National Green Tribunal
Arappor Iyakkam, Rep.By Jayaram ... vs Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its ... on 7 January, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.05:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.50/2017(SZ)
(W.P. No. 43839/2016)
IN THE MATTER OF
Arapporiyakkam ...Applicant(s)
With
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.01.2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathanfor R1 & R2
Mrs. P.T. Ramadevi through
Mr. Ragul Adhithya for R4
Mr. G. Janakiraman for R4
1
ORDER
1. As per order dated 16.06.2021, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
1. The above case has been posted to today for consideration of further reports to be filed by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and Greater Chennai Corporation regarding the steps to be taken by them for protecting the water body. It is mentioned in the earlier order dated, 23.02.2021 that the proposed 10 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant in the disputed 11.5 Acres is itself a question as to how they can proceed with the same in view of the injunction order passed by this Tribunal by order dated 12.10.2017. The case was originally posted to 19.03.2021 for consideration of further progress report and thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time and lastly, it was adjourned to today as per notification dated 05.05.2021.
2. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Mr. Jayaram Venkatesan, appeared in person representing the applicant. Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan represented respondents 1 & 2, Mr. G. Janakiraman represented 3rd respondent and Mr. Saisyam represented Mr. Jayeesh Dolia, counsel for the 5th respondent.
3. The Joint Committee has filed an amendment to be incorporated in the report dated 18.02.2021 in Para 9 of the last paragraph in the recommendations for CMWSSB instead of "to speed up the process of construction of proposed 10 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant" it should be substituted as "to speed up the process of construction of proposed 10 MLD Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant". Whether this activity can be permitted or not can be considered in the original application and with that observation, the amendment to the joint committee report as proposed by the joint committee is allowed.
4. The Greater Chennai Corporation filed their additional report dated 16.03.2021 e-filed on the same day and received on 17.03.2021 wherein, they have mentioned that they have requested the Tamil Slum Clearance Board to allot tenements for resettlement of the encroachers of Villivakkam Lake and they have already paid a sum of Rs.15,22,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores and Twenty Two Lakhs) to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 17.12.2020 under the Smart City Project for this purpose. Due to declaration of general election and model code of conduct came into force, they could not proceed with the work.
5. The 4th respondent/CMWSSB has filed the report wherein, they have mentioned that there was an oxidation pond in existence for more than 20 years in Villivakkam Panchayat and during the year 1984, Public Works Department handed over the Villivakkam Lake to the Tamil Nadu Housing 2 Board, which in turn allotted to the SIDCO Industrial Estate & SIDCO residential block, the sewage generated was diverted to this oxidation pond and after completion of sewage scheme during 1988 at SIDCO Nagar and surrounding areas, the sewage has been diverted to SIDCO Nagar pumping station only, not to the Villivakkam Lake.
6. It is also mentioned in the report that at present in the 11.5 Acres of land available with CMWSSB at Villivakkam, 10 MLD Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration has been proposed for rejuvenation of ground water in the surrounding Villivakkam & Korattur Lake and for supply of efficient water from the plant to the upcoming Eco-park under Grater Chennai Corporation. This Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration will be put in 5 Acres of land and the remaining area of land will be used for tree plantation.
7. They also mentioned in the report that they will maintain the inlet and outlet of the tank for free of flow of rain water and the quality of the product water under TTUF shall be devoid of nutrients with acceptable norms of BOD. Further, it is also mentioned that the sewage generated at areas of Villivakkam, SIDCO Nagar are being pumped to Kodungaiyur STP from SIDCO Nagar pumping station and that it becomes mandatory for future development of Villivakkam lake for diverting the sewage generated in the surrounding areas with proposed Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant and thereby, rejuvenation of the Villivakkam Lake & Korattur Lake, since the use of demand of fresh water continuous to increase, re-use technology is growing steadily.
8. The applicant who appeared in person submitted that the oxidation pond which was there inside the lake area has become defunct and in fact, there was no treatment and without treatment in the guise of oxidation pond, sewage was let into the oxidation pond which in turn goes to the Villivakkam Lake and contaminates the water. Even in the pumping station also according to the applicant, it is not being taken to STP but untreated sewage is being let into the Villivakkam Lake thereby, it has been contaminated.
9. It may be mentioned here that this Tribunal had restrained the CMWSSB from making any construction in 11.5 Acres of land which is in their possession which is part of the Villivakkam Lake as per order dated 12.10.2017.
10. Further, it seen from the report itself that the sewage generated from the SIDCO Industrial estate and SIDCO residential block is not coming to the Villivakkam Lake on account of providing sewage scheme during 1988 at SIDCO Nagar and surrounding areas. The sewage collected from that area is diverted to SIDCO Nagar pumping station and according to the learned counsel, from there it goes to Kodungaiyur Sewage Treatment Plant. So, if that be the case, what is the necessity of providing a treatment plant inside the tank so as to reduce its available area?
311. Further, even according to the counsel appearing for the CMWSSB that during 2015, heavy flood has come in that area and in order to avoid the flood, certain steps will have to be taken by the Government. The UN General Assembly Declaration for UN Decade 2021 - 30 is the Ecosystem restoration which includes pond ecosystem, that includes not only the maintenance of the existing ponds but also restoration of the lakes/ponds which were subject to encroachment and pollution to its original position so as to maintain the water saving capacity more and also to avoid unnecessary flood being caused on account of the blockage of free flow of water into the water bodies.
12. Further, it is not clear as to whether the eco-park that they proposed to establish is within the pond area or outside the FTL of the pond area and whether the present proposal for eco-park in Villivakkam Lake will affect the water spread area of the Villivakkam Lake.
13. The Greater Chennai Corporation is directed to give a detailed report regarding the manner in which the eco-park is going to be established in Villivakkam as part of rejuvenation project of Villivakkam Lake and other eco-restoration systems which incorporate biological park and eco-park as part of restoration of water bodies. It may also be stated whether the proposed activities do not result in shrinkage of water storage capacity.
14. The CMWSSB is also directed to submit a detailed report regarding the necessity of establishing the Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant in this area, if they have already having an alternate effective treatment process of dealing the sewage generated in Villivakkam & SIDCO Nagar areas. They are also directed to ascertain as to whether this can be shifted to any other place or other than water spread area or tank area so as to provide maximum area for restoration of the water body which is required for the purpose of protecting the eco-system and also to avoid future flood being happening in that area.
15. The Greater Chennai Corporation as well as the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) are directed to file further reports clarifying these aspects to this Tribunal before the next hearing date.
16. The committee is also directed to ascertain these facts and come with a recommendation of alternate place for the proposed Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant proposed to be established by the CMWSSB so as to provide maximum area for lake to improve its storage capacity.
17. The Principal Secretary for Housing and Urban Development and Additional Chief Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply are directed to file a report regarding the stage of resettlement of the persons who encroached into the water body area in Villivakkam and how much time they will take for completion of the project and resettle the encroachers from the encroached area so as to enable the Corporation to proceed with the rejuvenation project at a quicker pace. They are directed to submit a report to this Tribunal including the query that has been raised 4 by this Tribunal to be answered by the Greater Chennai Corporation as well as the CMWSSB.
18. The Additional Chief Secretary, Municipal Administration & Water Supply is also directed to see that if any change is necessitated (due to transfer of the officers) in the Joint Committee members to substitute them with alternate persons without delay so that the transfer of those officers will not affect the function of the committee to submit a report to this Tribunal.
19. The above said authorities are directed to submit their respective reports to this Tribunal on or before 22.07.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF / OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
20. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the above said officials by e-mail immediately so as to enable them to comply with the direction."
2. The case was posted to 22.07.2021 for consideration of reports. On 22.07.2021, the matter was adjourned to 06.08.2021 due to want of time.
Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time by notification. Lastly, the matter was adjourned to today as per notification dated 29.11.2021.
3. In the mean time, we have received the report filed by the 3 rd respondent dated 10.06.2021, e-filed on 19.07.2021 which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT I, Mrs. G.B. Vydahi W/o S. Rajasekaran, aged about 55 years presently working as Area Engineer-VIII, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, having office at No.227, 2nd Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 do hereby solemnly affirm and states as follows:
1. I am the Area Engineer-VIII of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and representing for the 3rd Respondent herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case from records.5
2. I humbly submit that Tertiary Treatment in Ultra Filtration Plant provides high quality of water from sewage to enable reuse applications. The treated quality of water does not have phosphate, sulphide, ammonia and free from pathogens, which having TDS of 800 and as good as drinking water standard. As part of effects to reduce stress on fresh water sources, Metro water proposes Tertiary treatment ultra filtration plant near Villivakkam lake where treated waste water is to be discharged for rejuvenation of Villivakkam lake, this will help to recharge the ground water table in the locality of minimum 2 to 3kms and also promote indirect recycle of water. There is ultimate need for keeping the Eco-park of devoid water during the failure of monsoon and dry periods at Chennai city. Greater Chennai Corporation has put-up request (05.02.2021) to supply of tertiary treated water to Villivakkam tank to maintain the water level in Villivakkam tank at 8.5m MSL. In view of urgency and necessity, Greater Chennai Corporation has requested to install 5 MLD capacity of treatment plant at the Villivakkam pond immediately for continuous supply of treated water to the pond). Hence, proposals for 10MLD TTUF has been initiated by CMWSSB.
3. I humbly submit that the need for tertiary treatment raises due to increased population growth and then high demand for potable drinking water.
4. I humbly submit that Villivakkam area is thickly populated growth area in and around. This TTUF will provide source of water supply to the industries and thereby potable drinking water used by the industries can be diverted to domestic purpose.
5. I humbly submit that in order to supplement of the need for Villivakkam Pond for the upcoming Eco-park, it is suggested TTUF inside Villivakkam Lake is mandatory. By injecting the fresh water released from TTUF, the ground water table may be improved for a minimum of 2 to 3 km radius will ensure constant ground water table. The same concept is also adopted at Chetpet Eco-park.
6. I humbly submit that the Space of TTUF is only 5acres of land under the control of CMWSSB and very minimum area comparing to Villivakkam Lake. The alternative place could not be suggested since complete treated water from TTUF could be utilized when it is close vicinity of Lake.6
7. I humbly submit that there is a provision for supply of TTUF water to Korattur Lake so as to ensure Korattur area of constant lake water level which will ensure constant water level in the Korattur Lake and thereby the ground water in and around Korattur area will be rejuvenated and constant level ground water level will be ensured to the public for utilizing this water other than during purpose from their bore wells.
8. I humbly submit that there is no alternate Government lands available in and around Villivakkam Lake for shifting of the location of TTUF plant and also it is stated that the location of TTUF will be effective in maintaining water levels in Villivakkam pond which has been rejuvenated and will be open to Public.
9. It is therefore humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to accept my response on behalf of the Board and thus render justice."
4. The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) also filed an additional report dated 15.07.2021, e-filed on 21.07.2021 which reads as follows:
"ADDITIONAL REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION I, Sharanya Ari, I.A.S., Hindu aged about 31 years, the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation, having office at No.36B, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 600 030, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation and as such am well acquainted with the facts of the case from the available records and I am filing this additional report on behalf of Greater Chennai Corporation as per the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
2. I submit that the earlier reports filed on behalf of Greater Chennai Corporation may be read as part and parcel of this joint inspection report.
3. I submit that when the above case came up for hearing on 16.06.2021 this Hon'ble Court has passed an order as follows: -
... 12. Further, it is not clear as to whether the eco-park that they proposed to establish is within the pond area or outside the FTL of the pond area and 7 whether the present proposal for eco-park in Villkvakkam Lake will affect the water spread area of the Villivakkam Lake.
13. The Greater Chennai Corporation is directed to give a detailed report regarding the manner in which the eco park is going to be established in Villivakkam as part of rejuvenation project of Villivakkam Lake and other eco restoration systems which incorporate biological park and eco-park as part of restoration of water bodies. It may also be stated whether the proposed activities do not result in shrinkage of water storage capacity.
14. The CMWSSB is also directed to submit a detailed report regarding the necessity of establishing the Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant in this area, if they have already having an alternate effective treatment process of dealing the sewage generated in Villivakkam & SIDCO Nagar areas. They are also directed to ascertain as to whether this can be shifted to any other place or other than water spread area or tank area so as to provide maximum area for restoration of the water body which is required for the purpose of protecting the eco-system and also to avoid future flood being happening in that area.
15. The Greater Chennai Corporation as well as the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) are directed to file further reports clarifying these aspects to this Tribunal before the next hearing date.
16. The committee is also directed to ascertain these facts and come with a recommendation of alternate place for the proposed Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant proposed to be established by the CMWSSB so as to provide maximum area for lake to improve its storage capacity.. "
4. I submit that the Greater Chennai Corporation has increased the storage capacity of the existing Villivakkam lake by deepening the pond by 5 mts i.e., from the existing depth of 1-1.5 mts to 6.5 mts depth (1o.50 mts MSL to 4.00 mts MSL), which would increase the capacity of the tank to 2,90,000 cu.m. from 20000 cu.m. The proposal of eco-park in the Villivakkam lake will not affect the water spread area. Further due to increase in the capacity of the lake, it will act as rain water recharging facility in that vicinity by increasing the ground water table.
5. I submit that the total area of the Villivakkam Lake handed over to the Greater Chennai Corporation is 1,11,265 sq.m. (27.5 Acres) and the water spread area of the lake is around 73,000 sq.m. (from 4.00m MSL to 8.50m MSL). Further pond area with freeboard is 76,000 sq.m. and the average bund 8 width of the pond is 10 mts and the area comes around 12,000 sq.m. and the existing TVS Canal area is around 1,000 sq.m.
6. 1 submit that the balance arca out of the above said area measuring approximately 22,265 sq.m. is taken up for development of other amenities like birds park, toy train, children's park/play area, water sports, aquarium, food courts, open air theatre, etc. I further submit that minimum facilities such as suspension bridge, boating, sport fishing/angling, musical water fountain etc., are proposed within the pond area and therefore, this will not impact the water spread area of the pond.
7. I submit that there are no such recreational facilities existing within the Chennai City and on development this will act as an easily accessible recreational spot for the citizens of Chennai and also a landmark destination attracting more tourists. Further the revenue generated from the proposed recreational activities would also be utilized for regular maintenance of the lake area and the eco-park.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to accept the report and to pass suitable order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and thus render Justice."
5. The applicant has also filed a reply to the report filed by the 3rd respondent and the Joint inspection report filed by the 4th respondent with photographs dated 19.07.2021 which reads as follows:-
"REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPORT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT FILE BY THE 4th RESPONDENT I, Jayaram Venkatesan, S/o. B.Venkatesan, aged 40 years, functioning Managing Trustee of Arappor lyakkam, having office at No 7, Satya Plaza, 2nd Floor, Dr Tirumoorthy Nagar Main Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034 (previously at No.140A, Ground Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600008) do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:9
1. I am the Managing Trustee of the registered trust Arappor Iyakkam and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Arappor lyakkam is the Petitioner, which is a non-
governmental organization registered under the Indian Trust Act 1882 bearing Registration No 304 of 2015.
3. I submit that we had filed this case with the prayer to direct the respondents to restore the entire remaining 39 acres of Villivakkam Konnur lake along with its inlets and outlets, with the assistance of Chennai River Restoration Trust or any other specialized authority in a time bound manner and consequently ensure that the Villivakkam Konnur lake is restored to its original state as a clean waterbody by removal of debris dumped by the Respondent 5 and pollutants discharged by Respondent 3.
4. As the petitioner in the case, I have received the report of the 3rd Respondent as well as the Joint Inspection Report filed by the 4th Respondent. I hereby deny all the averments contained therein except those that are specifically admitted herein.
5. I submit that the report filed by the 3rd respondent says that a 10 MLD Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration plant has been proposed for rejuvenation of ground water in the surrounding Villivakkam and Korattur lake and for supply of efficient water from plant to the upcoming ecopark under GCC. Out of the 11.5 acres of Villivakkam lake under the control of the 3rd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent proposes the above plant in 5 acres of land and also proposes tree plantation in the other 6.5 acres of land. I hereby bring forth the reasons why such a proposal within the Villivakkam lake should be out rightly rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal and also the reasons for the need for restoration of the Villivakkam lake to its entire available extent of 39 acres.
6. I submit that there is already an order of this Hon 'ble Tribunal dated 12.10.2017 staying any construction on the 11.5 acres of the land within the Villivakkam lake under the control of the 3rd Respondent and that the 11.5 acres shall also be restored with inlets and outlets to ensure free flow of rain water. This Hon'ble Tribunal gave the 10 order after the 3rd Respondent on an earlier occasion filed an affidavit seeking construction of Sewage Treatment Plant in the 11.5 acres of Villivakkam lake land in January 2017. Instead of restoring the lake as per the Hon'ble Tribunal's order, I submit that the same proposal is now again being made by the 3-d respondent, although in a different form of a tertiary treatment plant in 5 acres and tree plantation in 6.5 acres. I list below some of the key reasons on the need for restoration of the entire 39 acres of Villivakkam lake including the 11.5 acres under the control of CMWSSB.
7. I submit that the original extent of Villivakkam Konnur Lake is 214 acres as per revenue records and this has also been mentioned in the report of the Joint Committee placed before this Hon'ble High Court. Due to rampant encroachments of the lake by the authorities in power itself, the lake is currently left with 39 acres only. I submit that such rampant encroachment of the lake has resulted in very small water spread area of 39 acres only.
8. I submit that the SIDCO Nagar area adjoining the lake was inundated with water for 2 weeks after the 2015 rain. The area also saw flooding and inundation during the 2005 floods. Infact, during every monsoon whenever the rain is more than average rainfall, the area has been witnessing inundation. Therefore, restoration of the Villivakkam lake plays a key role in preventing flooding and inundation in the neighbouring areas of the lake. The lake has witnessed heavy dumping of metro rail earth on Northern and Eastern part of the lake in the year 2014. Most part of the 11.5 acres of the CMWSSB controlled lake still have metro rail earth to the height of around 15 feet as can be seen from the Additional Typed set of photos.
9. I submit that the heavy shrinking of the lake areas from 214 acres to 39 acres and the urban developments along with the Metro rail earth dumping in Villivakkam lake resulted in the heavy flooding of the area in 2015. The proof of heavy inundation has been attached in the original typed set of papers. Therefore, restoration of the entire available 39 acres of Villivakkam lake becomes extremely necessary in order to prevent future flooding of the surrounding areas. 10. I submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as several High Courts, in a plethora of decisions, 11 have time and again held that no encroachment should be tolerated over the water bodies which constitute part of the precious natural resources.
11. It is the responsibility of the Government authorities to the general public to protect and restore waterbodies, and also have an active vigil against any attempts to encroach waterbodies even if the waterbodies are in disuse. While it is the responsibility of the Government to prevent encroachment and restore waterbodies even if the waterbodies were put into disuse, allowing the authorities themselves to encroach upon the waterbody for other purposes will severely affect the ecological balance and will also embolden other private encroachers.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Hinch Lal Thwari vs Kamala Deui And Ors, (2001) 6 SCC 496 stated:
"It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities ie. Respondents 11 to 13 having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non- abadi sites. "
13. According to the Public Trust Doctrine, the Government holds the waterbodies only as a trustee of the public. Any action by the Government that violates the purpose for which the land was originally vested shall be deemed to be considered as illegal. If the Government fails to protect these water bodies, it amounts too breach of the public trust. These principles have been stated in the Judgement of Madras High Court in the case of T.K. Shanmugam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu (W.P.No. 1294 of 2009). Contrary to these principles, the Respondents 1 and 3 have acted in detriment of the waterbodies in breach of the public trust.
14. In T.K. Shanmugam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu and Ors (w.P.No.1294 of 2009), the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed:
1236. Thus, the public trust doctrine requires that natural resources such as lakes, ponds etc., are held by the State as a "trustee" of the public and can be disposed of only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust.
40.... The State being a trustee of these natural resources such as tanks, lakes etc., has to necessarily act consistent with the nature of such trust. The vesting of these lands and water bodies with the Government is to benefit the public and any attempt made by the Government to act in a manner derogatory to the object for which the land was vested, has to held to be illegal..
...The plethora of decisions on the point elucidate the basic principle of the public trust doctrine when the water bodies vest with the Government, placing the Government in the capacity of a trustee, there is little option except to strictly adhere to the trust and faith reposed and if the Government has failed to protect Trustee these water bodies, it amounts to breach of the public trust and in such cases, the duty of the Government is more onerous to restore the land back to its original position and thereby restore the trust reposed on it.
44. The Government Orders starting from 30.12.2006 in G.O. (Ms)No.854, Revenue Department and subsequent Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No. 498, 711, 34, 43 and 372 dated 05.09.2007, 30.11.2007, 23.01.2008, 29.01.2010 and 26.08.2014 respectively, with particular reference to encroachments in water bodies are in clear violation of the public trust doctrine.
In T.K. Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors in WP 1295 of 2009 dated 27.11.2015, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High court stated:
27. It has become inevitable for this Court to put on record that the authorities in power cannot destroy the water bodies or water courses formed naturally for the benefit of mankind for ever and it is beyond the power of the State to alienate or re-classify the water bodies for some other purposes without compensating the effect of such water bodies.
15. While so, the Respondent's proposal to construct a tertiary treatment plant or plant trees within 11.5 acres of the Villivakkam lake area is clearly illegal if proceeded with. While such 13 treatment plants may be necessary for infrastructure purposes, it can never be allowed to be constructed inside a waterbody leaving the residents of Villivakkam and nearby areas flood prone. Instead Government may identify other lands for such constructions. Even if they are unable to identify land for construction, waterbodies cannot be used for such purposes.
It must also be understood that such big tanks are the major rain water harvesting structures of the city as well and the rejuvenation of the ground water will best happen when the lake is restored entirely to its available extent of 39 acres. Therefore, the 11.5 acres of the Villivakkam lake in control with CMWSSB needs to be restored in full.
16. I submit that the last page of the Joint Inspection Report of the 4th Respondent points out that an amusement park is proposed to be developed inside the lake in a public private partnership for 25 years. I submit that photos taken on 16.07.2021 attached in the additional typed set clearly shows that significant number of acres even within the 27.5 acres that is being restored currently by the 4th Respondent have not been converted into pond area and instead kept for Amusement / Eco park, car park and construction of buildings etc. While it is understandable that a small area may be required for parking etc, leaving out such large acres of land for purposes other than what the waterbody is originally intended will have adverse effect of flooding and reduced harvesting of rain water than needed.
17. I submit that therefore, it is also necessary to ensure that such amusement/ eco park activities are not allowed inside the villivakkam lake and the entire 27.5 acres of the Villivakkam lake is restored to its full with maximum waterspread area.
18. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass appropriate orders as prayed for in the above Original Application and thus render justice."
6. It is seen from the reports filed by both Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and also the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) that they are establishing the Tertiary Treatment Ultra 14 Filtration Plant and developing the restored area as an eco-park which will not serve the purpose of the order of this Tribunal to restore the water body to its original position.
7. Further, the report submitted by the applicant to the reports shows that large scale dumping of debris and also construction of buildings on Eastern side of the restored area of 27.05 acres by the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) and certain work is being done on the Northern side to develop this area as an amusement park. If those things are allowed to continue, then the purpose of restoration of the area for restoring the water body to its original position will be defeated. Any amusement park construction can be permissible beyond the buffer zone of the tank and not within the buffer zone or inside the water storing area of tank.
8. The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) should also consider the question of shifting the proposed Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant to the area where already a Sewage Treatment Plant is established and to pump the water collected from that area for treatment by Tertiary Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant as any construction in any other form including Tertiary Treatment Plant will also amount to violation of the directions issued by this tribunal and that they should not do any construction in that area.
9. The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) as well as the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) are also 15 directed to look into the issue on the basis of the observations made by this Tribunal to avoid such constructions in those areas or otherwise they can expect the consequential orders of removing those constructions from that area in order to protect the water body which ultimately will result in unnecessary loss for the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) as well as the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), which they can avoid and they can use their funds with discretion and in a judicial manner to protect the water body than reduce the water storing area or the capacity of the water body since it was intended that the water body will be restored to its original capacity and protected when the area was restored to the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC).
10. The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) is also directed to consider the question of shifting Treatment Ultra Filtration Plant to STP area as mentioned by this Tribunal.
11. The respective affidavit will have to be filed by the responsible officer at the rank of Managing Director -Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation, so that they may be knowing about the ground reality before the reports are being submitted to the Tribunal and the consequences of adverse orders likely to be passed by this Tribunal on account of non-
compliance of the orders already passed.
1612. The above officials are directed to submit the respective reports to this Tribunal on or before 15.12.2022 by e-filing in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per rules.
13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee and also to the official respondents including the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and also Managing Director, - Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) immediately through e-
mail for their information and also for the compliance of the directions.
14. For consideration of further report, post on 15.02.2022.
Sd/-
......................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
....................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. 50 of 2017(SZ) 07.01.2022, Sr. 17