National Green Tribunal
Shri Lakhan Singh Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Its ... on 18 October, 2016
VF BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL Original Application No. 40/2014 (Tuc) CZ Lakhan Singh Dhurve Vs. State of M.P. & 4 Ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER PRESENT : Applicant ; None. Respondent/State Shri Sachin K. Verma, Advocate Respondent /MPPCB: Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Advocate for Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, Advocate Lhe Date and Order of the Tribunal Remarks Item No. 01 The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.4.2016 18" October, has been brought to our notice and the said order reads as follows: 2016 "Heard. Issue Notice. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed, pending further orders from this Court". The said order has been passed in Civil Appeal No. 9145/2015 Tirupati Buildcom Private Limited Vs. Lakan Singh & Ors. which was received in the Registry on 07.06.2016. The appeal has been preferred against the order of this Tribunal dtd. 06.05.2015. Having perused the "aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that so far as proceedings before this Tribunal are concerned the same have not been stayed as was submitted before us during the course of hearing on 06.05.2016. The order passed on 06.05.2015 against which the appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of directions to the project proponent to deposit the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with the Registrar of this Bench within ten days. Subsequently on 24.02.2016 it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 by way ofa reply that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs has been deposited. Today none has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 we have therefore, proceeded to hear the matter. ova tnanmememniery ownable st i ©) We direct that the amount deposited with the Registrar shall remain in deposit and would be subjected to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that behalf. We have. heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the State as well as the Learned Counsel for the PCB and have also perused the replies that have been filed. From the reply filed by the Respondent No. 1 to 3 on the queries that were made by the Tribunal in the order dated 11.03.2015 that in terms of sub-section 1 read with sub-section 3 of Section 234 of the Land Revenue Court it was permissible for the Collector to divert unoccupied land out of the pasture land which is one of the categories mentioned in sub clause 'b' of the Sub clause 1 of Section 237. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the State was, therefore, that in terms of the aforesaid previous land for the mining purposes was allotted to the Respondent No. 5. As per the details given in the reply the allotment has been made after securing minimum 2% of the total agricultural land as required by the provisions contained in 237 (1) & 237 (2) of the Act as applicable in the year 2008 when leased was granted. It is submitted in the reply that 33.346 hectares of land for grazing as 'Gharagah' is still available in the village which is more than 2% of the total agricultural land of the village. So far as the stone crusher is concerned in the reply filed by the State it is given out that the Respondent No. 5 / M/s Tirupati Buildcom has set up the stone crusher on land bearing Khasra No. 375/01 (an area of 0.809 hectares), Khasra No. 375/02 (an area of 2.436) hectares and Khasra No. 379 Jan area of 0.462 hectares) which is under the private ownership and not part of the un-occupied land or the 'Charagah' land as alleged in the Original Application (Writ Petition) filed before the Hon'ble High Court. It is we) ¢ \ LN. a ae =
submitted that this stone crusher of the Respondent No. 5 is situated on the private land.
We have considered the reply filed by the MPPCB which had conducted an inspection on 07.11.2014 and subsequently again on 05.02.2015. As per the reports submitted before us the shortcomings which had been pointed out during previous inspections have been rectified. However, so far as the siting guidelines are concern there appears to be ambiguity in the reply filed before us as it is mentioned in para no. 5 of the inspection report filed on 11.11.2014 that 'the unit of the Respondent No. 5 that is the stone mine and the stone crusher is located in an area that is rocky and has barren land also there is no dense population within one kilometre from the site'. We are of the view that the aforesaid information needs to be specified in the light of the siting guidelines. Moreover, from the material on record including satellite image that has been filed there are three schools in the vicinity of the mines and the stone crushers which are the school at Banka, school at Majhauli & and school at Dadra (Bhandhadeva), the MPPCB therefore has to give specific distances from the outer area of the these premises of the land and of the boundary of the land of the stone crusher. At the same time we further direct that distance from the village boundary for the Abadi of the village must be taken as a outer point for measuring the distance from the village to the point as well as the stone crusher. At para no. 2.4 of the report submitted by the MPPCB it is indicated that apart from the stone mine, stone quarry and the stone | crusher there is also a Hot Mix Plant and Cement Pipe / Pole industry. The MPPCB needs to submit whether necessary consents 'Consent to Establish & Consent to Operate' in respect of both these units had been granted by the MPPCB authorities considering all relevant factors in that behalf. The MPPCB authority shall also submit a copy of last inspection as well as the report of the Air Ambience Quality at both sites a of the stone crusher and the mine as also the Hot Mix Plant and the cement pipe industry. It would be open for the MPPCB to carry out the fresh inspection on the relevant affected area and submit the report in addition to what has been ordered above.
Let the matter be listed on 16 November, 2016.
roy ao I 4 7a