country as early as possible so that location of developmental projects in and around such ecologically sensitive areas could be avoided in future‖
6. A Review Petition was filed against this Judgement dated 23.05.2012 as R.A. No. 13 of 2016 in Appeal No. 23-28 of 2011 and the same was withdrawn by the Review applicants on 21.01.2016 evidenced by Annexure-B. Page 5 of 84
7. The State of Andhra Pradesh had allotted Sompeta Wetlands measuring land at 972.69 acres in Srikakulam District to the 4th respondent- M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company for the development of a Multi Product Industry Zone" through G.O. Ms. No. 329 (Revenue Assn. I Development) dated 09.09.2015, evidenced by Annexure-C. The Wetlands in Sompeta Mandal in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh is having following description:
Village Survey Classification Total Area Actual area Number as per Revenue (Acres) available records for alienation (Acres) Rushikudda 152/2 Kaluva 399.85 395.36 Gollagandi 23/09/15 Tampara 249.43 208.75 Poramboke Baruvapet 247 Beela 277 169.78 Benkili 231 Beela Tampara 198.8 198.80 Total 1125.08 972.69
8. The Revenue classification of "Kaluva Poramboke" (Rushikudda Village) implies Government land subject to a water course. "Tampara Poramboke" in Gollagandi Village, "Beela Gayalu" in Baruvapeta Village and "Beela Tampara" in Benkili Village indicate that the lands in question are Governments lands which are swamp lands and wetlands. This was amply corroborated by extract from G.O. Ms No. 1107 (Revenue Assn I) Department dated 15.09.2008:
―The District Collector, Srikakulam, has also reported that the Tahsildar, Sompeta has submitted alienation proposals through RDO, Tekkali, to an extent of Ac. 1125.08 cts of Swamp lands locally called as Beela available in above (4) villages of Sompeta Mandal and all the above lands are Government Swamp lands which are situated in a low lying area, receiving the excess water from Mukundasagaram Pydigam Reservoir and Mahindratanaya Groin and flood water during rainy season from the villages lying in western side and due to receiving and stagnation of heavy Page 6 of 84 water it adversely affects surrounding paddy fields and agricultural crops by inundation during rainy season and that the standing water stagnates throughout the year makes in accessible to the swamp except Mid May when water dried up.‖
9. Despite the ecological and biodiversity significance of the Sompeta wetlands, the State Authorities have not taken necessary measures to protect the same. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh through G.O. Ms. No. 1107 (Revenue Assn I) Department dated 15.09.2008 had earlier assigned the said 972.69 acres of land in Sompeta Mandal in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh in favour of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company for setting up of a coal-based thermal power project of 1980 MW capacity evidenced by Annexure-D.
10. The wetlands are vital parts of hydrological cycle, are highly productive and support exceptionally large biological diversity and provide a wide range of ecosystem service such as waste assimilation, water purification, flood mitigation, erosion control, ground water recharge, micro climate regulation, aesthetic enhancement of the landscape while simultaneously supporting many significant recreational, social and cultural activities, besides being part of cultural heritage. The wetland has been defined under the earlier Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 Wetlands means "an area or of marsh, fen, peatland or water; natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters and includes all inland waters such as lakes, reservoir, tanks, backwaters, lagoon, creeks, estuaries and man-made wetland and the zone of direct influence on wetlands that is to say the drainage area or catchment region of wetlands Page 7 of 84 as determined by the authority but does not include main river channels, paddy fields and coastal wetlands" covered under the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change S.No.114(E) dated 19.02.1991 published in a Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) of dated 20th February 1991. It is important to state here that the drainage and catchment area of the actual wetland or its zone of direct influence is also included in the ambit of the definition of a wetland.
11. In order to ascertain the importance of this wetland, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History had been appointed by Ministry of Environment and Forests and they submitted a report in the name of "SACON Report" in respect of this wetland which reads as follows:-
"Sompeta Beela, a complex of three separate but connected water bodies of which two are brackish and the other fresh water, with its surrounding flood plains is a wetland complex with an approximate area of 800 hectares. It is an important habitat of 121 bird species and 493 plant species. Many bird species seen here fall under IUCN Red List. Around 100,000 people belonging to 30 villages around the wetland depend upon the wetland complex for various purposes, deriving ecosystem goods and services. During the dry season drained out portions of the wetland is used for grazing by thousands of cattle and wild boars. Around thousand families belonging to the traditional fisher communities fully depend upon the wetland for their sustenance. Around 2000 hectares of paddy (two crops) and 300 hectares of vegetable and horticultural crops are irrigated directly drawing water from the beela.‖ (At page 2 of the Report) "The Sompeta wetland and its environs is habitat to 122 bird species, of which 11 species fall under IUCN Red List. Black Headed Ibis, Darter, Eurasian Spoon Bill, Painted Stork, Pallid Harrier, Spot Billed Pelican, Black Necked Stork and Greater Grey Headed Fish Eagle seen here belong to 'Near Threatened' categories by IUCN. Among these, Eurasian Spoon Bill and Pallid Harrier fall under Schedule - 1 of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act. Lesser Adjutant is a 'Vulnerable' species found here."Page 8 of 84
As mentioned in the site inspection report by the committee formed by the MoEF, GoI, in October every year thousands of birds, locally known as 'Kondamkodi and Nathagotta' said to be coming from Siberia and Australia visit the wetland and stay there up to 5- 6 months. The Beela is used as a resting and feeding habitat. This is an important migrant route and passage migrant place (Report of the site inspection committee, MoEF, 2010).‖ (At page 119 of the Report) "As mentioned earlier, circumstantial evidences point to the possibility of the 'Critically Endangered' Pink Headed Duck occurring in the core area of the Pedda Beela in the Sompeta Wetland complex. As per literature stray populations of this bird were reported from Maharashtra and AP earlier. As the core area of the Pedda Beela is inundated throughout the year and with tall vegetation, extensive efforts will have to be taken in order to ascertain the presence of Pink Headed Duck during migratory season." (At page 119 of the Report) ―Our three rapid surveys conducted during the months of October 2011 and February March 2012 revealed the presence of 491 plant species in the Sompeta wetland area which indicate the floristic wealth of this area. Out of these 491 plants 206 plants are with medicinal properties, 15 plants edible and 10 plants are edible possessing medicinal properties. Jatropha tanjorensis reported from here is endemic to Coromandel costs of peninsular India. Apart from this, following plants viz., Asystasiadalzelliana, Barieriaacuminata, Iseilemaanthephorodes and Phyllanthusrotundifolius are endemic to Indian subcontinent. Further surveys during different seasons may establish the presence of many other species.
Apart from the rich bird and plant biodiversity, it is a habitat for several important butterfly species. Because of the complex nature of the ecosystem, a detailed survey is required and that certainly would reveal the presence of several more vertebrate and invertebrate species." (At pages 119-120 of the Report) The relevant extracts of the Report, "Wetlands of Srikakulam District: An Ecological Status Survey" by the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (2012) is annexed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE-E.‖
12. The allotment of this land was opposed by the local farmers, fishing community and environmentalists as it related to government land occupied by watercourse, swamp lands and wetlands. The issue was raised before the public hearing as well. In spite of that, the project was Page 9 of 84 granted Environmental Clearance dated 09.12.2009 evidenced by Annexure-F. The SACON Report highlighted the urgent need to protect all the wetlands in Srikakulam in view of their ecological significance with specific reference to the Sompeta wetlands and the proposed industrial activities. They have deprecated the proposal for setting up a Super Thermal Power Plants in those wetlands in their report. They also mentioned about the existence of other wetlands in that area.
13. They have further mentioned in the report that the wetlands complex is nearly 4000 acres and 20 km long covering parts of Baruva in Sompeta Mandal and Kapaasguddi in Kavitimandal. It is a wetland which is to be conserved under various State and Central Government policies and International treatises such as Ramsar Convention and the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules notified by the MoEF&CC. It is further mentioned in that report that out of the 1882 acres handed over to Nagarjuna Construction Company, 1200 acres were in the Beela. This is highly fertile and 32 villages with population of around 3 lakhs depend upon the Beela for various purposes, for water for irrigation, fisheries, fodder, thatching materials, medicinal plants and several edible plants.
14. As per the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 the State Governments are required to identify and demarcate protected wetlands. Despite the specific observation in the SACON report about the significance of the Sompeta wetlands and meeting the criteria for protected wetlands, the same is yet to be identified as protected wetland under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules. As per response of the MoEF&CC in a reply dated 05.10.2015 under the Right to Information Act dated 10.09.2015, it was mentioned that "no Page 10 of 84 wetland has been identified by Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority under these Rules except 25 Ramsar sites as specified in the Schedule of these Rules as none of the State Government/UTs submitted the requisite details in accordance with the criteria contained. So, it is evident that the State of Andhra Pradesh has neither prepared a brief statement or identified any protected wetland in that State including Sompeta Wetlands in terms of the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. The Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority has to take steps under the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.
15. Though, the applicant had made an application before the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority dated 24.09.2015 evidenced by Annexure- H, no reply has been received. A request sent under the RTI application dated 11.05.2015 to the MoEF&CC, they received Annexure-I reply wherein they have stated that Central Wetland Regulatory Authority was not functional at present as its tenure was already over on 31.03.2015. However, the proposal for extending the tenure of Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority was under process. It was further mentioned that no meeting of Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority had been held since 2012.
16. In the context of the representation of the applicant regarding Sompeta Beela and its diversion for a Multi Product Industrial Zone, the MoEF&CC had through their letter dated 18.01.2016 directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to take appropriate action to identify and notify priority wetlands. There had been no response or action from the State Government in spite of that communication produced as Annexure-3. Page 11 of 84
Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 deals with restrictions on activities within the wetlands and certain activities were permissible but prior approval from the State Government has to be obtained. No wetland shall be converted to non-wetland use, unless the Central Government is satisfied on the recommendation of the authority that is expedient in the public interest and reasons justifying the decision are recorded.
17. Reading of the above provisions will go to show that the project of the 4 th respondent is in violation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 as industrial activities are impermissible in wetlands.
18. According to the applicant, the application was filed within time as they wanted to rely on the inaction on the part of the authorities and violations of the statutory provisions is a continuing cause of action, it will give rise to fresh cause of action and as such it is within limitation. They have relied on the decisions reported in T. Mohan Rao Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors 1 dated 23.05.2012 of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, Janhit Sewa Society Vs. State of U.P & Ors2 order dated 07.05.2015 of Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal, N. Gajendran Vs. Principal Secretary, Corporation of Chennai & Ors. 3 of National Green Tribunal, R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors 4 of National Green Tribunal, T. Godavarman Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, 1 Appeal No. 23 of 2011 2 O.A. No. 198 of 2014 3 O.A. No. 101 of 2015 (SZ) 4 O.A. No. 516 of 2014 5 (2012) 3 SCC 277 Page 12 of 84 Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and Ors 6 and Better Living in Calcutta vs. State of West Bengal & Ors7 in support of their case.
19. Since, the authorities have not taken appropriate action, the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking following interim as well as final reliefs:
"INTERIM PRAYER
(i) Stay the GOM dated 09-09-2015 granted to respondent No.4, so as to prevent irreparable damage from occurring in the Sompeta Wetlands pending the application;
(ii) Pass any such other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
MAIN PRAYER
(i) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the SACON Report and notify the wetlands in Srikakulam district, including the Sompeta land as "wetlands‖ in terms of the Wetland (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010 for conservation.
(ii) Quash the GOMs No. 329 (Revenue Assn 1 Dept) dated 9-9- 2015 whereby the Respondent No.5-Nagarjuna Construction Company has been allowed to set up multi-product industry zone in the Sompeta wetland area identified in the SACON Report, as it violates the Wetland (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010.
(iii) Direct the Respondents to ensure that effective measures are taken to protect the wetlands and wetland complexes against the pressures of anthropogenic activities as per the Wetlands Rules, the Principle of Sustainable Development and the commitment under the Ramsar Convention;
(iv) Pass orders or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.‖ 6 (2001) 6 SCC 496 7 AIR 1993 Cal 215 Page 13 of 84
20. The first respondent filed their counter affidavit contending that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India had been earlier implementing separate programmes, namely, National Lake Conservation Programme and National Wetlands Conservation Programme for conservation of identified lakes and wetlands in the Country. Under these sponsored schemes, financial assistance was provided to different States and UTs for conservation and management of identified lakes and wetlands in the Country.
21. To avoid overlap and promote better synergies, NLCP has been merged with the scheme of MWCP, into one integrated scheme of National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Eco-systems. The scheme aims at holistic conservation and restoration of lakes and wetlands for achieving the desired water quality enhancement, besides improvement in biodiversity and ecosystem through an integrated and multidisciplinary approach and a common regulatory framework. NPCA is presently operational on cost sharing between Central Government and respective State Governments.
22. The proposal received from various State Governments and UTs are considered for financial assistance based on prioritization of water bodies in the States/UTs, conformity with the guidelines and availability of plan funds. So far financial assistance has been provided for conservation and management of 82 identified wetlands in the Country, including some Ramsar sites under NWCP/NPCA. Based on the proposal received from different States, the Ministry has so far sanctioned projects for conservation of 63 lakes in 14 States under the scheme of NLCP/NPCA. Page 14 of 84
23. The Central Government had notified the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to regulate various activities within the wetlands. The provisions under the Rules include restriction on activities within the wetlands, include prohibited activities as well as those which should not be undertaken without prior approval of the State Government, process for identification of wetlands under different categories as well as the criteria for notifying the wetlands for regulation under the Rules. As per the Rules, all the State Governments were to prepare brief documents identifying and classifying wetlands within the respective territories in accordance with the criteria contained in the Rules, which include broad geographic delineation of the wetland, zone of influence along with a map (accurate and to scale), Size of the wetland, account of pre-existing rights and privileges, consistent or not consistent with the ecological health of the wetland and submit the same to the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority.
24. During the meeting held in Ministry in November, 2013 regarding integrated management of lakes and wetlands, all the States and UTs were requested for specific consideration on the followings:
i) Identification and notification of priority wetlands,
ii) Constitution of wetland/lake authorities,
iii) Development of integrated management plans,
iv) Securing resources for implementation of management plans,
v) Monitoring and evaluation,
vi) Strengthening research-management interface. Page 15 of 84
25. The Ministry‟s letter dated 23.12.2013 and 19.09.2014 (Annexure-R-1/1 and R-1/2) all the State Governments were requested to accord high priority to the above recommendations and to take measures accordingly and to constitute a Wetland/Lake Authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per the information available, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has yet to constitute the State Wetland/Lake Authority. Government of Andhra Pradesh has not submitted any proposal/ brief document for identification and notification of Sompeta Wetlands in Andhra Pradesh. Few States, namely, Odisha, Karnataka, Bihar, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab have already constituted State Wetland/Lake Authorities for taking up matter relating to conservation and management of wetlands and lake in an integrated and holistic manner. Specific lake authorities like Chilika Development Authority, Loktak Development Authority, Wullar Conservation and Management Authority and East Kolkata Wetland Management Authority have also been set up.
26. The Sompeta wetland as referred in the application is not identified under the NPCA nor notified under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 Hence, the rules are not applicable to these wetlands. The land use and Master Plan of an area are within the domain of State Governments, whereby State Governments needs to demarcate the identified wetlands and restrain encroachment or reclamation thereof which is also the basic requirement for protection of any wetland to be identified by the State in terms of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. Since, it is a matter for State Government to Page 16 of 84 take action as per the Rules and only after getting the proposal, the Ministry can take necessary action.
27. As per the order of the National Green Tribunal dated 23.05.2012 in Appeal No. 23 of 2011, the Ministry was required to finalize and notify wetlands in the Country as early as possible. The notification of the wetlands is an on-going process and wetlands, have to be notified as per the provisions of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 on the basis of the proposal received/ to be received from the State Governments. The Ministry‟s has requested all the State Governments including the State of Andhra Pradesh vide their letter dated 30.12.2010 and 25.04.2011 for submission of the brief statement as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 along with requisite information. But no such reports have been received from State of Andhra Pradesh. Certain allegations were made against M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company which has to be answered by them.
28. A representation was received from applicant no. 1 which was forwarded to State of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action on 18.01.2016. Another representation dated 25.01.2016 was received from applicant no.2 which was also forwarded to Government of Andhra Pradesh on 24.02.2016.
29. The 1st Respondent also gave paragraph wise reply to the allegations made in the application, more or less reiterating the contentions raised by them in the earlier paragraphs. They prayed for accepting their contentions and pass appropriate orders.
Page 17 of 84
30. The 3rd Respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the Sompeta wet lands as referred to in the application are neither identified under National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Eco-systems (NPCA) nor notified under Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 and as such, these rules are not applicable to these wet lands. The Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History Coimbatore (SACON) has conducted three surveys (on ecological status Survey) during the months of October 2011 and February - March 2012 on the wet lands of Srikakulam District and submitted the report to the MoEF&CC in the month of July, 2012 and has suggested on protection of wet lands (including interconnected wetland complexes such as coastal wet lands of Sompeta) in the District should not be allowed to be converted for any other purpose and also expressed that the plans for setting up of the super Thermal Power Plants in those wetlands should be re-examined so as to avoid adverse impact on environments, ecosystems, Limno systems, Hydro systems. Necessary sanctions for setting up of Thermal Power Plant were approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.1107 Revenue (Assn-1) Department dt. 15.09.2008 and the Environmental Clearance was granted on 09.12.2009 by the MoEF&CC i.e. prior to the above Ecological Status Survey by SACON. Keeping in view of these suggestions by SACON and other institutions / organizations, a view has been taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respecting the sentiments of the local people of Sompeta Mandal in Srikakulam District and keeping in view of creating employment to local people and also keeping in view of not affecting environment, Eco, Limno, Hydro etc. systems, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had changed the line of activity from setting up 1980 MW Thermal Power Plant vide sanctioned Page 18 of 84 in G.O.Ms.No.1107 Revenue (Assn-1) Department dt. 15.09.2008 and permitted M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Company Limited to utilize the same lands admeasuring Ac. 972.69 cents for development of "Multi Product Industry Zone" (Non Pollutional) vide G.O.Ms.No.329 Revenue (Assn-1) Department dated 09.09.2015. The public meeting was conducted on dated 18.8.2009 under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Srikakulam and at that time, no objections were received from any sections of the society on establishment of Thermal Power Project. Regarding the livelihood of fishermen, the Inland Fishermen Co- operative Society, Manikyapuram Village of Kaviti Mandal in Srikakulam District, consisting of 158 members are catching their fish in the swamp lands and their area of operations is Manikyapuram, Rushikudda and Gollagandi. The water spread area under the possession of the society comes to Ac.584.44 cents which is available in Manikyapuram Village of Kaviti Mandal and Gollagandi, Rushikudda in Sompeta Mandai (i.e. Chinna Beela land) and their livelihood are not deprived. M/s. Nagarjana Constructions Company Ltd. in whose favour land is alienated for setting up of the Thermal Power Plant had deposited an amount of Rs. 62.00 lakhs with the Deputy Director, Fisheries Department, Srikakulam for deepening and forming a fish ponds to the fishermen to earn their livelihood in the Chinna Beela land Ac. 247.00 cents and also taken up training programmes to the educated unemployed fishermen youth through NAC/DRDA for getting employment. Regarding valuable wildlife species, the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam reported that about 356 plant species, the predominant plant species of Magifera Indica, Borassus Flabellifera, phoenixsylvestris, Dilonix Regia, Acacia Nelouca, Tamarindus Indica, Cocos nucifera, Cassia Tora, Cassia Page 19 of 84 occidentis, Abutilon Indicum, Achyranthes Aspera, Parthenium Hysterophorus, Tephorsia purpurea etc., have been identified within 10 KM radius of the project site. Similarly the animal species reported within the 10 KM study area are common in nature to this region and there is no endangered, protected, threatened animal and plant species in the study area and that there are no objections to the Forest Department, if the power plant is proposed to be established in the above land. Therefore, the MoEF&CC, Government of India vide its order No.J-13012/119/2001. IA- II (T) dated 09.12.2009 granted the Environmental Clearance (EC) for setting up of the proposed aforesaid Coal-based Thermal Power Plant at Sompeta in Srikakulam District. They admitted that the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) had set aside the Environmental Clearances for the project on 14.07.2010 vide Appeal No. 4 of 2010 filed by the persons of Sompeta area. Aggrieved partly with these orders of NEAA, M/s. Nagarjuna Constructions Company Ltd. filed a Review Petition on 19.7.2012 as R.A.No.07/2012 in Appeal 23-28/2011 before the National Green Tribunal. As the aforesaid company opted to withdraw Thermal Power Project and establish eco-friendly Industrial Park and consequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had cancelled the allotment of land made to M/s. Nagarjuna Constructions Company Ltd. for setting up of Thermal Power Project in Sompeta Mandal issued vide G.O.MS.No.1107 Revenue (Assn-I) Dept, dt.15.9.2008 and concurrently, M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Company Ltd. was permitted to use the said lands for development of "Multi Product Industry Zone" vide G.O.Ms.No.329 Revenue (Assn-1) dated 09.09.2015 and they have withdrawn the review application and based on this, the National Green Tribunal has disposed of the R.A.No.07/2012 as Page 20 of 84 withdrawn vide its orders dated 21.012016. The litigation in National Green Tribunal is limited to the Environmental Clearance granted to NCC Thermal Power Project and it has nothing to do with permitting NCC Ltd. to use the lands for "Multi Product Industry Zone". The Environmental Clearance (EC) shall be obtained from the competent regulatory authority before any construction work or preparation of land by the project management, except for securing the land is started in the project or activity. They explained the procedure for application for Environmental Clearance as envisaged under EIA Notification, 2006. Public hearing is not a prerequisite for such project as per EIA Notification, 2006. With regard to mention of description of land in Revenue Records and its natural utility by the applicants at 7.2 & 7.3 of Para 6, it was submitted that M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Pvt. Limited, Hyderabad has submitted an application to the District Collector, Srikakulam for alienation of 1046.21 Acers of Government land for setting up of 1980 MW power plant with the investment of about 1915 crores by creating new employment opportunities to 2000 people and also to produce sufficient power for the usage in the State and also promote the Dynamic New Industrial policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh by bringing rich dividends to the State in terms of Economic and Industrial Development, the District Collector, Srikakulam directed the then Tahsildar Sompeta Mandal to examine the feasibility of the lands and submit alienation proposals, and the Tahsildar, Sompeta had verified the lands covered by requisition of the company and the details of the lands verified are as follows.
Page 21 of 84
Sl. Name of the Survey No. Extent in Ac.
No. Revenue Village
1 Rushikudda 152/2 396-85
2 Gollangandi 23/9 249-43
3 Baruvapeta 247 201-13
4 Benkili 231 198-80
Total 1046-21
31. During the verification of the above lands, it was found by the Tahsildar, Sompeta that an extent of Ac. 1125-18 cents of Swamp lands locally called as Beela and these lands are Government lands and situated in a low lying, receiving the excess water from Mukundasagaram lies in Kanchili Mandal, Paidigam Reservoir and Mahendratanaya groin and flood water during rainy season from the villages lying on the western side and due to receiving and storage of heavy water which adversely affects surrounding paddy and other agricultural crops in private lands by inundation during rainy season and water stagnates throughout the year makes inaccessible to the swamp (Beela), except mid May month when water dried up and these lands are neither suitable for agriculture nor for any commercial plantations, except useful for very few inland fishermen for fishing during the rainy season. As some portions of lands which are above the swamp level covered with BDR pattas, Channel, CRZ area and encroachments, the following extents were finally arrived at as detailed below:
Sl. Name of the Sy. No. Classification Net Extent
No. Revenue Village arrived at (in
Acs.)
1 Rushikudda 152/2 Beela Gayalu 395.36
(Swamp)
2 Gollagandi 23/9 Beela Tampara 208.75
(Swamp)
3 Baruva peta 247 Tampara 169.78
Poramboke
Page 22 of 84
4 Benkili 231 Kaluva 198.80
Poramboke
Total 972.69
32. On the proposal submitted by the District Collector, Srikakulam, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in its G.O.Ms.No.1107 Revenue (Assn-I) Department dated 15-9-2008 have accorded permission to the District Collector, Srikakulam to alienate the aforesaid land i.e. an extent of 972.69 Acers in favour of APIIC for onward transfer in favour of M/s. Nagarjuna Constructions Company Limited, Hyderabad for setting up of 1980 MW Thermal Power Project on payment of market value i.e. Rs.80,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the APIIC has allotted the said land in favour of M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Company Limited and also registered a deed of sale for the above land to an extent of 972.69 Acres land on 06.06.2009 and delivered the physical possession of land on 29.05.2009. The people of Sompeta area have agitated on the construction of this Thermal Power Plant on the reason that the proposed construction of power plant will adversely affect the Environment and Ecology and a view has been taken by the Government, respecting the sentiments of the local people of Sompeta Mandal in Srikakulam District and in line with the Dynamic New Industrial Policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and keeping in view of creating employment to the local people and also not affecting the Environment, changed the line of activity from setting up of 1980 MW Thermal Power Project vide sanctioned in G.O. Ms.No.1107 Revenue (ASSN-1) Department dt. 15.09.2008 and permitted the M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Company Limited to utilize the same lands admeasuring 972.69 Acers for development of "Multi Product Industry Zone" vide G.O.Ms.No.329 Revenue (Assn-1) Dept. dt. Page 23 of 84 09.09.2015 subject to the following conditions and also laid down in BSO- 24 and G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assn-1) Dept. dt. 14.09.2012:
―1. The land shall be utilized for the purpose for which it is allotted within three years from the date of this order. 2. The alienee shall submit an annual report before 315 March on the progress of utilization to the District Collector. 3. The District Collector shall be the Authority to cancel and resume the land from the allottee Or Violation of conditions as well as for non utilization of land‖.
33. The Central Government has notified the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to regulate various activities within the wet lands. Under the said Rules, 25 wetlands being Ramsar sites have been verified. The issue regarding the identification of Sompeta lands as protected wetlands under the Wetland Rules, a detailed remarks were offered at Para 3 of this counter statement. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change, Government of India has offered their remarks on the other allegations. Considering the sentiments of the local people against the establishment of Thermal Power Project in this area, the Government has changed their activity and assigned the said land to M/s Nagarjuna Constructions Company Ltd. for establishing a Multi Product Industry Zone. The same will not affect the environment of any type including eco-sensitive nature of this area. This is neither a protected wetland nor a notified one and as such, the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules are not applicable. Further, it is not a wetland to be notified as required therein as well. The Tahsildar has submitted a report in letter No. RC.No.71/2017/SA/Dt. 13-03-2017 stating that the company has not constructed any buildings and developed the land for any purpose which effects Environment or Ecology. The lands in questions did not affect any animal species or plant Page 24 of 84 species or human life. The provisions of the Wetland Rule are not applicable to the Beela lands of Sompeta Mandal. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application, accepting their contentions.
34. The 4th Respondent has filed their counter affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation. The Working President of the first applicant sangam, Shri. Madey Saratchandrudu, has already filed a Writ Petition as W.P.No.13904 of 2016 before the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the G.O. Ms.No 329 dated 09.09.2015 which is the subject matter of the present main application wherein, the prayer was for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondent authorities to allow the 9th Respondent to use the land admeasuring Ac.972.69 cents in Sy.No.152/2 etc. of Rushilonda, Gollagandi, Baruvapeta and Benkili villages of Srikakulam District for development of "Multi Product Industry Zone" is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and set aside the notification issued by the 1st Respondent, after declaring that the wetlands and swamp community lands, source of irrigation, Lift Irrigation Scheme and sources of livelihood for fishermen ought not have been alienated for alien purposes and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice. The said working President is also a signatory to the resolution authorizing Sri Yaradi Krishna Murthy, the President of the Sangam to sue the legal issues relating to Sompeta Wetland Complex which is marked as Annexure-A in the present main application. So, it is a clear abuse of process of Court. There is an interim order passed by the Page 25 of 84 Honourable High Court and the writ petition is pending for consideration. The present application is not maintainable under Section 14 (3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as it is barred by limitation, as the application ought to have been filed within a period of six months from the date of cause of action first arose, as the notification in this case was issued as early as on 09.09.2015, but the application was filed on 11.07.2016, nearly one year after the issuance of the notification.
Further, the limitation under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, of 5 years is not applicable to the present case, as there was no prayer for restoration of the wetland. The applicant was relying on the SACON report to notify the wetlands in Srikakulam District, including the Sompeta land as "Wetlands" in terms of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010 and that will amount to a declaration from this Honourable Tribunal for notifying the wetlands which is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is neither declared nor notified as a wetland by the MoEF&CC so as to bring within the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010. The application is a premature one, as per the Government Order, it is for the development of Multi Product Industry Zone subject to the conditions laid down in BSO- 24 and G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue dated 14.09.2012. It is only in the initial stage and as such, there is no cause of action accrued for the applicants herein. These respondents were strictly following the statutory requirements and without adhering to the statutory provisions, no activity of these respondents will be started. The Wetlands (Conversion and Management) Rules, 2010 will not come under any of the statutes provided in the schedule attached to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. This Tribunal cannot go into the question as to Page 26 of 84 whether it is a wetland or not and it is for the authority to consider as to whether it is a wetland or not and if it is a wetland, whether it has to be declared for the purpose of conservation and preservation provided under the said Rules. The allegations regarding the appeals mentioned in the application are related to establishment of 2 x 600 MW Super Critical Coal Based Thermal Power Plant over these lands by the 4th Respondent pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.291 dated 22.02.2009 issued by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is totally a different subject matter and irrelevant to the present issue. The Review Petitions filed by the 4th respondent in the said appeal were withdrawn in response to the Dynamic New Industrial Policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to develop Multi Product Industry Zone (MPIZ) in the subject lands in the place of Thermal Power Project and the review applications were withdrawn, respecting the sentiments of the local people who were against the establishment of thermal power plant in that area. The description and nomenclature etc. are to be confirmed by the authorities and they have not made any comments on the same. The nomenclature and their meaning so derived as Swamp Lands and Wetlands is subject to classification to be done by the concerned authorities only and the applicant is not competent to provide such nomenclatures and term these lands as Wetlands. They denied the allegation that the State authorities have not taken necessary measures to protect the water bodies and wetlands. The State Government has never declared these lands as Wetlands, as there was no ecological or biodiversity significance to these lands. They admitted that as per earlier G.O.Ms.No.1107 dated 15.09.2008, certain lands in Sompeta Mandal, Skrikakulam District were assigned in favour of these respondents for setting up a Coal-based Page 27 of 84 Thermal Power Project and the said project was to be erected in land having an extent of Ac. 1672.82 cents land in Rushikudda, Gollagandi, Baruvapeta and Benkili Villages of Sompeta Mandal. Out of this, land to an extent of Ac.972.69 cents was alienated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.1107 dated 15.09.2008 and Ac. 110.250 cents was resumed D-patta lands alienated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.291, dated 26.02.2009 and an extent of Ac.589.880 cents of private land bought by the respondent from various individuals through 749 registered sale transactions. They submitted an application for Terms of Reference to the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) on 22.08.2008 and after detailed deliberations of EAC, which includes details of scientific evidence and studies carried out by the respondent to ascertain the suitability of the Project and a site visit by a sub-committee of Experts from MoEF, on 14.05.2009, Terms of Reference was issued. The detailed special studies carried out were:-
(a) Studies on demarcation of CRZ and setbacks by National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, Government of India.
(b) Study on biodiversity and Water Quality in regards to the site and downstream drainage upto the sea by Prof. Seshagiri Rao (University of Hyderabad) and Prof. V.S. Raju, (Kakitaya University, Warangal)
(c) Report of Resurvey by Survey of India
(d) National Hydrographic Map published by Chief Hydrographer, Government of India to the effect that the site is not mud flat, not a marshy land and is unconnected to sea.
(e) Assessment of soil from Regional Agricultural Research Station (Acharya N.G.Ranga, Agricultural University, Baptla).
(f) Land use / land cover obtained from Remote Sensing Studies carried out by the Andhra Pradesh State Sensing Application Centre.
(g) Study of Regional Geology of Site Environment, by Department of Geology, Andhra University.
Page 28 of 84
(h) Area drainage study by WAPCOS (Water & Power Consultant), Government of India and
(i) Certification by District Collector, Srikakulam about the classification of the land as per the revenue records.
35. The said studies have revealed that the project site is away from marine environment and the plant activities are away from the CRZ area. There is no sign of marshy lands and there was no indication of marine environment in the proposed site and the vegetative cover present in these lands is dominated by weed / grass. The area does not fall or contain in its vicinity any barren land without any cultivation and habitation. There were no threatened categories of plant and animal species as cited in the Red Data List (IUCN categories). This clearly establishes that a thorough study has been made as a part of a project to secure the environmental impact over these lands.
36. It was further contended that the Ecological Status Survey conducted by the Salim Ali Centre of Ornithology & Natural History (2012) cannot be relied upon as the same was without any proper authority. It is also contended that admittedly, the State Government is the appropriate authority to identify and demarcate the protected Wetlands of the State. The report of SACON do not have any significance and the State Government is having its own machinery to conduct various research and studies for declaring a land as Wetland. Till date, these lands are not declared as Wetlands by the State Government and in the absence of such declaration, the present application with a mandatory relief to direct the Respondents No.1 & 2 herein to consider the SACON report and declare these lands as Wetlands in terms of the Wetlands (Conversion and Page 29 of 84 Management) Rules, 2010 is unsustainable and is also beyond the scope of this Tribunal. The allegation that the State Authorities as well as Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority have failed to identify the subject lands as protected wet lands is without any basis and hence, denied. The Applicants have no right to question the authority of the State and Central Departments/Organizations. They are having separate mechanism for classifying the lands and the same cannot be questioned by way of an application seeking a mandatory direction to consider the classification of a particular land. It is not correct to say that the subject lands are being diverted for prohibited activities as mentioned in Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules. As per the G.O.Ms.No.329 dated 09.09.2015, these lands measuring Ac.972.69 cents in Srikakulam District have been allotted to the 4th Respondent for the development of Multi Product Industry Zone which is permissible in law. The allegation that the development of these lands into a Multi Product Industry Zone will cause irreversible destruction of these lands is not correct and hence denied. As these lands are poramboke lands as per the revenue records, any industrial activity will not have any adverse impact on environment. The order of this Tribunal dated 23.05.2012 in Appeal No.23/2011 is not applicable to the facts of this case. The judgment dated 23.05.2012 is to revisit the E.I.A. Report from the stage of Public Hearing, suspending the Environmental Clearance granted in view of the then proposal for putting up Thermal Power Plant on these lands in pursuance to the G.O.Ms.No.1107 dated 15.09.2008 which is totally different from the present Government Order under challenge i.e. G.O.Ms.No.329 dated 09.09.2015. The applicant cannot rely on the observations made by the Tribunal and the other reports/ Page 30 of 84 correspondences made with regards to the earlier Government Order and apply the same analogy for the present Government Order under challenge. In fact, the Tribunal has observed in Para 25 of the said order that "However, it is made clear that the proposal of present Project Proponent has rightly been dealt with in view of siting criteria guidelines which were prevailing at the relevant time".
37. So, it is clear from this that there is no lacuna found by the Tribunal in the procedure adopted by the concerned authorities. The subject matter of the Government Order is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.No.13904 of 2016, which was filed in the individual capacity by one Mr. M. Sharat Chandrudu, G.Kameswara Rao and M. Mohan Rao who are the active members of the first applicant Association. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (M.P.) No.17349 of 2016 vide its Order dated 22.04.2016 has suspended the said G.O.No.329 dated 09.09.2015 and the said interim order is still subsisting. The Applicants were aware of the pendency of the said Writ Petition and the present application has been filed suppressing that fact. None of the decisions relied on by the applicant are applicable to the facts of this case. The respondent has got a social obligation to protect and safeguard the environment by means of ―Sustainable Development‖ and as such, all the necessary safeguards would be undertaken before proceeding with the Government order. Due to the untenable and unreasonable approach of the applicants, the Sustainable Development is deprived resulting in loss of livelihood to many persons who would get employment. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
Page 31 of 84
38. Heard Mr. Ritwick Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff, the learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC, Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel along with Mr. L.G. Sahadevan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent.
39. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that even during 2015 when this land was assigned in favour of the 4th Respondent for establishing the Thermal Power Plant and the Environmental Clearance was granted, the same was challenged before the National Green Tribunal by filing an Appeal and the Tribunal by Judgment dated 23.05.2012 in T. Mohan Rao Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors., directed the MoEF&CC to identify and finalize the important wetlands in the country as early as possible, so that location of development projects in and around such ecological sensitive area could be avoided. Against such directions given, now the State of Andhra Pradesh has given the same land to the 4th Respondent for another project namely, Multi Product Industry Zone which is also not conducive for the environment which will affect the ecologically sensitive area of Sompeta Wetland and this is in fact against the Doctrine of Public Trust as well.
40. As regards the case pending before the Hon‟ble High Court is concerned viz., W.P. 13904/2016, it was filed by certain persons in their individual capacity and further that was in respect of challenging the notification by which the land was assigned in favour of the 4th Respondent. But the issue in this case is regarding protection of wetland which is entirely different from the subject matter before the Hon‟ble High Court. When Page 32 of 84 the applicants came to know about certain work was being done in that area during 2018, the same resisted by the farmers in that area and the same was stopped. The importance of the wetlands and necessity to protect the same were dealt with by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S. Jagannath Vs. Union of India8. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.9 has clarified that ponds, tanks, canals, streams, water channels, reservoirs, rivers, streams and lakes shall be considered while adjudicating on the issue of conservation of wetlands. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had considered the importance of protection of water bodies in Hinchalal Tiwari Vs. Kamaladevi10 and Jithender Singh Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors. 11 where the dictum laid down in Hinchalal Tiwari's case was affirmed. Further, in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 12, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has directed the MoEF&CC as well as the State Governments to take steps to notify the wetlands and till then, the notified wetlands and mapped wetlands should not be interfered with and that can be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has taken care of even those wetlands mapped as wetlands in the National Wetland Atlas which have to be taken note of for this purpose. Contrary to the same, the State of Andhra Pradesh in their reply dated 21.08.2017 contended that the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 will not be applicable to the present case, as Sompeta wetlands were neither identified under the National Plan for 8 (1997) 2 SCC 87 9 (2009) 5 SCC 507 10 AIR 2001 SC 3215 11 2019 SCC Online SC 1510 12 (2017) 7 SCC 810 (2) Page 33 of 84 Conservation of Aquatic System nor was notified under the Wetland Rules, 2010. This was against the dictum laid down in M.K. Balakrishnan's (2) case. Even in the Appeal No.23 of 2011 and 24 of 2011, this Tribunal by Common Judgment dated 23.05.2012, directed the MoEF&CC to finalize and notify the important wetlands in the country as well as possible in order to ensure that such ecologically sensitive areas that was the subject matter of Appeal No.23 of 2011 would not be destroyed by development activities. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant had relied on the Para (37) of the Judgment in the above appeal for this purpose. Further, the MoEF&CC by their letter dated 18.01.2016, directed the Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh to take appropriate action with regard to the identification/notification of Sompeta be located in Srikakulam District. Despite, they have not taken any steps. The applicant also relied on the importance of the Sompeta Beela on the basis of the SACON report. Several portions of the report of the SACON were relied on by the counsel for the applicant in support of their case. Further, in the Jithender Singh Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1510, it has been observed that even otherwise the action of the respondent authorities contravene their constitutional obligation Article 48 A of the Constitution which cast a duty on the State to make endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife in the country. Article 51 A (g) expects every citizen to perform his fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment. A perusal of our constitutional scheme and Judicial Development of environmental law further shows that all persons have a right to the healthy environment, it would be gain said that the State is Page 34 of 84 nothing but collective embodiment of citizens and hence, collective duties of citizens can constructively be imposed on the States.
41. The learned counsel also argued that since the directions given by the Hon‟ble Apex Court had not been complied with and since it is a continuous violation of the constitutional obligation, every violation will give raise to a fresh right of cause of action and as such, the application is well within time. Further, even assuming that the Tribunal cannot declare this is a wetland, but directions can be given to the Government to consider the same and take steps to declare the same by giving certain guidelines as to how this will have to be evolved for the purpose of identifying the wetlands. Even assuming that if it is not a wetland, but it can be treated as a water body, even then this Tribunal has got power to protect the water body against any encroachment and any destruction as restoration and rejuvenation of water body is the mandate of the State, as that will play a great role in improving the environment and also providing healthy life which is part of Right to Life as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. So, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the same is maintainable and not barred by limitation and the Tribunal has got power to grant the relief claimed.
42. On the other hand, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the project proponent along with Mr. L.G. Sahadevan argued that the application is not maintainable, as it was filed beyond six months of issuance of the notification which is under challenge. Further, one of the members of the first applicant‟s Association, in his individual capacity filed a writ petition, challenging the notification, allotting this Page 35 of 84 land to the project proponent viz., the 4th Respondent and a Status Quo order has been passed and as such, there is no necessity for this Tribunal to go into the question, as the Hon‟ble High Court has already taken cognizance of the matter.
43. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that the nature of relief sought for cannot be granted by this Tribunal, as it is a nature of declaration that a particular water body has to be declared as a wetland. It is for the authorities under the statutes to decide the status of the water body, whether it has to be declared as a wetland or not and whether it has to be protected either as a water body or as a wetland and that power cannot be usurped by the Tribunal. Further, the disputed water body is neither a declared wetland nor a mapped wetland or notified wetland by the State of Andhra Pradesh. So under such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed in the application.
44. Further, the learned Senior Advocate also argued that the applicants cannot rely on the earlier decision, where the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for the Thermal Power Plant in this area was set aside by this Tribunal. Even in that case, there was no declaration that it is a wetland, but that was directed to be considered by the State Government. Further, the Salim Ali Foundation‟s report cannot be relied on for the purpose of declaring this as a wetland, as the subsequent report submitted by the same organization has suggested for certain other activities can be permissible and that was the reason why the land was allotted for the present project.
Page 36 of 84
45. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 4th Respondent has relied on the decision of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi Randhir Singh (Sarpanch) & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (O.A. No.182/2013) and Lakhan Musafir & Ors Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited & Ors. (M.A. No.74/2015 in O.A. No.10/2014) in support of their case.
46. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the land in dispute was neither declared as a protected wetland nor it was mapped or identified as a wetland in the Atlas of Wetlands in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, it is for the State Government to decide as to whether the particular water body will have to be declared as a wetland or not. On the basis of the direction issued by this Tribunal, the State of Andhra Pradesh has constituted a technical committee to go into the question and they are studying the matter and once the study is completed and recommendations made, the State of Andhra Pradesh will take necessary steps in this regard. Further, the notification allotting this land to the 4th Respondent was challenged by the working president of the first applicant‟s Association and a Status Quo order has been passed and as such, there is no necessity for this Tribunal to go into the question, as the relief claimed therein are same. So, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh prayed for dismissal of the application.
47. The learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC argued that as per the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, it is the responsibility of the State Government to identify the wetlands and sent a proposal to the MoEF&CC and on that basis, the MoEF&CC Page 37 of 84 will finalize the proposal and approval will be granted for notification. But, they have not received any proposal from the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of Sompeta wetland or any other wetland in that State. Further, when they received a representation from the applicants, the same was forwarded to the State of Andhra Pradesh for further action. But they have not received any proposal so far. Similarly, when the appeal was disposed of by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi viz. Appeal No.23 of 2011 and Appeal No.24 of 2011, they have called for the proposal from all the States, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. In turn, some of the States have identified certain wetlands and sent their proposal, but the State of Andhra Pradesh has not sent any proposal. They prayed for accepting their contentions and pass appropriate orders.
48. We have considered the pleadings, submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties including the written submissions and perused the documents available on record.
49. The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the application is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the application is barred by limitation?
(iii) Whether the Sompeta water body is a wet land liable to be preserved and conserved as required under the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010/2017?
Page 38 of 84
(iv) What is the nature of directions that can be issued by this Tribunal to protect the water body, if it is found to be either a water body or a wetland?
(v) Relief and cost.
POINT No.(i):
50. As regards the question of maintainability is concerned, if the applicants raised a substantial question of environment, then the National Green Tribunal will be having a jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to decide the substantial question of environment raised. In this case, the case of applicants was that the disputed water body is a wetland to be preserved having large biological diversity and ignoring that fact, the State of Andhra Pradesh assigned this area to the 4th Respondent for establishing a Multi Product Industry Zone which will have great impact on the water body / wetland. So, the question as to whether it is a wetland to be preserved as required under the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010/2017, is a substantial question to be considered by this Tribunal, as only after considering the fact that whether it is a wetland, necessary directions can be issued to the Government.
51. Further, as per the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the environment includes, water, air and land and interrelating relationship which exists among and between air, water and land and human beings and other living creatures, plants, micro organism and property. Since the water body/wetland plays a great role in protecting the environment, the question as to whether it will have to be protected or not is a question to Page 39 of 84 be considered by this Tribunal as a substantial question of environment and since the water also includes environment to be considered under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, then any application relating to those aspects will fall within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal under Section 14 & 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and as such, this application is maintainable.
52. Though it was contended in the counter statement of the 4th Respondent that a writ petition was filed before the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad as W.P. No.13904 of 2016 by Sharat Chandrulu, G. Kameswara Rao and M. Mohan Rao who are the active members of the first applicant‟s Association, challenging the notification viz., G.O. Ms. 329 dated 09.09.2015, by which the land has been assigned in favour of the 4th Respondent for this purpose and the present application is not maintainable on the same ground is also not sustainable in view of the fact that, that same was challenging the notification granting a property to the 4th Respondent. But here the question is whether the particular alleged wetland has to be declared as a wetland and to be notified as required under the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010/2017.
53. Further, any activity of this nature can be permitted in that area, if it has got adverse impact on the water body is also a matter to be considered by this Tribunal. So, pendency of the writ petition for a different purpose will not be a bar for the applicants to independently agitate the question raised in this application before this Tribunal under Section 14 & 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Further, assuming that this Tribunal cannot declare the notification viz., G.O. 329 dated 09.09.2015 as similar Page 40 of 84 question is pending before the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad, but the question as to whether the water body has to be preserved as a wetland, is an independent question to be considered by this Tribunal and as such, in order to decided that issue, the application is maintainable before this Tribunal. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 and 2017 were passed invoking the power under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and since the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is one of the statutes enumerated in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and any violation of statutes and non-implementation of these statutes will give jurisdiction to this Tribunal under Section 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. So, the contention of the 4th Respondent that the application is not maintainable, is not sustainable and the same is rejected and the point is answered accordingly. POINT No.(ii):-
54. The other ground that was raised by the 4th Respondent was that application is barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond six months and sixty days as provided under Section 14 (3) and proviso to Section 14 (3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as they were challenging the Government Order, assigning this land in favour of the 4th Respondent which happened on 09.09.2015. But the application was filed on 11.07.2016, which is more than eight months as provided under Section 14 (3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Page 41 of 84
55. It was alleged in the application that when the applicant came to know that the 4th Respondent was trying to do aqua culture activities in Sompeta wetland without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities, in violation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, the applicant has rushed to this Tribunal by filing the present application.
56. It may be mentioned here that though applicants wanted to set aside the notification issued in favour of the 4th Respondent. but the main allegation in the application was to declare this wetland as a notified wetland under the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010/2017. Further, a writ petition was filed before the Hon‟ble High Court in the year 2016 challenging that notification but when certain steps were being taken for the purpose of intermeddling with the water body and when it came to the knowledge of the applicant, they filed this application to protect the water body.
57. Further, the applicants alleged that cause of action for filing the application, as there was a dereliction on the part of the authorities ignoring the directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Appeal No.23 of 2011 (T. Mohan Rao Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors.) and Appeal No.24 of 2011 (Maddu Raja Rao Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors.) dated 23.05.2012, where the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the 4th Respondent for establishing the Thermal Power Plant was challenged and in that case, there was a direction issued to the MoEF&CC to take steps to implement the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. It is on that basis, a representation was made Page 42 of 84 by the applicant to the MoEF&CC and the MoEF&CC has issued a letter to the State of Andhra Pradesh to finalize the identification of the wetlands in their State and sent a proposal.
58. Further, against the order passed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.23 of 2011 and Appeal No.24 of 2011, a review application was filed by the 4th Respondent as R.A. No.13 of 2014 and that was later dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.01.2016. Further, the applicant also made a request to the MoEF&CC to take steps to declare this as a wetland as early as on 2016, immediately after the disposal of the case and the MoEF&CC had forwarded the letter to the State of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action on 18.01.2016 and reminder was also sent on 24.02.2016, when they received another representation from the second applicant. Since no action was taken on that basis, the applicants will be getting a fresh cause of action for filing the application to protect the water body, as it is a recurring cause of action, when inaction was per se on the part of the authorities in not implementing the statutory provisions which they are expected to implement.
59. So, the dictum relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th Respondent viz., M.A. No.74 of 2015 in O.A. No.10 of 2014 (Lakhan Musafir & Ors Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited & Ors.) is not applicable to the facts of this case.
60. Further, in case of recurring cause of action, each recurring incidents will give raise to a fresh cause of action. If there is any damage caused to environment is to be restored, then the period will be five years under Page 43 of 84 Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Further, even though the applicant has made certain prayers and such prayers cannot be granted by this Tribunal, but on the basis of the allegations made in the application, a modified or moulded relief can be granted for the purpose of protecting the water body, then the Tribunal has got ample power to mould the relief on the basis of the allegations made in the application, if there is any foundation made in allegation raised in the application for granting such modified relief.
61. The grievance of the applicants was that the 4th Respondent was trying to reclaim the wetland and convert the same into an industrial estate. When certain work was about to be done, the present case was filed. Further, representations were made to declare this as a wetland under the then Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, if the MoEF&CC has directed the authorities to do it and if the authorities did not take any action, then inaction on the part of the authorities will give raise to a fresh cause of action for the purpose of filing the application. The last communication that was issued by the MoEF&CC to the State of Andhra Pradesh to identify the wetland including the alleged wetland in question and sent the proposal was made in February 2016. If that date is taken, as the cause of action for the applicant, then the present application was filed within six months from the date of cause of action first arose for this purpose. Further, when the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.13 directed the MoEF&CC and the State Government to take steps to identify and notify the wetlands and the same has not been done by the State of Andhra Pradesh, in spite of 13 (2009) 5 SCC 507 Page 44 of 84 directions issued by the MoEF&CC in this regard. Further, when this Tribunal, while disposing the appeals, directed the MoEF&CC and the State Government to take steps to implement the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules and the State of Andhra Pradesh have to take steps to send proposal as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to the MoEF&CC, but no steps were taken by the State of Andhra Pradesh in this regard. Further, even when the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2017) 7 SCC 810 (2), directed to take steps and till then all wetlands including mapped wetlands will have to be governed by Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, no steps were taken by the State of Andhra Pradesh, till this Tribunal directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to furnish the details of steps taken by them in this regard during 2021 and 2022, decided to constitute a technical committee as required under Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. Till then there was inaction on the part of the State in discharging their statutory obligations, this will be treated as a continuing cause of action and as such, the application is within time.
62. So under such circumstances, the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate for the 4th Respondent that the application is not maintainable and barred by limitation, cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected. We hold that the application is maintainable and filed within time and it is not barred by limitation. The point is answered accordingly.
Page 45 of 84 POINT No.(iii) to (v):-
63. The grievance in this application is that the disputed wetland namely, Sompeta Beela is a wetland which was included in the National Wetland Atlas prepared by the MoEF&CC, but despite that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is not taking steps to notify this as a wetland. The fact is that during 2009, an extent of 972.69 Ac. of land in Sompeta Mandal in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh including the disputed wetland was assigned in favour of the 4th Respondent for establishing a Coal- based Thermal Power Plant of 980 MW capacity as per G.O. Ms. 1107 dated 15.09.2008, evidenced by Annexure - D.
64. It is also an admitted fact that the 4th Respondent had obtained the Environmental Clearance (EC) for this project and the same was challenged by one T. Mohana Rao by filing an appeal before the National Environmental Appellate Authority as Appeal No.03 of 2010 and 04 of 2010 and that was allowed by the National Environment Appellate Tribunal and the Environmental Clearance (EC) was set aside and the MoEF&CC had suspended the same. The 4th Respondent filed a review application and since the National Green Tribunal was established by then, the same were transferred to the National Green Tribunal and the Tribunal decided to hear the appeals afresh and renumbered the appeals as Appeal No.23 of 2011 (T. Mohan Rao Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors.) and Appeal No.24 of 2011 (Maddu Raja Rao Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors.) and by Judgment dated 23.05.2012, the Principal Bench of National Green Page 46 of 84 Tribunal, New Delhi had partly allowed the appeal and passed the following order:-
―36. ....The Environmental Clearance (EC) granted which is kept in suspension by the MoEF&CC vide order dated 15.07.2020 shall continue as such till the directions issued by us are complied, and would also be subject to the report of the Chief Conservator of Forests.
Para 37. The MoEF&CC may also finalize and notify the important wetlands in the country as early as possible so that location of development projects in and around such ecologically sensitive areas can be avoided in future.‖
65. Thereafter, the 4th Respondent had filed a Review Application as R.A. No.13 of 2014 and later, the same was withdrawn and it was dismissed as withdrawn, evidenced by Annexure - B, Judgment.
66. It is also an admitted fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as the 4th Respondent had dropped the Thermal Power Plant Project in that area. It is thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has assigned the said 972.69 Ac. of land including the Sompeta wetland again to the 4th Respondent for development of Multi Product Industry Zone by G.O. Ms. No.329 dated 09.09.2015, evidenced by Annexure - C. As per the revenue records, these lands are classified as Kaluva Poramboke, Tampara Poramboke, Beela Gayulu and Beela Tampara.
67. The dictionary meaning of "Beela" is "Swamp land" and the dictionary meaning of "Swamp" is "an area of land that is permanently waterlogged but which has a dense covering the vegetation, eg. in certain topical regions, trees and shrubs, such as mangroves or, in the more temperate zones, willows or reeds." The dictionary meaning of "Kaluva" is "stream or canal". The meaning of "Tampara" is "cluster and lotus plant in an aquatic perennial that thrives in shallow ponds, lagoons and Page 47 of 84 marshes". From the above, it can be seen that these areas are water bodies/ water courses/wetlands even if not declared as wetlands under the relevant rules.
68. It will be seen from the G.O. Ms. 1107 Revenue (ASSN.I) Department dated 15.09.2008 that the description of the land was mentioned as follows:-
―The District Collector, Srikakulam has also reported that the Tahsildar, Sompeta has submitted alienation proposals through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, to an extent of Ac.1125.08 cts of swamp lands locally called as Beela available in four villages namely, Rushikudda, Gollagandi, Baruvapeta, Benkili of Sompeta Mandal and all the above lands are Government swamp lands which are suitable in a low lying area, receiving the excess water from Mukundasagaram Pydigam Reservoir and Mahindratanaya Groin and flood water during rainy season from the villages lying in western side and due to receiving and stagnation of heavy water, it adversely affects surround paddy fields and agricultural crops by inundation during rainy season and that the standing water stagnates throughout the year makes in accessible to the swamp except mid May when water dried up.‖
69. So, it is clear from this that it is a swamp land containing water throughout the year and it acts as a receiver of flood water during rainy season and also excess water from the nearby reservoirs and further, it acts as a storing pond of water almost throughout the year.
70. As per the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands signed at Iranain City of Ramsar in 1971, there was an understanding globally/internationally to protect and conserve the wetlands, as it plays a great role to protect Page 48 of 84 environment. India being a party to the convention has a duty to implement the same.
71. In M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 14, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has clarified that ponds, tanks, canals, creeks, water channels, reservoirs, rivers, streams and lakes shall be considered while adjudicating on the issue of conservation of wetlands.
72. Further, there was an obligation on the part of the Government to protect the water bodies even if it is not having the nature of wetland as has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi 15 and Jitender Singh Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors. 16 Further, the necessity of protecting the water body was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab17.
73. In M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.18, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had passed an order for protection of wetlands by directing the application of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to the areas that have been marked as wetlands in the National Wetland Atlas which is extracted as follows:-
―Accordingly, we direct the application of principle of Rule 4 of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to these 2,01,503 wetlands that have been mapped by the Union of India. The Union of India shall identify and inventories all these 2,01,503 wetlands with the assistance of State Governments and shall also communicate our order to the State Governments which shall also bind the State Governments to the effect that these identified 14 (2009) 5 SCC 507 15 AIR 2001 SC 3215 16 (2019) SCC Online SC 1510 17 (2011) 11 SCC 396 18 (2017) 7 SCC 810 (2) Page 49 of 84 2,01,503 wetlands are subject to the principles of Rule 4 Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.‖
74. So, it is clear from the decision that the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 is applicable not only to the notified/declared wetlands under the said Rules, but also those wetlands which were mapped and identified in the National Wetland Atlas by the Union of India. This was further reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the order dated 04.10.2017 in M.K. Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (Civil) No.230 of 2001.
75. The applicant has produced the National Wetland Atlas in respect of Andhra Pradesh published by the MoEF&CC, Government of India and in the Srikakulam District, they have notified 2063 wetlands in different heads viz., Inland Wetlands - Natural (Waterlogged, River/stream), Inland Wetlands - Manmade (Reservoirs/Barrages, Tanks/Ponds, Waterlogged), Coastal wetlands - Natural (Creek, Sand/Beach, Intertidal mud flats, Mangroves) and Coastal Wetlands - Manmade (Salt pans, Aquaculture ponds). The Sompeta wetland is one such natural wetland which has been mapped in the said atlas.
76. Further, it is also seen from the report submitted by the District Collector, Srikakulam District dated 11.09.2021 that the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore has conducted three surveys (on ecological study survey) during October, 2011 and February - March, 2012 on the wetlands of Srikakulam District and submitted a report to the MoEF&CC, Government of India in the month of July 2012 and has suggested on protection of wetlands (including the Page 50 of 84 interconnected wetland complexes such as Coastal Wetlands of Sompeta) in the District and they should not be allowed to be converted for any other purposes and also expressed that the plans of setting up of the Super Thermal Power Plant Projects in those wetlands should be re- examined so as to avoid adverse effect on environments, Ecosystem, Limno systems, Hyrdo systems. But, it was mentioned in the report that actually necessary sanctions for setting up of Thermal Power Plant Project were approved prior to the study i.e. in 2008 and the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted on 2009. But later the project was given up and by virtue of the notification dated 09.09.2015, the 4th Respondent was permitted to develop the area as Multi Product Industry Zone (Non- pollutional). The District Collector also noted certain aspects and during personal visit, following observations were made about the nature of land:
―1) Some parts of the land on the eastern sides are not swamps and they are not perennial wetlands;
2) It is informed that, in rainy season, some part of these lands become water logged.
3) At the time of inspection, certain lands are found to be swamp in nature and water was found to be stagnated. Through these lands, a channel which carries this water was observed and it is found out that these lands are not in equal level of surrounding sea. If the channel is regularly cleared & de-silted, then there will be no water stagnation and land will not be swamp in nature.
4) During the physical inspection, paddy cultivation was observed. Local people informed that these are low-lying area and in rainy season, it is completely filed with water.
5) During interaction, many local representatives, public leaders and NGOs have expressed their objection to setting up of industry in these lands. In last 13 years, many agitations have also taken up.
6) Finally, it is requested that, a detailed technical study may be undertaken for identification of perennial wetlands or seasonal wetlands in these area to identify any future purpose on these lands.‖ Page 51 of 84
77. It is also seen from the communication from the State of Andhra Pradesh that on the basis of the recommendations made by the District Collector, they proposed to constitute a technical committee to go into the question.
78. The Union Ministry of Environment and Forest had entrusted the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore to study the wetlands including the wetlands in Andhra Pradesh during 2011 and on that basis, they conducted a study and when they dealt with the existence of wetlands in the Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh found that ―the coastal plains are blessed with numerous wetlands of different sizes and characteristics, of which, ‗Beelas' are of ecologically and economically important (Beelas, in the vernacular, are backwaters, a wetland system fed by flood waters or a network of streams/channels and connected to the sea through a creek/channel). Four major large wetland complexes, viz., Naupada, Sompeta, Ichapuram and Poondi are situated in the coastal plains in the district. In addition, there are hundreds of small and medium, seasonal and perennial wetlands of diverse nature. Sompeta Beela, a complex of three separate but connected water bodies of which two are brackish and the other fresh water, with its surround flood plains is a wetland complex with an approximate area of 800 Hectares. It is an important habitat of 121 bird species and 493 plant species. Many bird species seen here fall under IUCN Red List. Around 1,00,000 people belong to 30 villages around the wetland depend upon the wetland complex for various purpose deriving ecosystem goods and services. During the dry season, drained out portions of the wetland is used for grazing by thousands of cattle and wild boars. Around thousand families belonging to the traditional fisher communities fully depend upon the wetland for their sustenance. Around 2000 hecatres of paddy (two crops) and 300 hectare of vegetable and horticulture crops are irrigated directly drawing water from the Beela. Ecology of the nearby wetlands and ecosystems provides the Page 52 of 84 local inhabitants safe drinking water and water for irrigation. The wetlands and its environs of Srikakulam District provide habitats for 236 bird species and 662 plant species. Information on other taxa is scanty. As noted above, several birds falling under ‗Near threatened', ‗Vulnerable' and ‗Endangered' IUCN categories and Schedule - I of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 are seen in the wetlands and its environs. The Beelas as made out are not inconsequential water bodies in the coastal plains and should be protected from any violation of their integrity as they are ecologically sensitive and important, habitats for diverse biodiversity including several species under various categories of threat, and to ensure environmental, food and water security for lakhs of people. The plans for setting up the Super Thermal Power Plants in those wetlands should be re-examined. Lakhs of people depend upon the various ecosystem goods and services provided by the coastal wetlands for their survival. There are 83 marine fisher's habitations apart from the hundreds of settlements of local farmers, traditional pisci-culturists, workers in the numerous salt pans and inland fishers in the coastal area. The water and food security of the coastal plains depends on the wetlands to a great extent. Therefore, no activity that will threaten the integrity of the wetlands should be allowed. Srikakulam coast is the second largest endangered Olive Ridley nesting site in India. This species prefer river mouth for breeding. Therefore, special protective measures have to be devised and executed in coastal belt. The coastal waters of Andhra Pradesh being an important pathway for migrating Olive Ridley turtles in search of their nesting sites, construction of Jetties near the Srikakulam coast and also the release of effluents to the sea should not be allowed.‖
79. As regards the Sompeta wetland, the SACON has mentioned as follows:
―The Somepta Beela, a low lying swamp with several micro habitats and several taxa of animals and plants. Three adjacent Beelas form the Sompeta wetland complex. The ‗Pedda Beela' is connected to the two other Beelas; the second one known as the ‗Chinna Beela' and the third ‗Tampara'. The third one eventually Page 53 of 84 joins the sea. The wetland complex is nearly 4000 acres and 20 Km long covering parts of Baruva in Sompeta mandal and Kapaasguddi in Kaviti Mandal. It is a wetland which is to be conserved under various State and Central Government policies and international treatises such as Ramsar Convention and the Wetland Rules, 2010 noted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.‖
80. This study was conducted at the time when there was a proposal to start Thermal Power Plant by the 4th Respondent, for which, 1882 Acres were handed over to the 4th Respondent by the Government Order of 2008 and the SACON found that ―Out of this 1882 Acres handed over to the 4th Respondent, 1200 Acres is in the Beela. The area is highly fertile. Thirty two villages with a population of around 3 lakhs depend upon the Beela for various purpose, for water for irrigation, fisheries, fodder, thatching materials, medicinal plants and several edible plants. Apart from the direct ecosystem goods and services provided by the Beeal to thousands of people, regulatory eco system services such as maintaining the hydrological regime of a large area which is vital for maintaining the ground water table supporting the agriculture, acting as a carbon sink and maintaining air quality, soil nutrient maintenance etc. are invaluable. The core area of the Pedda Beela is a major habitat for migratory and other birds, giving shelter to 122 bird species several of them falling under IUCN categories that require conservation actions.‖
81. It is found that it is very rich in biodiversity and renders valuable ecosystem services. It is observed therein in 4.3.1.1 under the head „Important Bird Habitats‟ that ―the Sompeta wetland and its environs is habitant to 1221 bird species, of which, 11 species fall under IUCN Red List. Black headed Ibis, Darter, Eurasian Spoon Bill, Painted Stork, Pallid Harrier, Page 54 of 84 Spot Billed Pelican, Black Necked Stork and Greater Grey Headed Fish Eagle seen here belong to ‗Near Threatened' category by IUCN. Among these, Eurasian Spoon Bill and Pallid Harrier fall under Schedule - 1 of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act. Lesser adjutant is a ‗Vulnerable' species found here.‖
82. It is mentioned that ―In October every year, thousands of birds locally known as ‗Kondamkodi' and ‗Nathagotta' said to be coming from Siberia and Australia visit the wetland and stay there up to five to six months. The Beela is used as a resting and feeding habitat. This is an important migrant route and passage migrant place (Report of the site inspection committee, MoEF, 2010).‖
83. It is also mentioned therein that ―Circumstantial evidences point to the possibility of the ‗Critically Endangered' Pink Headed Duck occurring in the core area of the Pedda Beela in the Sompeta Wetland complex. As per literature stray population of this bird were reported from Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh earlier. As the core area of the Pedda Beela is inundated throughout the year and with the tall vegetation, extensive efforts will have to be taken in order to ascertain the presence of Pink Headed Duck during migratory season.‖
84. It is also mentioned therein that ―Three repaid surveys conducted during the months of October 2011 and February - March 2012 revealed the presence of 491 plant species in the Sompeta wetland area which includes the floristic wealth of this area. Out of these 491 plants, 206 plants are with medicinal properties, 15 plants edible and 10 plants are edible possessing medicinal properties. Jatropha Tanjorensis reported from here is endemic to Coromandel costs of Peninsular India. Apart from this, followings plants viz., Asystasia dalzelliana, Barleria acuminata, Iseilema anthephorodes and Phyllanthus rotundifolius are endemic to Indian subcontinent. Apart from the rich bird and plant biodiversity, it is a Page 55 of 84 habitat for several important butterfly species. Because of the complex nature of the ecosystem, a detailed survey is required and that certainly would reveal the presence of several more vertebrate and invertebrate species.‖
85. In Para 4.3.1.4 of the report, the Ecosystem Services of the wetland was observed as follows ―Numerous seasonal channels and streams feed ‗Pedda Beela' during rainy season. The other two ‗Beelas' are fed by the water from the Pedda Beela, with a typical water regime which have wider implications in terms of the water table, water quality and sustenance of the biodiversity of the surrounding areas. Around 2000 Ha of rice cultivation (two crops) is supported by these Beelas. Three lift irrigations projects, each covering an ayacult of 80 Ha. is maintained by the water directly drawn from the Beela even during the extreme summer. Mostly vegetables are cultivated using the water from the lift irrigations. There are hundreds of acres of lush coconut and arecanut groves surrounding the Beela providing crucial income for the survival of local inhabitants.‖
86. The definition of wetland provided in Ramsar Convention (Article 1.1) says "For the purpose of this convention wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters."
87. Even the study conducted by the 4th Respondent for preparation of their marine ecological study, it was mentioned that it is a fresh water Beela. A portion of the project area falls under the Sompeta Beela as well. The document produced by the 4th Respondent as part of the EIA report for the purpose of establishing the Thermal Power Plant showed that ―the Sompeta Beela has no influence of sea invasion, whereas, the other two Beelas have connectivity and circulation of saline water. They represent a definite gradation and transition zone between the sea and Sompeta Beela. The aquatic Page 56 of 84 species in Sompeta Beela are exclusively of fresh water environment, the middle Manikyapuram Beela has combination of both fresh and marine environments, whereas, the sea side Beela supports mainly marine species.‖
88. The report relied on by the 4th Respondent is contradictory to the report submitted by the SACON to the MoEF&CC. Even the report relied on by the 4th Respondent shows that the Sompeta Beela is connected with other two Beelas, which are having some marine impact. They also mentioned about certain species of plants and the aquatic habitats. The conclusion portion of the report shows that ―Sompeta Beela is natural sink which receives spill over waters from Mahendra Thanaya and Paidigon irrigation anicuts.‖ The study was conducted for the purpose of establishing the Thermal Power Plant and the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted, but the same was set aside by the National Green Tribunal in the appeal filed against the same and later, the project was withdrawn.
89. The second report of the SACON i.e., July 2012, relied on by the 4th Respondent also shows and categorize the Sompeta is a wetland which is evident from Page 29 of the final report submitted by the SACON to the MoEF, Government of India. At Page 62 of the report, it was mentioned that ―Sompeta wetland is locally known as ‗Beela'. Beela is a low lying swamp/marsh area with a unique habitat for rich biodiversity with a distinctive hydrological regime. There are three distinct water bodies of varying size and characteristics in the Sompeta wetland complex. The first one is known as ‗Pedda Beela' which is linked to two other Beelas known as the ‗Chinna Beela (Manikapuram Beela) and Tampara which is eventually connected to sea near Idduvanipalem.‖ Page 57 of 84
90. It is also mentioned at Page 63 that ―Sompeta wetland complex spreads over nearby 1600 ha acres starting from Baruva in Sompeta mandal to Kapaasuguddi in Kaviti Mandal, approximately 20 Km, with varying widths. It falls within Rishikudda, Gollagandi, Baruvapeta and Benkili Villages. It consists of marshes, mud flats, permanent shallow marine waters, marine sub tidal aquatic beds, coastal brackish/saline lagoons, seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools, permanent fresh water spreads, fish culture ponds, irrigated lands etc.‖
91. It is also mentioned therein that ―Sompeta wetland is fed by Mukundasagaram Pydigam reservoir and numerous channel and small streams from the river Mahendaratanaya. Considerable flood waters also reach it during the monsoon. The area gets about 1200 mm rainfall annually, most of it during the south western season of June to September. In summer, the upper reaches of the wetland get dried up whereas its middle portion remains inundated and marshy. During monsoon the entire Sompeta wetland complex gets inundated by flood waters. This flood waters keep the wetlands replenished with the water and nutrients' even in extreme summer all the three beelas never dry up completely. These wetlands help in controlling flood in the surrounding areas which are rather thickly populated. It also sponges the flood and storm waters gradually releasing it in lean months. Sediments are retained within the wetland and the thick vegetation which persists in the wetland traps sediments and control soil erosion.‖
92. They have also mentioned about the presence of wildlife habitats and rare species in 3.2.2.2 of the report. Various species of flora and fauna found in the Sompeta wetland complexes have been elaborately discussed in the 2012 final report filed by the SACON relied on by the 4th Respondent themselves. It is also mentioned in the report at 4.3.5 that most of the Page 58 of 84 wetland ecosystems of Srikakulam are under severe pressure posed by multiple threats such as industrialization, agricultural runoff, industrial pollution, curing of jute, eutrophication, dumping solid wastes, domination of weeds and single species growth, excessive grazing, cleaning and expansion of wetlands under MNREGA, poaching.
93. In the conclusion and recommendations, it was observed as follows:-
Srikakulam district is rich in wetlands, with many major wetlands located along the coastal plains. In hilly regions the wetlands are mostly man-made. The coastal wetlands of Srikakulam present a complex inter - connected wetland system that needs to be conserved in its entirety to preserve the functional linkages between these wetlands and to sustain the invaluable ecosystem services.
The wetlands of Srikakulam district provide habitats for 236 bird species and 662 plant species. Information on other taxa remains almost absent.
Several bird species falling under the 'Near Threatened', 'Vulnerable' and 'Endangered' IUCN categories and Schedule- 1 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 are seen in the wetlands and its surroundings.
Documentation of other taxa associated with the wetlands in the district is very scarce and it needs to be done at the earliest.
The wetlands in the district face various types of threats. Diversion for industrial use is a major and serious one.
Rampant poaching of wild birds is a major threat to the birds of the area. The wetlands serve several ecosystem services such as water for irrigation, ground water recharging, water for other human uses, support several species of fauna and flora, fishery, control of salt water intrusion, pollution abatement etc. A large number of people get their livelihood from fishing and other wetland goods.
The coastal wetlands should be protected as they are ecologically sensitive, habitats for rich biodiversity that includes several IUCN red listed species, and to ensure ecological security and sustainability.
Lakhs of people depend upon the various ecosystem services provided by the coastal wetlands. For their survival, therefore no activity which will threaten the integrity of these wetlands should be allowed.
Srikakulam coast is the second largest nesting site of Olive Ridley turtles in India. These species prefer areas close to river mouths for breeding. Therefore Page 59 of 84 special protective measures have to be devised and executed in the coastal belt of Srikakulam.
It has been established that coastal waters of AP is an important pathway for Olive Ridley turtles migrating from south of Srilanka to Odisha in search of their breeding and nesting sites. Therefore construction of Jetties in the Bay of Bengal near the Srikakulam coast and also the release of effluents to the sea should not be allowed.
For protection of the breeding sites of the Olive Ridley Turtles 'Interest Groups' involving all the stakeholders need to be formed and substantial awareness campaigns and strict enforcement of relevant laws and regulations should be ensured.
The core area of the Sompeta wetland is a suspected habitat of the endangered Pink Headed Duck, which has not been sighted in the country for more than half a century. However, since its presence is indicated during our attempts using PRA tools, immediate steps should be taken to protect the habitat from any disturbance and investigations should be taken up right away to ascertain the presence of the bird. Nevertheless, pending confirmation of its presence/ absence in the area, protection should be given immediately to the area so that the chance of survival of this singular bird is not jeopardized by unscrupulous actions.
Both Naupada swamps and Sompeta wetland are rich and distinctive ecosystems. However, scientific documentation on these wetlands is sparse and grossly inadequate. Therefore, it is imperative that a multidisciplinary research program is taken up on these wetlands and a comprehensive management plan is prepared. Looking at their apparent ecological values efforts should be initiated to declare both the wetlands as Ramsar sites.
A comprehensive survey of the wetlands of Srikakulam district should be conducted and all the wetlands with more than 500 ha area should be identified and the same should not be allowed to be converted for any other purpose as stipulated in the National Wetland Rules - 2010. As the present survey has indicated that many smaller wetlands also harbor substantial biodiversity, provide habitats at times for several species of conservation importance and are ecologically sensitive and valuable. Such wetlands should be identified and protected as per the stipulations of Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules - 2010. A strategy for sustainably and wisely using them whilst ensuring their entire ecosystem structure, functions and services should be identified and executed.
Jute cultivation and processing, being an important economic activity in the district appropriate methods that will not spoil the wetlands may be executed for curing jute. Cement water tanks should be considered for curing of Jute. The present survey indicates that many fishermen indulge in poaching of birds and other wildlife wherever available. They are unaware of the importance of Page 60 of 84 such species. Awareness programs have to be initiated to address this issue. Programs with stakeholder participation should be formulated to protect such wetlands.
Many wetlands have the potential for development as recreation centers and nature educational avenues. Such wetlands should be identified and developed.
Under the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Program cleaning and expansion work has been taken up in many wetlands which lead to the complete removal of plant biodiversity which in turn impact the bird and other animal biodiversity. Measures to sustain the biodiversity of the wetland have to be devised and implemented while carrying out such works, perhaps using MNERGP funds.
Wetlands should not be used as dump yards for wastes of any kind, municipal, industrial, commercial or domestic. Industrial effluents should not be allowed to be discharged into the wetlands even after treatment.
Awareness programs should be taken up for educating people about the harmful effects of open defecation, such as contamination of drinking water and its health implications and sufficient toilets may be provided. In brief, it is suggested that all the wetlands in the district with more than 500 ha should be identified and protected along with the wetlands that are ecologically sensitive and important which are major wildlife habitats, areas of outstanding natural beauty or historical or heritage areas and the areas rich in genetic diversity as stipulated in the National Wetland (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2010. They should not be allowed to be converted for any other purpose. It is also suggested that firm attempts should be made, especially for the four major wetland complexes in the coastal plains, to document their ecological and conservational values, the ecological goods and services form these and to conserve them.‖
94. Further, the 4th Respondent also produced an interim report of the year 2016 submitted by the SACON, Anaikatty, Coimbatore, documenting the biodiversity of Sompeta Wetland, Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh and developing biodiversity mediated livelihood options for local communities.
Page 61 of 84
95. Para (3) of the above said report deals with the Sompeta Wetlands which reads as follows:-
―Sompeta Wetland is situated in Sompeta Mandal of Tekkali Division. It is locally known as ‗Beela'. Beela is a low lying swamp/marsh area with a unique habitat for rich biodiversity with a distinctive hydrological regime. There are three distinct water bodies of varying size and characteristics in the Sompeta wetland complex. The first one is known as ‗Pedda Beela' which is linked to two other Beelas known as the ‗Chinna Beela' (Manikapuram Beela) and ‗Tampara' which is eventually connected to sea near Idduvanipalem.‖
96. The observations made by the same foundation in other reports have been reiterated in this report as well. As regards the importance of the Beelas are concerned, it was observed in the report of 2016 that ―due to the ‗Beela' the ground water table is always high. In fact, the Beela is vital for supporting the water needs of the paddy cultivated in the area. The area around the Beela is very fertile. In and around the Beelas, there is lush green coconut groves interspersed with areca nut trees. This area is also known for its vegetables. A food mile analysis in the nearby areas indicated that except potatoes, all other food materials are locally produced. Three lift irrigation schemes which cater 750 acres of agriculture are operated in the area. Water could be sourced without any interruption from wells located in the wetland to pump to upstream areas.‖
97. It also discussed about the various activities like fisheries, fodder, materials for roofing and mats, medical and edible plants, biodiversity and conservation priorities, wildlife habitat and rare species, potential habitat for pink headed duck and also insisted on the necessity for conservation of these wetlands. They have also emphasized the necessity for improving the livelihood possibilities, without compromising the Page 62 of 84 conservation of the water body and its ecosystem. So, that also shows that the Sompeta Wetland has got its own wetland complex in Srikakulam District, has its own ecosystem value and its ecosensitive and necessity for conservation and protection as a Ramsar site and also as required to be notified under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010/2017. National Wetland Atlas in Srikakulam District are to be notified as wetland as required under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010/2017 and till that such attempts are made, no activity which is likely to affect the wetland as mapped in the National Wetland Atlas mentioned above should be allowed to continue in that area. In addition, there is a need for undertaking a detailed study with accredited agencies like SACON to identify other areas in the Srikakulam District to notify them as wetlands.
98. There is a statutory duty cast on the State of Andhra Pradesh to conduct a study regarding the wetlands available in the State of Andhra Pradesh including at Srikakulam District and sincere attempts must be made to declare them as notified and protected wetlands as required under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010/2017, as India being a member country to the Ramsar Convention, have an obligation to protect the wetlands which play a great role in protecting the ecosystem and environment, intervention of which will have adverse impact on environment, especially it plays a great role in maintaining the flood situation besides providing habitat for several flora and fauna and prevent inundation during rainy season and the flora and fauna act as a barrier for protecting soil erosion etc. There is a duty cast on the State of Andhra Pradesh to declare all the areas mapped as wetlands in the Page 63 of 84 National Wetland Atlas falling in other districts also as wetlands as required under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010/2017.
99. Further, the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Raja Musaffar Bhat Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.19 dated 25.11.2021, after reiterating the directions given by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.20 in Para (2), (3) and (4) of the order which reads as follows:-
―4. Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 3.4.2017 in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1 as follows:
"17. Be that as it may, for the reasons given below, we are compelled to direct that the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2016 should be notified on or before 30-6- 2017. We are compelled to issue this direction since the matter has been pending with the Union of India for the last almost a year and there has to be some finality to the publication of the Rules. The comments/suggestions have been given by all stakeholders such as the State Governments including its organisations, individuals and civil society organisations. That being the position, there is obviously a great deal of interest in the Rules being formulated and notified. Under these circumstances, there is no justification why the Union of India should not have taken prompt action and constituted the Committee much earlier for the purposes of finalising the Rules. Finally, the conservation of wetlands is of immense ecological importance.
18. The learned counsel for the Union of India says that all efforts will be made to ensure compliance with this direction and to ensure that the Rules are notified on or before 30-6-2017. We are sure that both the Committee as well as the Union of India will take into consideration the comments and suggestions offered by the State Governments and its organisations, individuals and civil society organisations before 19 O.A. No.351 of 2019 (PB) 20 (2017) 7 SCC 805 Page 64 of 84 taking a final decision.
19. With regard to the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority, we are told that its term is expiring on 14-2-2017. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority will be notified on 13-2-2017. The Union of India is bound by the statement made by the learned counsel for the Union of India, which statement has been made on instructions received by him from an officer of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
20. In our order dated 31-1-2017 [Set out in paras 11 to 13, above.], we had required the Union of India to tell us the steps taken to preserve the 26 wetlands covered by Ramsar Convention, 1971. The affidavit that has now been filed by the Union of India merely gives the disbursal of amount made by the Union of India from time to time. What specific steps have been taken including how the funds made available have been utilised and what is the impact of those steps have not been adverted to. We must have specific details. We direct the Union of India to file an affidavit within four weeks positively giving required specificdetails.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to an additional affidavit filed by the Union of India on or about 9-9- 2014. The additional affidavit contains an information brochure ―National Wetland Inventory & Assessment‖. This brochure indicates on p. 11 thereof that 2,01,503 wetlands have been mapped at 1:50,000 scale. All these wetlands have an area of more than 2.25 ha. As a first step, the "brief documents" with regard to these 2,01,503 wetlands should be obtained by the Union of India from the respective State Governments in terms of Rule 6 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. We are told that obtaining these "brief documents" may take some time. We are inclined to grant adequate time for this purpose. The Union of India should follow this up with the State Governments and inform us of the time-frame on the next date of hearing.
22. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that with the passage of time there is a Page 65 of 84 possibility that some of the wetlands may disappear. On a reading of the information brochure, this apprehension is not unfounded.
23. Accordingly, we direct the application of the principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to these 2,01,503 wetlands that have been mapped by the Union of India. The Union of India will identify and inventorise all these 2,01,503 wetlands with the assistance of the State Governments and will also communicate our order to the State Governments which will also bind the State Governments to the effect that these identified 2,01,503 wetlands are subject to the principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, that is to say:
―4. (1)(i) reclamation of wetlands;
(ii) setting up of new industries and expansion of
existing industries;
(iii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal
of hazardous substances covered under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 notified vide S.O. No. 966(E), dated 27-11-1989 or the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms /Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells notified vide GSR No. 1037(E), dated 5-12-1989 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 notified vide S.O. No. 2265(E), dated 24-9-2008;
(iv) solid waste dumping:
Provided that the existing practices, if any, existed before the commencement of these Rules shall be phased out within a period not exceeding six months from the date of commencement of these Rules;
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries,cities or towns and other human settlements:
Provided that the practices, if any, existed before the commencement of these Rules shall be phased out within a period Page 66 of 84 not exceeding one year from the date of commencement of these Rules;
(vi) any construction of a permanent nature except for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean high flood level observed in the past ten years calculated from the date of commencement of these Rules;
(vii) any other activity likely to have an adverse impact on the ecosystem of the wetland to be specified in writing by the Authority constituted in accordance with these Rules.‖
24. The learned counsel for the Union of India has shown us a chart of proposals/brief documents that have already been received by the Union of India under Rule 6 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. The total number of wetlands covered in this document are 1683.
Many of these proposals/brief documents received by the Union of India contain deficiencies which have already been identified in the document handed over to us. The Central Wetland Regulatory Authority will take up the rectification of deficiencies with the State Governments with promptitude and ensure that all these deficiencies are removed and complete proposals/brief documents are furnished within the next about one month so that the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority is in a position to take a final decision with regard to these 1683 wetlands and their notification, if required, on or before 31-3-2017."
2. Further, vide order dated 04.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin M.K. Balakrishnan, supra observed:
―We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General.
We have been informed that the Wetland Rules have since been notified and they are now called the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. These Rules have come into force on the date of publication in the official gazette, that is, 26th September, 2017.
Learned counsel for the parties say that they have very serious objections to some of these Rules. It is submitted Page 67 of 84 that it appears that the Central Government has abdicated its responsibility under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and instead of delegating its powers, it has abdicated its power in favour of the State Governments. We have also been informed that the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority has since been disbanded and the State Wetlands Authority and the National Wetlands Committee have been constituted under Rules 5 and6 of the new Rules.
With regard to the expenditure on Ramsar Convention sites, we have been informed by learned Additional Solicitor General that the audited accounts have so far been received from the States of West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. Audited accounts have not been received from any other State with regard to the Ramsar Convention sites.
We have also been informed that apart from Ramsar Convention sites, further funds have been given to the States and the Union Territories for conservation of wetlands. No audited accounts have been received in regard to these funds disbursed as well as their expenditure by the State Governments and the Union Territories.
With regard to the brief documents required to be furnished under the old Rules, it appears that only ten States and one Union Territory have responded. It appears that there is now no necessity of brief documents under the new Rules. We make it clear that this does not mean that the earlier brief documents already submitted can be discarded completely. The contents of these brief documents will still be followed as far as the implementation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 is concerned.
Finally, with regard to the satellite images, we are told that the Space Application Centre would require between 12 to 18 months to make an inventory of 1,75,740 wetlands as they exist today. We make no comment on this but request learned Additional Solicitor General to re-check with the Space Application Centre since the wetlands are diminishing in our country at a very fast rate. It is very likely that many more will disappear by the time the task is completed by the Space Application Centre.
Page 68 of 84
We make it clear and reiterate that in terms of our order dated 8th February, 2017, 2,01,503 wetlands that have been mapped by the Union of India should continue to remain protected on the same principles as were formulated in Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.
Learned counsel for the parties may file their objections to the new Rules within a period of two weeks. We direct that only one set of objections should be filed and both learned counsel should sit together and arrive at some consensus on the objections.
We further direct the State Governments that have not complied with earlier orders or directions given by the Central Government should do so within a period of four weeks from today failing which we will be constrained to require the presence of the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments in addition to imposition of heavy costs keeping in mind the necessity of conserving whatever water bodies are left in the country.
List the matter for further directions and for hearing on the objections to the new Rules on 9th November, 2017.
We would require the presence of a senior officer of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India to be present in Court on the next date of hearing so that any questions that may be raised can be answered immediately. Needless to say, the senior officer who should be present in Court should be well-versed with the subject. The files on the basis of which the new Rules have been framed may also be kept ready for perusal when the matter istaken up.‖
3. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, apart from directing the High Courts where Ramsar Convention sites are located to monitor the management of such sites, also directed application of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to 2,01,503 wetlands already mapped by the Central Government. It was further directed that the Central Government will identify and inventorise the said Page 69 of 84 wetlands with the assistance of the State Governments and communicate the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the State Governments who will be bound by the said order. Rule 4 in question provides for protection of wetlands against any incompatible activity, including encroachment and dumping of waste which is to be ensured by the State Wetland Authorities.‖
100. Thereafter, the Principal Bench had directed the MoEF&CC as well as the State of Jammu and Kashmir to strictly implement the directions in respect of protection of wetlands including notification, conservation and preservation and removal of encroachment and pollution.
101. The definition of wetland as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 says that ―wetland means an area of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters but does not include, river, river channels, paddy fields, human made water bodies/tanks, specifically constructed for drinking water purpose and structure specifically constructed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation purposes.‖
102. So, that includes not only permanent, but also temporary wetlands. The wetland complexes are defined as ―two or more ecologically and hydrologically contiguous wetlands and may include their connecting channels/dugs.‖
103. The study conducted by the SACON referred to above, relied on by the applicant as well as by the 4th Respondent will indicate that the Sompeta Wetland is a wetland complex of three different wetlands Page 70 of 84 having different biodiversity values and disturbance of one will affect the other and as such, it will have to be treated as a wetland complex, as observed and defined under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
104. Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 deals with the restriction of activities in wetlands which reads as follows:-
―4. Restrictions of activities in wetlands.--
(1) The wetlands shall be conserved and managed in accordance with the principle of 'wise use' as determined by the Wetlands Authority.
(2) The following activities shall be prohibited within the wetlands, namely,-
(i) conversion for non-wetland uses including encroachment of any kind;
(ii) setting up of any industry and expansion of existing industries;
(iii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of construction and demolition waste covered under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016; hazardous substances covered under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 or the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-
organisms Genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008; electronic waste covered under the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
(iv) solid waste dumping;
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities, towns, villages and other human settlements;
(vi) any construction of a permanent nature except for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean high flood level observed in the past ten years calculated from the date of commencement of these rules; and,
(vii) poaching.
Provided that the Central Government may consider proposals from the State Government or Union Territory Administration for omitting any of the activities on the recommendation of the Authority.‖ Page 71 of 84
105. It is not a disputed fact that the wetlands play a great role in protecting the environment, including disaster mitigation and enhancing resilience to climate change, apart from attracting many migratory birds. The fact that the sustainable use of water and wetlands requires protection of the ecosystem services while undertaking other permitted activities. Ecosystem services of wetlands are critical to enable the society to achieve social, sustainable and economic development, adapt to climate change and improve social cohesion and economic stability. Further, the UN Sustainable Development Goals offer a universal agenda that for the first time, recognize the need for restoration and management of water related ecosystems, including wetlands as a basis for addressing water scarcity and water risks. Wetlands are a solution for several key challenges around the world related to water, food and climate, and key to meeting the SDGs and most of the SDGs are relevant in some way or another to wetlands, but the following are of particular importance21:
―1. Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture Rice grown in wetland paddies is the staple diet of nearly three billion people Most commercial fish breed and raise their young in coastal marshes and estuaries. 70 % of all fresh water extracted globally is used for crop irrigation.
2. Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Wetlands ensure fresh water, help replenish ground aquifers, and purify and filter harmful waste from water - such as fertilizers and pesticides, as well heavy metals and toxins from industry.
3. Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Wetlands act as natural sponges absorbing rainfall, providing protection against coastal and river flooding to (partially) offset the need for man-made infrastructure. They also help reduce drought, protect coastal areas for fisheries nurseries and regulate sediment transport thereby contributing to land formation and coastal zone stability.
21
wwd-2015-press-briefs-en.pdf (cbd.int) Page 72 of 84
4. Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts Wetlands act as carbon sinks. Peatlands alone store more than twice as much as all the world's forests. Coastal wetlands reduce the impact of rising sea levels, acting as storm surge buffers and providing erosion control.‖
106. Further, wetlands play a great role in mitigating climate change risks through the wetland microbes, flora and wildlife which play a significant role in sustenance of global biogeochemical cycles and play a significant role in supply of Nitrogen, Sulphur, Phosphorus and Carbon to the surrounding ecosystems. Scientists now know that atmospheric maintenance may be an additional wetlands function. Wetlands store Co2 within their plant communities and soil instead of releasing it to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Thus wetlands help to moderate global climate conditions 22 . So, there is no dispute regarding the fact that wetlands will have to be protected and conserved, in order to protect the environment, as they play a great role in mitigating the climate change impacts.
107. Further, in the decisions reported in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.23, and also by subsequent order in the same case dated 09.10.2017, there was a direction issued to the Central Government as well as State Governments to identify and notify the wetlands and till such exercise is made, the identified 2,01,503 wetlands should not be disturbed. Further, the decision reported in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha 24 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering the Suo Motu powers of the National Green Tribunal observed in Para No.38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47 and 76 observed as follows:- 22
Why are Wetlands Important? | US EPA 23 (2017) 7 SCC 810 (2) 24 (2021) SCC Online SC 897 Page 73 of 84 ―38. While on the statutory provisions, it is seen that the Central Government has framed the National Green Tribunal (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011 (for short ―the NGT Rules‖). For our purpose, Rule 24 is important which reads thus:
―24. Order and directions in certain cases - The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.‖
39. The said Rules make it clear that the NGT has been given wide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. This power is coupled with the duty to be exercised for achieving the objectives. The intention understandably being to preserve and protect the environment and the matters connected thereto.
40. By choosing to employ a phrase of wide import, i.e. secure the ends of justice, the legislature has nudged towards a liberal interpretation. Securing justice is a term of wide amplitude and does not simply mean adjudicating disputes between two rival entities. It also encompasses inter alia, advancing causes of environmental rights, granting compensation to victims of calamities, creating schemes for giving effect to the environmental principles and even hauling up authorities for inaction, when need be.
41. Moreover, unlike the civil courts which cannot travel beyond the relief sought by the parties, the NGT is conferred with power of moulding any relief. The provisions show that the NGT is vested with the widest power to appropriate relief as may be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, even though such relief may not be specifically prayed for by the parties.
On the function and role of the NGT, the Hon'ble Court held:
45. The Schedule I of the NGT Act is concerned with implementation of few environmental related enactments such as the Water Act, the Air Act, the Environment Act, the Forest Conservation Act etc. As one looks at these enactments, an expanded role for the NGT is clearly discernible. The activities of the NGT are not only geared towards the protection of the environment but also to ensure that the developments do not cause serious and irreparable damage to the ecology and the environment.
These would suggest a broad canvas for the NGT Act as also its creation.
46. For the environmental forum, tasked with implementation of the statutes mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, the concept of lis, would obviously be beyond the usual understanding in civil cases where there is a party (whether private or government) disturbing the environment and the Page 74 of 84 other one (could be an individual, a body or the government itself), who has concern for the protection of environment. Therefore, the NGT is primarily concerned with protection of the environment and also preservation of the natural resources. As the specialized forum, the NGT would be expected to take preventive action, besides settling and adjudicating disputes and pass orders on all environment related questions.
47. The NGT is not just an adjudicatory body but has to perform wider functions in the nature of prevention, remedy and amelioration.
Preventive Power of the NGT The Supreme Court highlighted the preventive powers of the NGT in Ankita Sinha case:
76. The power and jurisdiction of the NGT under Sections 15(1)(b) and
(c) are not restitutionary, in the sense of restoring the environment to the position it was before the practise impugned, or before the incident occurred. The NGT's jurisdiction in one sense is a remedial one, based on a reflexive exercise of its powers. In another sense, based on the nature of the abusive practice, its powers can also be preventive.‖
108. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 as well as 2017 are framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which is also one of the enactment which gives jurisdiction for this Tribunal to consider as mentioned in Schedule - I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to protect the wetlands and give directions to the authorities to take steps to identify and notify the wetlands.
109. It is clear from the above discussions that there is a necessity to protect this either as wetlands or water bodies and study will have to be conducted for declaration of the area as wetland as required under Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, as 2010 Rules were superseded by the present Rules.
Page 75 of 84
110. Earlier, as per the provisions of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, the State Government has to identify the wetlands in their area as per Rule 3 and the process for identification of wetlands under different categories was enumerated under Rule 6 wherein, there is a responsibility for the State Government to prepare a brief document identifying and classifying the wetlands within their respective territories within one year from the date of commencement of this Rules and this brief statement must contain a broad geographic delineation of the wetland, its zone of influence along with a map (accurate and to scale), the size of the wetland and account of pre-existing rights and privileges, consistent or not consistent with the ecological health of the wetland and the State authority on submitting the brief statement, the State Government has to forward the same to the Central Authority and after considering the proposal, the Central Authority has to recommend to the MoEF&CC and thereafter, the MoEF&CC has to issue a notification in this regard.
111. Further, on receipt of the brief statement issued by the State Wetland Authority, the Government if considers as necessary, refer the same to a Research Institute or University having relevant multiple disciplinary expertise related to wetlands to conduct a comprehensive survey of the wetland within a period of 30 days and that Institute/University has to submit the report within a period of 90 days.
112. Under the present Rules, it is the sole responsibility of the State Government to identify and notify the wetlands as per Rule 5 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. Further, under Rule 7 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, the Page 76 of 84 State Government shall divert the concerned department to prepare the brief documents with a recommendation to the State Wetland Authority which after examination has to submit the proposals to the State Government for taking a decision on the same and notify the same in the officials gazette within a period not exceeding 245 days from the date of recommendation of the authority.
113. Here also there is a time line provided for conducting the exercise on of identifying / notifying wetlands within the period of one year from the date of publication of these Rules. But quite unfortunately, such an exercise has not been done in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Only when this Tribunal had directed the State Government to give a report as to what are all the steps taken by them, in view of the directions given by the MoEF&CC after the directions issued in M.K. Balakrishnan's case of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and after the directions issued by the Principal Bench in Appeal No.23 of 2011 and 24 of 2011 and also on the basis of the representations received from Applicant No.1 and 2 which prompted the applicants to file this application to direct the authorities to enforce the Rules in their State, pointing out the failure on their part to implement the Rules within their State, the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department informed that "(a) it is decided to convene the meeting of the State Wetland Authority on 16.02.2022, (b) to discuss on identification of the significant wetlands and to notify the same under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and (c) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, who is the member/convenor of the meeting has been informed Page 77 of 84 to include the proposal of the Revenue Department in the agenda for the said meeting" and that the matter is at concluding stage.
114. So under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to exercise the power of ―Precautionary Principle‖ and ―Sustainable Development‖ to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh to co-opt the institute namely, SACON as well, as they have earlier conducted a study and given the report to the MoEF&CC and they are supposed to be one of the recognized organization by the Central Government having expertise in this field and the Government has to consider any study, in undertaken by them, in continuation of the study conducted by the SACON earlier and then identify the wetlands including the Sompeta Wetlands as mapped and included in the National Wetland Atlas by the MoEF&CC and take steps to make recommendations within the time frame provided under the Rules and on receipt of the same, the State Government is also directed to take steps and notify the wetlands including Sompeta Wetland within the time frame provided under the Rules.
115. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving the following directions:-
a. The concerned department viz., Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, State of Andhra Pradesh shall include the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) as well, as one of the members of the committee and identify the wetland mapped and included in the National Wetland Atlas in respect of Sompeta wetland complex in continuation of the study conducted by the Salim Ali Centre Page 78 of 84 for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) in this regard, which was referred to in this Judgment and complete the study, if any, to be undertaken further and make recommendation to the State Wetland Authority within the time frame provided under the Rules and on receipt of the same, the State Wetland Authority is directed to consider the proposals and make recommendations to the State Government to take steps to notify the Sompeta Wetland Complex on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Wetland Authority.
b. The concerned department is also directed to identify and prepare a brief document regarding the other wetlands in the Srikakulam District and also in the State of Andhra Pradesh which were mapped in the National Wetland Atlas prepared by the MoEF&CC in tune with the Rules prevailing during 2010, in consonance with the covenants of the Ramsar Convention and also other wetlands available in the State and on that basis, submit a proposal to the State Wetlands Authority which in turn shall make a recommendations within the time frame and on that basis, the State Government is also directed to take steps to notify those wetlands as well, within the time frame provided under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
c. Till this exercise is completed, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed not to permit any activity within these mapped wetlands and wetlands included in the National Wetland Atlas prepared by the MoEF&CC and not to take any steps to assign or lease any part of these wetlands till that time as directed by the Page 79 of 84 Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India & Ors.25 and subsequent order dated 09.10.2017 in the same case.
d. Even if the wetlands identified and mapped were not to be included as wetlands, then they will have to be treated as water bodies and steps will have to be taken to protect the same as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan's case cited supra and remove encroachments and restrain any activity in the wetland or water body, as it is necessary to protect the water bodies also as equal to wetlands, as they also play a great role in sustainability of the environment and provide valuable ecosystem services.
e. If Sompeta wetland is declared as wetland under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, then the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to take steps to cancel or revoke the assignment made in favour of the 4th Respondent, in accordance with law.
f. Even if any portion of the wetland to be left out of the consideration as a wetland, this will have to be treated as a water body to be protected and even in that event, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to take steps to recall the order of assignment in favour of the 4th Respondent in respect of the area covered by the water body, in accordance with law.
g. Till this exercise is completed, the 4th Respondent is restrained from doing any act in this disputed area.
116. The Point No.(iii) to (v) are answered accordingly.
25 (2017) 7 SCC 810 (2) Page 80 of 84
117. In the result, this Original Application is allowed in part with the following directions:-
(i) The concerned department viz., Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, State of Andhra Pradesh shall include the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) as well, as one of the members of the committee and identify the wetland mapped and included in the National Wetland Atlas in respect of Sompeta wetland complex in continuation of the study conducted by the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) in this regard, which was referred to in this Judgment and complete the study, if any, to be undertaken further and make recommendation to the State Wetland Authority within the time frame provided under the Rules and on receipt of the same, the State Wetland Authority is directed to consider the proposals and make recommendations to the State Government to take steps to notify the Sompeta Wetland Complex on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Wetland Authority.
(ii) The concerned department is also directed to identify and prepare a brief document regarding the other wetlands in the Srikakulam District and also in the State of Andhra Pradesh which were mapped in the National Wetland Atlas prepared by the MoEF&CC in tune with the Rules prevailing during 2010, in consonance with the covenants of the Ramsar Convention and also other wetlands available in the State and Page 81 of 84 on that basis, submit a proposal to the State Wetlands Authority which in turn shall make a recommendations within the time frame and on that basis, the State Government is also directed to take steps to notify those wetlands as well, within the time frame provided under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
(iii) Till this exercise is completed, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed not to permit any activity within these mapped wetlands and wetlands included in the National Wetland Atlas prepared by the MoEF&CC and not to take any steps to assign or lease any part of these wetlands till that time as directed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India & Ors.26 and subsequent order dated 09.10.2017 in the same case.
(iv) Even if the wetlands identified and mapped were not to be included as wetlands, then they will have to be treated as water bodies and steps will have to be taken to protect the same as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan's case cited supra and remove encroachments and restrain any activity in the wetland or water body, as it is necessary to protect the water bodies also as equal to wetlands, as they also play a great role in sustainability of the environment and provide valuable ecosystem services.
26 (2017) 7 SCC 810 (2) Page 82 of 84
(v) If Sompeta wetland is declared as wetland under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, then the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to take steps to cancel or revoke the assignment made in favour of the 4th Respondent, in accordance with law.
(vi) Even if any portion of the wetland to be left out of the consideration as a wetland, this will have to be treated as a water body to be protected and even in that event, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to take steps to recall the order of assignment in favour of the 4th Respondent in respect of the area covered by the water body, in accordance with law.
(vii) Till this exercise is completed, the 4th Respondent is restrained from doing any act in this disputed area.
(viii) The Special Chief Secretary to Government -
Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department is directed to submit a periodical report regarding the progress of the exercise done by them in this regard, once in 3 (Three) months till it is completed.
(ix) The Special Chief Secretary to Government - Revenue Department is directed to submit a report regarding the action taken to revoke the assignment made in favour of the 4th Respondent and others as directed above within a period of 3 (Three) months.
Page 83 of 84
(x) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the District Collector concerned, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forests Force) & Chief Wildlife Warden, National Wetland Authority, State Wetland Authority - Andhra Pradesh, Special Chief Secretary to Government - Revenue Department, Special Chief Secretary to Government - Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, and also to the Chief Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh for their information and compliance of directions.
(xi) The Registry is directed to place the report before this Bench as and when it is received for consideration and also for issuing necessary directions (if any) required in this regard.
(xii) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the application.
118. 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. 153/2016 (SZ) 13th April 2022. AM, Mn.
Page 84 of 84