National Green Tribunal
Ravula Lingaswamy vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2025
Item No.1:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 06th day of August, 2025.
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Original Application No.97 of 2021 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
1) Ravula Lingaswamy
S/o. Yadaiaha,
Aged 34 years,
Anthammagudem Village,
Pochampally Mandal,
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District,
Telangana - 508 284.
2) Valluri Kumar
S/o. Sattaiah,
Aged 38 Years,
Anthammagudem Village,
Pochampally Mandal,
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District,
Telangana - 508 284.
3) Ravla Srisailam
S/o. Anjaiah,
Aged 35 years,
Anthammagudem Village,
Pochampally Mandal,
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District,
Telangana - 508 284.
4) Banda Kistaiah
S/o. Mutyalu,
Aged 42 years,
Anthammagudem Village,
Pochampally Mandal,
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District,
Telangana - 508 284.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) State of Telangana
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
3) Telangana State Pollution Control Board
Rep. by its Member Secretary
A-3, Paryaravan Bhavan,
Sanath Nagar Industrial Estate,
Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 018.
Page 1 of 10
4) Agriculture Commissioner & Director
Fathe Midan, Basheer Bagh
Near Nizam College, Basheer Bagh,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 001.
5) District Collector
Yadadri - Bhuvanagiri District,
Bhuvanagiri, Telangana - 508 116.
6) Hazelo Lab Private Limited
Rep. by its Plant Manager/In-charge
Sy. No.242, 247, 248 & 249 of
Anthammagudem Village,
Pochampally Mandal,
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District,
Telangana - 508 284.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s): Mr. Shivang Singh and
Ms. Mamatha Ralla.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Sarashwathy for R1.
Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R2, R4 & R5.
Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R3.
Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. a/w.
Mrs. T. Hemalatha for R6.
Ms. N. Nathami for CPCB.
Judgment Reserved on: 01st July, 2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The Applicants, who claimed to be residents of Anthammagudem Village and are aggrieved by the pollution caused by Respondent No.6 (M/s. Hazelo Lab Private Limited), a bulk drug industry, have filed the Original Application, raising certain environmental concerns.
2. Respondent No.6 (M/s. Hazelo Lab Private Limited), which is situated in Anthammagudem Village, Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, is alleged to be discharging Page 2 of 10 untreated sewage/chemical water in the bore well dug inside the plant, causing pollution.
3. It is also alleged that the industry has expanded unauthorizedly without the required approvals from the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC)/ State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Telangana and the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TGPCB).
4. It is also stated that the industry had suffered various orders, including a stop production order, closure order, subsequent revocation order, etc. It is further stated that the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and after the formation of Telangana State, the TGPCB had appointed a High-Level Committee to look into the pollution in a cluster of bulk drug industries at Pochampally and Choutuppal Mandals. Pursuant to the High-Level Committee's recommendation, directions were issued to 45 industries only in vain. Thereafter, the Joint Committee formed by the Joint Collector, which had given certain recommendations that included a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system for the treatment and reuse of the effluents and the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) member industries shall regularly send the effluents to the CETP. The industries were also directed to use scrubbers regularly for control of the odour problem and also develop greenbelts in the vacant lands. As these industries did not comply with the said recommendations, several complaints were made by the villagers, including the applicants, about the massive pollution caused by the polluting industries.
5. It is further alleged that there has been financial loss due to the impact of pollution, which affected the yield of agriculture and closure of poultry farms, etc. The villagers were not even able to get drinking water due to chemical pollution in the groundwater.
6. Therefore, the applicants have prayed for conducting a cumulative impact of pollution and damages caused to the environment due to the industries and to assess the Page 3 of 10 compensation payable to the farmers for the loss of agriculture and direct the State Government to provide safe water for drinking and agriculture in the village of Anthammagudem.
7. Upon notice, both the official and private respondents have entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their pleadings.
8. The Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TGPCB) filed several reports during the pendency of the application from time to time. The first of its report dated 12.07.2021, which is after the inspection conducted on 17.06.2021, wherein it is stated that the 6th Respondent industry was established in the year 2002 in the name of M/s. Venlar Labs and later renamed as M/s. Hazelo Lab Private Limited in the year 2015. The industry obtained consent from the TGPCB on 30.05.2017, which was valid till 31.01.2022. The industry also had obtained Environmental Clearance for further expansion from the SEIAA - Telangana on 13.11.2020 for manufacturing of 35 products and also a Co-Generation Power Plant of 1 x 2 MW. The industry also had obtained appropriate consent from the TGPCB. The industry also had obtained Consent to Establish from the Board on 29.05.2021 for further expansion, which is under implementation.
9. The TGPCB also constituted a High-Level Committee in September 2011 to examine the issues of bulk drug industries in the district, the pollution issues and to note the other implications. As per the recommendations of the High-Level Committee, the TGPCB recommended to install the Multiple Effect Evaporation (MEE) system for all the industries. Accordingly, the 6th Respondent also installed the MEE system and it also has a full-fledged ZLD system consisting of Stripper, MEE, Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD), biological Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), followed by Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant.
10. It is also mentioned that the District Collector - Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District had constituted a Joint Committee in the year 2017 with the officials from the various departments, including the Revenue and Agriculture, to verify the pollution Page 4 of 10 problem and assessment of crop damage due to the pollution in the Dothigudem area. Accordingly, a joint inspection was conducted and the groundwater samples from the bore wells were analysed and recommended a compensation of Rs.77,55,800/- to the affected farmers, who are cultivating paddy situated in Dothigudem and Anthammagudem Villages.
11. It is stated that there are 11 industries located in the surroundings and the 6th Respondent (M/s. Hazelo Lab Pvt. Ltd.) has paid a sum of Rs.11,83,348/- as their share for crop damage compensation. In the meanwhile, there were public complaints followed by a stop production order to the 6th Respondent and also a closure order for non-compliance with the stop production order. Later, at the request of the 6th Respondent, the closure order was revoked. The industry was also reviewed by the TGPCB's Task Force Committee and the groundwater samples were taken for analysis. The analysis results of the groundwater sample showed that the value of the Total Hardness as CaCO3 exceeds the standards. The soil sample is not hazardous in nature. The R.O. permeate is recycled for cooling tower makeup and boiler feed makeup within the industries and there is no discharge of effluents. The boiler stack emissions are said to be meeting the standards, as also the Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) monitoring results are meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
12. The second report was filed on 08.12.2022, though dealt with several other industries, observation regarding the 6 th Respondent alone is relevant here. As per the report, the industry has provided online connectivity for CPCB and TGPCB's server for MEE condensate, High Total Dissolved Solids (HTDS), Low Total Dissolved Solids (LTDS), flowmeter and cameras at the gate and RO permeate.
13. In the report of the TGPCB dated 11.07.2024, the details of the environmental compensation imposed and payment made by the industries are submitted. So far as the 6 th Respondent is concerned, the environmental compensation levied was Rs.77,77,000/-, of which, 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.38,90,000/- was paid. In the said report, which is filed after Page 5 of 10 the groundwater and soil quality analysis done by M/s. Environment Protection Training and Research Institute (EPTRI), Gachibowli, Hyderabad, it is stated that the bore wells are contaminated with chemicals and the same were matched with the products and derivatives of all the industries located in the area, including the 6th Respondent industry. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the industry. The TGPCB also reviewed the industry before the Board's Task Force Committee and issued certain directions to comply with, including that of payment of environmental compensation.
14. The latest report of the TGPCB was filed on 17.02.2025, which states that the Consent to Operate obtained from the Board is valid till 31.01.2027. As per the report, the industry is operating the new ZLD system for treatment of effluents, which consists of MEE, RO, HTDS, and LTDS. The industry has also provided online connectivity with the CPCB and TGPCB's servers. Non-compliance of certain directions are now said to be complied with by the 6th Respondent industry.
15. Respondent No.4 is the Commissioner of Agriculture Department, who was directed to inspect the fields and file a report regarding the claim of the applicants, as the applicants had complained about the health issues apart from the groundwater pollution, reduction in agricultural yield, soil pollution, loss of cattle, poultry, etc. Accordingly, the Agriculture Department had visited the Anthammagudem Village and collected soil and water samples from bore wells in the field and sent them for analysis. The detailed field inspection was also done by the 4th Respondent.
16. As per the report of the Agriculture Department, the applicants, namely Ravula Lingaswamy, Valluri Kumar, Ravula Srishailam and Banda Kistaiah are not having any agricultural land in Survey Nos.242, 247, 248 and 249 situated in Jiblakpally Revenue Village, Anthammagudem Gram Panchayat. It is clearly stated that in Sy. No.242, the 6th Respondent is having 9 Acres 13 Guntas and the remaining land is possessed by Gummi Narendar Reddy. In Sy. No.247, the individual farmers do not have agricultural land and the total extent is converted as non-
Page 6 of 10agricultural land and is possessed by M/s. Hazelo Lab Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.6). In Sy. No.248, the 6th Respondent is having 6 Acres 31 Guntas and several other owners are having various extents of lands in the balance of the lands. Similarly, in Sy. No.249, of the 19 Acres 9 Guntas, Gummi Narender Reddy owns 4 Acres 22 Guntas, Valluri Nagaiah owns 1 Acre 35 Guntas, Kandi Yadi Reddy owns 1 Acre 21 Guntas and Vaspari Jangamma owns 34.5 Guntas.
17. From the detailed report of the 4th Respondent, none of the applicants in the present Original Application are owners of the properties situated in Sy. No.242, 247, 248 and 249 of Anthammagudem Village. However, the Agriculture Department has stated that the water is not suitable for irrigation under normal conditions with high salinity. The water can be used if the soil is permissible and arrangements for adequate drainage facilities and salt tolerance crops should be selected. So far as the soil quality is concerned, it is found to be suitable for raising the crop, having a pH range between 6.5 and 8.0 and the electrical conductivity (EC) is also less than 1.0, which is a suitable range for raising crops. The Agriculture Department has also produced a copy of the Soil Health Card.
18. The report of the 5th Respondent, who is the District Collector - Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, assumes importance in the light of the reliefs claimed by the applicants. The District Collector also has stated that none of the applicants herein are having any agricultural land in the above survey numbers. The soil and water samples collected and sent for analysis show that the soil is suitable for cultivation, but the water sample is having very high electrical conductivity, which is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions. On 03.04.2024, it was decided that the Additional Collector (Revenue), Agriculture Department and TGPCB would conduct crop cutting experiments involving Agriculture, Revenue and CPO departments to assess the yield loss around the field adjacent to the industries causing pollution. The details of the name of the farmers, village, the total extent owned by them, the extent cultivated and the yield, along with the quantity of the paddy sold at Paddy Procurement Centre (PPC) were furnished in a Page 7 of 10 tabular form. As per the particulars furnished by the District Collector, the average yield of paddy in the district is 22 Quintals/Acre, but as per the experiments conducted in the fields adjoining the industry, the average yield is 19.33 Quintals/Acre i.e. deficit of 13%, except in two farmers field where the yield obtained is less than 50%. Further, it was stated that the plots which are nearer to the industries are affected due to the groundwater pollution and the crop damage is up to 50% with respect to yield loss of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre season.
19. Respondent No.6, who is the private respondent, has filed a reply, stating that they are operating the industry with ZLD and recycling the treated wastewater for boiler and cooling tower makeups. The industry is not discharging any wastewater, as alleged by the applicants. The industry has generated 13.7 Tons of waste and the same is disposed of at TSDF/ Cement Plants. Regarding the crop damage that is alleged, the 6th Respondent has already paid a sum of Rs.11,83,348/- to the District Authorities before the extension of revocation orders were granted to them. Accordingly, the 6th Respondent is complying with all the directions issued by the TGPCB from time to time. The closure order and the stop production order were issued only after an accident that happened during the Nitration reaction, which were later revoked. The industry is also having a collection tank above the ground level to avoid soil and groundwater pollution. Regarding the pollution of drinking water, the industry had stated that, as per the classification by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), the area is a water- stressed area. The samples of water tested by the TGPCB does not match the compounds in the effluents generated by the 6th Respondent. As there are also several other industries, admittedly in operation, in the industrial area.
20. From the above pleadings, it is to be examined whether the allegations of the applicants are true and to what relief they are entitled to.
Page 8 of 1021. So far as the allegation of pollution of groundwater and soil is concerned, the various reports of the TGPCB, Agriculture Department and the District Collector go to show that the area itself is classified as a water-stressed area and that the soil is capable of cultivation only for certain crops. The TGPCB also has stated that the industry has complied with all the conditions as directed by them from time to time. It is also admitted that there was a High-Level Committee and thereafter, a Joint Committee constituted by the District Collector for addressing the concerns expressed by the applicants.
22. It is also a definite statement of the 6th Respondent industry that every condition imposed is complied with by them dutifully for the smooth running of the industry. It is only the regulatory body, namely the TGPCB has to keep a vigil on the industry, periodically inspect the same and ensure that there is no violation of any of the conditions by the industry.
23. It is also stated that the environmental compensation amount of Rs.77,77,000/- levied by the TGPCB has been fully paid as on 20.08.2024, as confirmed by the TGPCB and evidenced by the memo dated 07.12.2024 filed by the 6th Respondent.
24. So far as the claim of compensation to the farmers for the loss of agriculture, cattle and health, due to the pollution caused by the 6th Respondent is concerned, it is not known why the applicants have not included the other industries situated within the industrial area, which also contribute to the pollution alleged. Having chosen only the 6th Respondent in this regard raises a suspicion about the intention of the applicants. This is more so because, as per the report of the District Collector as well as the Agriculture Department, the applicants in the Original Application are not owners of any piece of land in the survey numbers mentioned in the Original Application, and they are in no way connected to make any claim of compensation for loss of crops.
Page 9 of 1025. Notably, the actual owners of the lands have not made any claim in this regard. This is made evident only when the reports of the Commissioner of Agriculture Department and the District Collector are filed.
26. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants stated that the applicants are making the claim on behalf of the original owners. However, that is not mentioned in the application. In fact, the necessary fee, payable after quantifying the compensation amount, is not paid. Any relief by way of compensation to the victims of pollution, under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, requires quantification of the amount and payment of a court fee of one percent of the compensation claimed. In the present case, the original landowners have not been impleaded as parties, and the alleged loss suffered by them has also not been quantified through the Revenue and Agriculture Departments. Only when this Tribunal asked the said question, based on the reports of the Commissioner of Agriculture Department and the District Collector, it was stated so.
27. Therefore, without hesitation, we hold that the very application filed is speculative one with an ulterior motive. Accordingly, the applicants are not entitled to any indulgence and the application deserves to be dismissed.
28. In the result, the Original Application [O.A. No.97 of 2021 (SZ)] is dismissed.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.97/2021 (SZ) 06th August, 2025. Mn.
Page 10 of 10