National Green Tribunal
Thomas Rodrigues [48 Years ]S/O. Late ... vs The Deputy Commissioner, Revenue ... on 27 July, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
*Corrected Copy
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 71 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Thomas Rodrigues
S/o Late Paul Rodrigues,
R/o Irody Village & Post,
Udupi Taluk, Udupi District
Karnataka State.
2. Alfred Rodrigues,
S/o Joseph Rodrigues
R/o Irody Village & Post,
Udupi Taluk, Udupi District
Karnataka State.
3. Joseph Rodrigues
S/o Jathy Rodrigues,
R/o Irody Village & Post,
Udupi Taluk, Udupi District
Karnataka State.
....Applicants
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Revenue Department Udupi District,
Rajathadri, Manipal, Karnataka State
2. Deputy Conservator of Forests
Kundapura Sub-Division,
Kundapura Udupi District, Karnataka State
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Department,
Kundapura Udupi District, Karnataka State
4. The Regional Director,(Environment),
Department of Environment and Ecology,
Government of Karnataka,
First Floor, C Block Rajathadri,
District Administrative Centre,
Manipal, Udupi- 576104,
Udupi District, Karnataka State
1
5. The Member Secretary
District Sand Monitoring Committee and Senior Geologist
Department of Mines and Geology, 1st Floor
A, Block Rajathadri, Manipal Udupi- 576104
Karnataka State
6. The Chairman,
Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority,
4th Floor M.S. Building, Bangalore, Karnataka State
7. The Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Khanijia Bhavan, Race Course Road,
Bangalore- 560001 Karnataka State
8. The APCCF, Regional Office,
Ministry of Environment and Forests (SZ),
Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, E & F Wings,
17th Main Road, Koramangal II Block,
Bangalore- 560001, Karnataka State
9. The Member Secretary,
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
7th Floor, 4th Gate, M.S. Building,
Bangalore- 560001, Karnataka State
10. The Special Tahsildar,
Brahmavara, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District.
Karnataka State
11. The Panchayath Development Officer,
Grama Panchayath, Irody,
Irody Village, Udupi Taluk,
Udupi District, Karnataka State.
12. The Panchayath Development Officer,
Grama Panchayath, Kodi, Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk,
Udupi District, Karnataka State.
13. Senior Assistant Director,
Fisheries Department, Udupi District, Karnataka State.
14. The Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Division,
Udupi District, Karnataka State.
15. B. Vinay kumar, CEO (GPA Holder),
M/s Yojaka* India Pvt. Ltd.,
D. No. 3-28/43 ABCO Trade Centre,
2nd Floor, N.H 17 Kottara Chowki, Mangalore.
... Respondent(s)
2
For Applicant: Mr. B. Thilak Narayanan
For Respondent(s): Mr. Darpan K.M. for R1, R3, R4 to R7,
R10, R12 to R14
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R2, R9 & R11.
Mr. Thirunavukarasu for SPCB, Karnataka.
Judgment Reserved on: 15th July, 2021
Judgment Pronounced on: 27th July, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, 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 certain illegal activities said to have been committed by the Government Departments on the bank of River Sita by doing illegal mining and also doing certain activities violating the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification in Udupi District.
2. It is alleged in the application that the applicants are natives of Irody Village, lives on the banks of River Sita which is having lot of biological diversity and also acting as a barrier for riverine equilibrium in that area. In Udupi District, there are six major rivers, namely, Swarna, Sita, Papnashini, Varahi, Souparnika and Yedamavinohole which are perennial in nature and are flowing towards west and joining Arabian Sea. Most parts of the rivers are covered under the Coastal Regulation Zone, 3 Notification. Udupai is having 105 kms sea coast line and riverine coastline of around 300 Kms. The local communities residing on the river banks are depending on the river for their livelihood by doing fishing, lime shell collection etc. Long back the local communities used to remove the sand from the rivers by traditional methods for their own use/local consumption.
3. The land comprised in survey no. 120 of Irody Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District, Karnataka having an extent of 117.91 acres which is part of Sita River and this area is reserved for State Marine Police Training Center and similarly the land in S. No. 112-1A1A1 which is having extent of 265.80 acres in Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk and District is also part of Sita River and said property is also reserved for State Marine Police Training Center as per the order of the Dept Commissioner, Updupi District vide their proceedings no. LND/PDR/CR 115/2014-15 and the said fact are clearly mentioned in the RTC extracts pertaining to said properties. The land bearing S. Nos. 112- 1A1A3, 112-1A1A1, 112-1A1A4, 112-1A1A5, 112-1A1A6, 61- 11, 61-8 of Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk and District and land bearing S. Nos. 88-2, 88-1(1), 88-1G, 88-1H, 88-3, 88-4, 88-5, 88-6, 88-1A, 88-1B, 88-1C, 88-1D, 88-1E, 88-1F of Irody Village, Udupi Taluk and District are also part of Sita River.
4. There are plenty of agricultural lands situated on the eastern and western sides of Sita River along with residential houses of farmers, fishermen and labourers. It is a thickly populated area. The fishermen of the locality have been doing avocation of 4 fishing including collection of oysters, oyster shells from the said river and it was the only source of income for the poor fishermen residing in that area. They used to grow paddy, pulses, vegetables and coconuts on either side of the river. The Forest Department has been planting and rearing Kandla trees on the eastern and western side of the said river and also in the middle of the river here and there where the depth of the water is low and the Government of Karnataka has invested huge sum of money for planting and rearing Kandla trees. The said Government Authorities are also taking steps, if any Kandla tree was cut or damaged against persons who were responsible for the same.
5. It was understood that Government of Karnataka had called for tenders for deepening Sita River flowing in the aforesaid survey numbers by dredging and it was also learnt that 15th respondent was the successful bidder to do the said work for the estimated cost of about Rs. 6.5 crores. The 15th respondent had brought necessary machineries, big dredging boats and big pipes and making preparations to deepen the Sita River.
6. It was understood that Sita River would be further deepened to a depth of 15 to 20 feet in addition to the present depth. The silicon sand and soil removed from the said dredging process would be used to fill up another portion of the Sita River in S. No. 88 and 112 of Irody Village and Kodi Village, Udupai Taluk.
On account of this proposed work, the entire area would be damaged and the course of the river would be changed as well.
5This would affect the flora and fauna and also the aquatic life like fishes, oyster, prawns and oyster shells and they were likely to be damaged completely. While deepening the river Kandla trees planted and reared by Government of Karnataka by spending huge amount also would be damaged. This would cause serious soil erosion from the eastern and western side of Sita River and on the account of the same, the agricultural land adjoining thereto would also be affected. If it is unscientifically deepened, then there is possibility of sea water entering and making the water saline and that will become un-fit for domestic as well as for agricultural purposes.
7. It was understood that river was proposed to be deepened for a distance of 100 to 250 meters away from Arabian Sea. The civil contractor and Government officials colluded together and decided to proceed with the work without obtaining necessary NoCs from various departments including Police, CRZ Authority, Mines and Geology Department, Environment Authority, Forest Department etc. So the applicant has no other remedy except to approach this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
a) Directions to such of the respondents requiring to maintain the Sita River of Udupi Taluk, Udupi District of Karnataka State in Survey nos. 112-1A1A3, 112-1A1A1, 112-1A1A4, 112-1A1A5, 112-
1A1A6, 61-11, 61-8 of Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk and District and land bearing S. Nos. 88-2, 88-1(1), 88-1G, 88-1H, 88-3, 88-4, 88-5, 88-6, 88-1A, 88-1B, 88-1C, 88-1D, 88-1E, 88-1F of Irody Village, Udupi Taluk and District are also part of Sita River.
b) An order or direction upon respondent nos. 1 to 14 or such of them and their subordinates restraining them from according any sanction or permission or to do any acts or omission which would enable the contractor to deepen the Sita River.
c) An order or direction upon such of the respondents to bringing to this Hon‟ble Tribunal all the records relating to any decision that 6 might have been taken for deepening the Sita River of Udupi taluk, Udupi District.
d) Direct such of the respondents to formulate and place on record styrategy/scheme to prevent illegal mining in Sita River of Udupi Taluk, Udupi District.
e) And pass such other or further order or orders as the Lordships may deem fit and proper.
8. Though, notices were served on the respondents and entered appearance through standing Counsel, they had not filed any reply statements.
9. As per order dated 06.01.2020, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee consisting of 1) the District Collector, Udupi District, 2)Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura, Udupi District,
3) Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 4) Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority, 5) Department of Mines and Geology, 6) Senior Officer from Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bangalore, 7) Engineer, Water Resource Department, Udupi District and 8) officer from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka State to go into the allegations and also the present status and if there was any violation, what was the nature of action taken including imposing environment compensation. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board was designated as the nodal agency for coordination as well as for providing necessary logistic for the purpose.
10. As per order dated 15.06.2020, this Tribunal had considered the report submitted by the Joint Committee dated nil which was extracted in para 4 of the order and reads as follows:
4.The committee had submitted a report which reads as follows:
"Report of Committee appointed by Hon‟ble NGT (SB) in O.A. No. 71 of 2017, as per order dated 06.01.2020, regarding indiscriminate & unscientific dredging in river Sita flowing in 7 Sy.No.112-1A1A3, 112 - 1A1A1, 112 - 1A1A4, 112-1A1A5, 112-1A1A6, 61-11, 61-8 of Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk and land bearing Sy. Nos.88-2, 88-1(1), 88-1G, 88-1H, 88-3, 88-4, 88-5, 88-6, 88-1A, 88-1B, 88-1C, 88-1D, 88-1E, 88-1F of Irody village, Udupi Taluk and land bearing Sy. No.120 of Irody Village, Udupi Taluk and District - Reg. Petitioners: Sri. Thomas Rodrigues and others Respondents: Deputy Commissioner & ors. 1.0 Preamble:
The petitioners Sri. Thomas Rodrigues and Ors have filed objections before Hon‟ble NGT in O.A. No.71/2017 (SZ) about dredging of Silica sand and soil etc in Sita river located at Udupi District. According to the petitioners, Government has called for tenders to deepen the Sita River flowing in Sy.No.112-1A1A3, 112 - 1A1A1, 112 - 1A1A4, 112-1A1A5, 112-1A1A6, 61-11, 61-8 of Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk and land bearing Sy. Nos.88-2, 88-1(1), 88-1G, 88-1H, 88-3, 88-4, 88-5, 88-6, 88-1A, 88-1B, 88-C, 88-1D, 88-1E, 88-1F of Irody village, Udupi Taluk and land bearing Sy. No.120 of Irody Village, Udupi Taluk and District over an extent of 117.91 acres which is reserved for State Marine Police Training Cetnre and land bearing Sy. NO.112-1A1A1 extent of 265.80 acres of Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk and District, Karnataka State is also reserved for State Marine Police Training Centre as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District.
The one engaged in the dredging process are intended to deepen to a depth of 15ft to 20 ft in addition to the present depth. Silicon sand and soil etc., are removed from the dredging process and that will be used to fill up another portion of Sita river in Sy. NO.88/112 of Irody village and Kodi Village, Udupi Taluk which will change the course of the river and affect the aquatic life. The Kandla trees that have been planted and reared by the Forest Dept., Govt. of Karnataka are likely to be damage if the process of dredging still continues leading to heavy soil erosion of eastern and western side of Sita river which affects the agriculture of the applicant. The act of dredging is done by the Contractor without obtaining necessary clearance from Depts. Including Coastal Zone Management Authority, Mines and Geology, Ministry of Environment & Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) etc. While hearing the said Original Application No. 71 of 2017(SZ), the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Bench has passed an order dated 06th January 2020 (Annexure 1) and directed that "... It is appropriate to get a status report regarding the allegations mentioned in this petition. Accordingly, we appoint a Committee consisting of District Collector, Udupi District, Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura, Udupi District and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Coastal Zone Management Authority, Karnataka, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Department of Mines and Geology, Senior Officer from Regional Office, MoEF, Bangalore, Engineer, Water Resources Department, Udupi and State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. KSPCB will be the nodal unit and will submit the status report regarding the allegations made and during inspection if it is found that there are any violations of the directions given by this tribunal or in violation of the prevailing laws in this regard, then they are also directed to take necessary action against the violator and submit a 8 status and action taken report to this tribunal within two months."
2.0 Constitution of the Committee:
In compliance to Hon‟ble NGT order, the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) constituted a committee vide Office Memorandum (OM) No.PCB/SEO/MIN/NGT/2019-20-5756 dated 31.01.2020 consisting of the following members, the copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure 2:
Sl.
Name and Designation Details
No.
1 The District Collector, Udupi District Chairman
2 Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura Member
Division, Udupi
3 The Zonal Senior Environmental Officer, Member
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mangaluru 4 Senior Officer from Regional Office, Member Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, South Zone Office, E-
3/240, Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, E & F Wings, 17th Main Road, 2nd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 034.
5 State Level Impact Assessment Authority Member (SEIAA) Karnataka, (Ecology & Environment), Department of Forest Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka, Room No.709, 7th Floor, 4th gate, MS building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
6 Karnataka State Coastal Zone Member Management Authority, Room No.448, 4th floor, II gate, MS Building, Bangalore
- 560 001.
7 Department of Mines and Geology, Member Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore 8 The Engineer, Water Resource Member Department, Udupi District 9 Environmental Officer, KSPCB, Udupi Member Convenor The committee was directed to carry out inspection of the area, verify all the facts of the case and submit a status report at the earliest.
3.0 Preliminary meeting of the Committee:
Based on the above OM, Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Committee, on 12.02.2020, called for a preliminary meeting of all the members and the concerned Departments in charge who undertook the dredging work in the river Sita. Member Convener issued meeting notice in this regard vide letter No.PCB/RO/Udupi/NGT-OA No.71/2017/2019-20/1158 dated 05.02.2020. During the meeting following members and officials from concerned Departments were present.
Sl. Name and Designation Details
No.
1 Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District Chairman
2 Sri. Ashish Reddi, IFS, Deputy Member
9
Conservator of Forest, Kundapura
Division, Udupi District
3 Sri. Ramesh D Naik, Senior Member
Environmental Officer, KSPCB,
Mangalore
4 Sri. E Thirunavukkarasu, Scientist „E‟, Member
Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change, Regional Office,
Bangalore
5 Shri. Prasana Patagar, Regional Director Member
(Environment), Udupi
6 Sri. K M Hegde, Executive Engineer, Member
No.1, Varahi Division, Siddapura
7 Sri. Ranji Naika, Senior Geologist, Member
Department of Mines & Geology, Udupi.
8 Sri. Ravikumar J K, Scientist Officer, Member
Grade -I, SEIAA & CRZ, Bangalore.
9 Sri. T M Machegowda, Executive Invitee
Engineer, Department of Port & Fisheries Division, Udupi 10 Sri. Ganesh K, Deputy Director of Invitee Fisheries, Udupi 11 Sri. Parshwanath, Senior Assistant Invitee Director, Fisheries Department, Udupi 12 Sri. G. Lohitha, Assistant Conservator of `Invitee Forest, Kundapura, Udupi District 13 Smt. Vijaya Hegde, Environmental Member Officer, KSPCB, Udupi Convenor Gist of the meeting proceedings is reproduced as below:
That the Department of Fisheries, Udupi had planned to undertake the expansion of existing jetty at Kodi (Kodikanyam) village to facilitate the surrounding fishermen. In this regard, the Department wanted to dredge from the mouth of the river (Hangarkatte) to the jetty to help the fishermen navigate their boats since the existing depth did not permit them to do so. The work was entrusted to Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries and hence they undertook the dredging work of the river after calling for the tenders. The total cost of the project was Rs.6.46 Crores and tender was given to M/s. Yojaka* Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore. The dredging was proposed for a distance of 3.12 KM, width of 30 meters, depth of 2.5 meters and no mining on commercial scale was carried out at any point of time. The work was stopped since more than a year based on the objections raised by the CRZ authorities (KSCZMA).
As per the Executive Engineer, Contractor has diverted the entire dredged materials to fill up a part of the Sita river back water violating the CRZ Notification 2011. The contractor has done this dumping as per the demands of the local people and this way they have reclaimed about 5.9 acres of additional land. It was also reported that Department of Minor Irrigation have formed the protective bund at this location to prevent washing away of the dredged sand and constructed the road on the reclaimed land, violating CRZ Notification, 2011.10
It was further learnt through the Regional Director (Environment) that there is no provision under CRZ Notification for reclamation of land as it becomes river encroachment. In this peculiar case, authorities have not obtained any permission from CRZ authorities neither for dredging nor for dumping the dredged material in the river and violated the CRZ Notification. Based on these violations KSCZMA has issued notice under Section of 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), Minor Irrigation, Udupi District and to Executive Engineer (EE), Dept. Of Ports and Fisheries asking why criminal case shall not be filed against the violators.
As per EIA Notification 2006, which is amended in 2009, dredging activity requires Environmental Clearance (EC), whereas, Maintenance dredging is exempted from EC provided it formed part of the original proposal for which Environment Management Plan (EMP) was prepared and environmental clearance obtained. Further, Ministry issued an amendment to EIA Notification, 2006 issued vide SO 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 on certain issues which also exempts requirement of EC for certain activities including "Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, up keep and disaster management". However, this notification was challenged before the Hon‟ble NGT and Hon‟ble NGT vide its order dated 13.09.2018 in O.A. No.186/2016 has directed the MoEF & CC to revise the procedures laid down in the impugned Notification dated 15.01.2016.
There is allegation on destruction of Kandla trees by way of dredging. Also, the petitioner has questioned the act of filling up of Sy. No.88/112 of the river with dredged material and alleged that this will cause heavy soil erosion of eastern and western side of the Site river affecting his agricultural land and posing danger to the coconut trees on either side of the river. That the extra saline water that get filled up in the river due to deepening process will cause salt water instruction in their wells making the wells unfit for drinking or agricultural purpose.
Based on the discussion held in the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner directed all the concerned Departments and the members of the committee to provide the necessary details/factual report to the Member Convenor at the earliest possible time so as to enable to compile the information and prepare the report to be submitted to the Hon‟ble NGT. Meeting proceedings is enclosed as Annexure -3.
1.0 Spot Inspection Details:
Subsequent to the meeting, Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division lead the committee Chairman, members and other invites for site inspection of the location in question. All the officials who were present in the meeting joined the said inspection. The detailed observations of site inspection are as follows:
1.1 Location Details:11
Map A) A view of Sita River where proposed dredging in under taken (Dredging Channgel, Kodi Kanyana jetty and area of the river filled up by the contractor are seen):
Map B) Magnified view of the filled up area of the river (5.9 acres of river reclaimed) - bund and road formation are seen.
1.2 Physical Observations made during inspection:
There is a Jetty at Kodi Kanyan Village which is actually dead end of Sita river back water. This Jetty belongs to Dept. Of Fisheries, Udupi. The Dept. had further planned to undertake the construction of a T-shaped jetty at this place to facilitate the surrounding fishermen.
For this purpose, they wanted to dredge 3.12 KM length from mouth of the river (Hangarkatte) to the Kodi Kanyan Jetty, the dredging channel is shown in may "A" above with the red line. The work was given to Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi.
But, Authorities of Ports and Fisheries undertook dredging work without obtaining clearance from any authorities, including MoEF & CC and CRZ authorities.
As can be seen in the map "B", dredged materials were dumped on western side corner of the river beside road in violation of CRZ Notification 2011. About 5.9 Acres of river portion was reclaimed. Dept. Of Minor Irrigation has done the work of construction of bunds and roads on the reclaimed land to prevent the dredged materials from getting washed away due to tidal effect. This area of the river is found to be rich in natural Mangroves and prawn breeding area (ecologically sensitive). Natural mangroves seem to have been destroyed during filling up of the river. Also, the authorities have caused damage to the river flow in violation of CRZ Notification 2011.
Dredging work was not going on during inspection. CRZ authorities reported to have issued notice under section 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 to EE, Ports and Fisheries and AEE, Minor Irrigation after noticing the violations and after continuous follow up with the violators, the work is stopped.
Some of the Photos of the location taken during inspection are enclosed as Annexure - 4 for kind perusal of the Hon‟ble Court.
5.0 Detailed Reports from each of the Concerned Departments:
The Chairman of the committee directed to obtain detailed reports from each of the concerned Departments including the action taken reports for violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011 for KSCZMA and requirement of EC from MoEF&CC. Gist of the reports of each Department is discussed below:
5.1 Report of Sr. Asst. Director of Fisheries, Udupi:
As per Department of Fisheries, Udupi, a fishing jetty of 100 meter was constructed in Kodi Kanyana Village at the 12 end of the back water to provide berthing facilities for about 300 fishing boats in the year 2009-10. This had helped the local boat owners, crew members and fishermen. Prior to construction of this jetty, boat owner in and around Kodi Kanyana Village were using Malpe and Gangaolli fishing harbour. Now, the local fishermen, boat owners and crew are using this jetty effectively.
Hence, based on the reports of CICEF, Bangalore and CWPRS, Pune, Government took a decision to dredge the bar month which helps the boats for safe entry to jetty and exit from jetty, accordingly, sanctioned dredging work of Sita river for navigation of fishing boats from Hangarkatte river mouth to Kodi Kanyana Jetty for a length of 3.12 KM and width of 30 meters at a depth of 2.5 meters at the cost of Rs.646 Lakhs under Central Govt. fund to facilitate the boats for safe berthing. Along with this, there is also plan to bridge 120 meter x 160 meter area in front of Kodi Kanyana Jetty. The civil work is handed over to Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries, Engineering Division, Udupi. The approved work is only dredging in the middle of Sita river for the movement of fishing boats.
As per the Sr. Asst. Director of Fisheries, along the coast of Karnataka around 8 fishing harbours and 23 fish landing centres and constructed and dredging work are carried out as and when required, but, no complaints on drinking water wells getting filled with saline water, soil erosion, etc., are received. In fact, by dredging the above said area, free water flow can be maintained during rainy season as well as during high tide and low tide time.
Detailed report from Department of Fisheries is enclosed as Annexure - 5.
5.2 Report from Executive Engineer (EE), Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi:
As per the EE, Ports and Fisheries Division, for the movement of fishing of boats from Kodi Kanayan Fishing jetty to sea mouth throughout the channel are affected by filling of sand and silt. Therefore, as per the request of the Dept. Of Fisheries, dredging proposal for the smooth movement of fishing boats was proposed under maintenance dredging for a draft of about 2.5 meters depth. This project is purely dredging for the smooth movement of fishing boat not a sand mining project.
As per the EE, Ports and Fisheries, Estimated amount of work was Rs.6.46 Crores Contract was given to M/s Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore Bathymetric survey done in March 2017 Dredging work started 14.04.2017.
Proposed Length of the channel to be dredged: 3.12 KM Width of the dredged channel: 30 meter Depth of the dredged channel: -2.5 meter Length of the already dredged channel: 535 meter Contractor stopped the dredging work: 21.02.2018. Dredged quantity: 47,155.82 Cu.m.
Remaining dredging quantity: 1,95,396.70 Cu.m. Further, Kodi Fishermen‟s Co-Operative Society request to dump the dredged material on the unused places near Kodi Kanyana, this place has been improved by constructing earthen bund with granite stone revetment by Minor Irrigation 13 Department and per the request of Fishermen for the development of Fisheries for their own fishing activities.
As this was in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011, KSCZMA have issued notice to the EE, Ports and fisheries Division as per section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and accordingly EE, Ports and Fisheries also has issued notices to the contractor to clear the dredged materials from dumped places to deep sea.
In subsequent meetings held at various levels, the contractor has been clearly instructed to shift all the collected dredged materials from river bank to deep sea as early as possible. But, the contractor has failed to do so. Later, the said work was stopped from 21.02.2018.
Subsequently, on 09.01.2018, they have made application for CRZ clearance. They have further taken decision to dredge the remaining work from Hangarakette river mouth on 14.02.2019 up to 26.03.2019. As the Regional Director, (Environment) object to continue the Project without CRZ clearance; they stopped the work and applied for CRZ clearance on 28.03.2019. To continue with, they submitted the Rapid EIA study report on 15.10.2019 and CRZ clearance is under progress.
Detailed report from the Executive Engineer, Ports and fisheries is enclosed as Annexure - 6.
5.3 Report of Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Kundapura:
As per the DFO, Kundapura, Mangrove plantation has not been raised by Forest Department in the location in question, however, comparing the satellite images of the location from Google 2017 and 2018, naturally grown Mangrove Plants along the bank of the river seems to have been damaged.
Detailed reports of Divisional Forest Officer, along with the Google images are produced as Annexure -7.
5.4 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC):
EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 as amended on 01.12.2009 mandates capital dredging inside or outside the ports and harbours and channels prior EC and it exempts maintenance dredging, provided it formed the part of original proposal for which EMP was prepared and EC obtained.
Further, amendment dated 15.01.2016 exempts requirement of EC for certain activities including "Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management". However, this notification was challenged before the Hon‟ble NGT and Hon‟ble NGT vide its order dated 13.09.2018 in O.A. No.186/2016 had directed the MoEF and CC to revise the procedures laid down in the impugned Notification dated 15.01.2016.
It is reported by the EE, Ports and Fisheries, that as per the request of the Dept. of Fisheries, dredging work of Sita river for navigation of fishing boats from Hangarkatte 14 river mouth to KodiKanyana Jetty for a length of 3.12 KM and width of 30 meters at a depth of -2.5 meters was undertaken on 14.04.2017 and work was stopped from 21st February 2018. Part of the work was again started by the EE, Ports and Fisheries Division, from 14.02.2019 and ended on 26.03.2019; this was from the Hangarkatte river mouth to the upstream of the river towards the Jetty. From above and learnt from discussion that the dredging was carried out to create a navigation channel as navigation was not possible during low tide. And it was not for removal of silts/sediments to restore the original depth of the channel. Therefore, it may fall under capital dredging. Accordingly, it required prior EC under the EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments. Hence, there is violation of the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006 and its subsequent amendments by the authorities.
Detailed Note of MoEF and CC in this regard is enclosed as Annexure - 8.
5.5 Report of Department of Minor Irrigation:
As per the AEE, Minor Irrigation, they have carried out the development activity of construction of bund and road (400 meters) to protect the land at river bank of KodiKanyana as per the sanctioned work. The proposed work was started on 10.01.2018 and completed on 14.03.2018. The work has been carried out as per the requirement of fishermen and as per the need of the local people to protect the land. As per the AEE, there were no Mangrove Plantations at the work place.
Regional Director, Environment has observed this violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and issued notice dated 17.09.2019. They have replied to this notice vide letter No.1033 dated 04.09.2019 informing that they have done bund work, boulder filling and revetment to protect the land in the interest of the local public and local fishermen and all efforts were made by their office to protect the environment.
As per the work order submitted by the authorities, the work has been taken up under the head - Flood Protection Works for an estimated cost of Rs.50 Lakhs for bund length of 400 M. The report says that river bank was eroded and if it‟s left unattended, it will cause damage to the surrounding agricultural land and hence required to protect it with the protective bund.
Report furnished by the AEE, Minor Irrigation is enclosed as Annexure - 9.
6.0 Report from Regional Director (Environment), Udupi:
On 16.12.2017 a complaint was received from villagers of Irodi village regarding carrying out the dredging work in Sita river in Kodi and Irodi village limits.
On the basis, the site was inspected and found that dredging work is in progress in the backwaters of the Sita river which falls within the CRZ limits, which is zone IV B as per CRZ Notification 2011. And the dredged material was stored at western side corner of the river beside bridge and road reclaiming the river portion. Upon enquiry it was learnt that work order was issued by Executed by Executive Engineer, 15 Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi through the agency M/s Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore.
The Compliant has also filed a case before the Hon. National Green Tribunal, Chennai in Application No, 71 of 2017. The area where dredging is done falls in zone IV B, the area where dredged material is stored falls in zone I, III and IV. Since prior permission was not taken for the said activity, this is a clear violation as per para 4.2, 3, 7(i) CRZ-IA, 8 I CRZ-I, 8 III and 8 IV of CRZ Notification 2011. Hence, Regional Director (Environment) Udupi issued notice on 14.08.2018 to Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi to stop the work and submit explanation for non-compliance of CRZ notification for carrying out dredging work in the backwaters of Sita river.
In reply to the notice, Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi, submitted the documents related to the work regarding allotment of funds and tender documents and stated that the tendered agency is carrying out the work and temporarily they have stored the dredged material beside the road. They have requested the agency to remove the material from the site and to dump it in deep sea, but till date the agency has not removed the material from the dumped site. Further in the later stage, Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Udupi have constructed stone bunds around the reclaimed land. During the process, they have destroyed some mangroves trees on western side. Regional Director (Environment), Udupi issued notice to Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Udupi to stop the work and submit explanation for non- compliance of CRZ Notification.
Sport mahazar was done on 07.03.2018 regarding the activity taken up and the detailed report was done. It was found that approximately 5.9 acres of river portion was reclaimed and around the reclaimed area stone bund was built and road formation was done on the bund to an extent of 282 meters.
The issue was discussed in District Coastal Zone Management Committee meeting held on 15.09.2018. As it was observed that the agencies have violated the CRZ norms, the committee recommended to Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority to take necessary action against the violators.
This was discussed in Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority meeting held on 03.07.2019. Since prior permission was not taken for the said activity, it was considered as violation and notice issued under Sec. 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi and Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub - Division, Udupi seeking explanation.
On 13.09.2019, Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi replied to Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority as follows:
i. The said work is approved under Centrally Sponsored Scheme to dredge the sand from backwaters of Sita river. So, the Department has given the work order to the successful bidder namely M/s. Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd. Mangalore on 14.02.2017 to carryout the work within 12 months.16
ii. Accordingly, M/s Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore dredged 47155.00 Cu.M. of sand from backwaters of Sita river and instead of dumping the dredged material to deep sea they have stored the material on river shore as per the request of local fishermen society. Later, Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Udupi constructed stone wall around dumped area. Since the Regional Director (Environment) Udupi issued notice to stop the work, the work was stopped on 27.03.2019.
iii. On 28.03.2019 Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi have submitted the proposal to accord permission to Regional Director (Environment), Udupi to carryout the dredging work. Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi also mentioned that they were not aware of the CRZ rules and requested to close the violation case and not to initiate any action in this regard.
iv. On 04.09.2019 Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub - Division, Udupi submitted the reply to Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority that they have taken up this work in public interest to protect agriculture land from erosion and salt water ingression and not with any other intention and requested not to consider this as violation and close the case.
6.1 Action taken by KSCZMA:
KSCZMA in its meeting held on 14.02.2020 has considered the issue as clear violation of the provisions of CRZ notification 2011 and decided to file criminal case as per section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against violators and also decided to direct the violators to submit a detailed study report regarding Environmental loss occurred due to their respective actions and also to bring back the area to its original condition by removing the dredged sand and bunds.
Report from Regional Director (Environment) is enclosed as Annexure 10.
7.0 Report of Department of Mines and Geology, Udupi:
As per the report submitted by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Udupi, the authorities of EE, Ports and Fisheries have not taken up any type of sand mining in that part of Sita River and they have not removed any sand bars in the river during dredging operations. Neither, Mines and Geology have given any permission for sand mining in that part of the river.
8.0 Overall Observations of the Committee Department of Fisheries, Udupi, had built a fishing jetty for 100 meters in KodiKanyana Village at the end of the back water of Sita River to provide berthing facilities for about 300 fishing boats in the year 2009-10. To make safe entry and exist of boats to and from the jetty, they proposed to take up dredging from the mouth of the river until jetty at a cost of Rs.6.46 crores.
The civil work was handed over to Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries, Engineering Division.
17 Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries has called for the tenders and given the work order of dredging for a 3.12 KM distance with a width of 30 meter and -2.5 meter depth to the successful bidder M/s. Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore on 14.02.2017. The contractor has conducted the pre-level bathymetric survey on March 2017 and started the dredging from 14.04.2017.
As per the request of local people, contractor has used the dredged material to fill the river back water and resulting in the reclamation of new piece of land and in total violation of CRZ Notification 2011.
Subsequently, AEE, Dept. of Minor Irrigation. Udupi sub division have constructed protection bund and road in the same area to prevent the dredged materials being washed away by the tidal effects, thus, the authorities have filled up a part of the river reclaiming 5.9 acres of land. They have carried out the entire work in the name of protecting the river from flooding and soil erosion, but, in reality they have made the area more prone to flooding by blocking and changing the course of the river.
Report given by the Regional Director (Environment) shows clearly two Google Maps of the location during 2017 and 2018. In the 2017 map, the location was clearly river itself and in 2018 map, the location is filled up and converted to a new piece of land. The two maps are put up here for quick perusal in Figure -1.
As can be seen from the two pictures, the authorities have clearly filled up the ecologically sensitive area of the river violating the CRZ Notification, 2011. Hence, KSCZMA has issued notice asking why criminal case shall not be filled as per provisions of section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to EE, Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi and AEE, Minor Irrigation, Udupi and Sr. Asst. Director, Fisheries, Udupi seeking explanation from the concerned officers. EE, Ports and Fisheries started acting on the notice on latter dates and stopped this part of dredging work from 21.02.2018 and applied for CRZ clearance. However, started the dredging work again on 14.02.2019 from the side of Hangarkatte river mouth towards upstream again violating the CRZ Notification 2011. Subsequently, this work was also stopped from 26.03.2019.
Total length of already dredged channel is 535 meters against the estimated 3.12 KM, dreged quantity is 47,155 Cu.M. and balance dredging to be taken is 1,95,396.70 Cu.M. EE, Ports and Fisheries have filled application of CRZ clearance on 28.03.2019 and rapid EIA study report on 15.10.2019 to Regional Director (Environment), Udupi. AEE, Minor Irrigation has submitted his reply to the notice of the KSCZMA issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 saying that they have constructed the bunds and roads in the location in question to protect the soil erosion and not done any harm to the environment and that there were no mangroves in the location and done the work in the interest of public.
However, as seen from the Google images furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura, there were Mangroves which were grown naturally due to tidal effect and the same is destroyed by the said activity.
Regional Director (Environment) also makes it very clear that authorities have filled up of the river (ecologically sensitive 18 zone) itself and reclaimed about 5.9 acres of land, thereby disturbing the river course and destroying and Mangroves and breeding of other fish species in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011.
The pictures produced from Regional Director (Environment) show clearly the location to the breeding ground for various fishing species (ecologically sensitive). The authorities of Minor Irrigation have cut many mangroves and thrown on the sides, on the neighbouring land.
The dredging was carried out to create a navigation channel as navigation was not possible during low tide. And it was not for removal of silts/sediments to restore the original depth of the channel. Therefore, it may fall under Capital dredging. Accordingly, it required prior EC under the EIA Notification, 2006 and it‟s amendments. Hence, there is lapse on the part of the Ports and Fisheries in this respect. There is clear violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 by the authorities of EE, Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi and AEE, Minor Irrigation, Udupi. Violation is for not only taking up the dredging work without prior CRZ clearance and EC, but, also, filing up the area of river falling under ecologically sensitive zone, construction of bunds and roads in CRZ-I A area of the river and reclaiming 5.9 acres of land, thereby changing the river course and being responsible for making the area more prone to flooding.
Regarding apprehension that the extra saline water that gets filled up in the river due to deepening process will cause salt water intrusion in the wells in their surrounding villages, it is to be informed that the salt water intrusion can happen only when there is over exploitation of ground water in the coastal belt and not due to standing of saline water in the river channel.
9.0 Conclusion i. Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division, has taken up the dredging work and expansion of the KodiKanyana Jetty without obtaining necessary clearances under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments from time to time.
The authority has violated the provisions of the said Notifications not only in terms of obtaining necessary Clearances, but, also, by being responsible for dumping of dredged materials to fill up part of the river (falling under ecologically sensitive zone) and damaging the Mangrove buffer zone and fish breeding (CRZ-I A) area. ii. Office of the Asst. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Udupi has constructed of the bund and road on the encroached land formed due to dumping of dredged materials, i.e., in the CRZ I-A (ecologically sensitive Mangrove buffer zone and fish breeding) area in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011. They have been responsible for changing the river course, damaging the Mangroves and fish breeding ground and causing the area more prone of floods.
iii. Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) in their meeting held on 14.02.2020 has considered the above issues as clear violation of the provisions of CRZ Notification 2011 and decided to file criminal case against the violators (Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division and Asst. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Udupi) as per section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also decided to direct the violators 19 to submit a detailed study report regarding Environmental loss occurred due to their respective actions and also to bring back the area to its original state by removing the dredging sand and bunds. Copy of the meeting proceedings (English translation) enclosed as Annexure - 11.
iv. Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division Udupi shall comply with the requirements under EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments and CRZ Notification 2011 before recommencing the dredging work."
11. Thereafter, this Tribunal passed the following order:
5.It is seen from the report of the committee that there are a lot of violations committed in respect of CRZ Notification, 2011 and also EIA Notification, 2006 and also there is destruction of Mangroves and reclamation of portion of the river in Coastal Regulation Zone without getting necessary permission from the Coastal Zone Management Authority leading to diversion of the course of the river.
6.It is also seen from the report that Coastal Zone Management Authority had already initiated proceedings against the violators and they have not submitted the final outcome of the same.
7.Further, the committee has not considered the question of damage caused to the environment and also they have not assessed the environmental compensation for the degradation caused including the remedial measures to restore to its original position. This exercise will have to be done by the committee and they cannot leave it to the violators to assess the same.
8.So, the committee is directed to assess the environmental damage caused and assess the environmental compensation payable and also the remedial measures to be taken for restoring the damage caused to the environment as well. For this purpose, we grant two months time. In the mean time, party respondents are at liberty to file their objections to the committee report.
9.Learned counsel appearing for the State official respondents submitted that they did not receive the copy of the report.
10.Sri. Thirunavukarasu who is appearing for one of the members of the committee submitted that he will forward the copy of the report to the Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents.
12. On 06.10.2020, this Tribunal had considered the letter from Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Joint Committee dated 28.09.2020 which was extracted in para 4 of the order and reads as follows:
4. We have received a letter from the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the committee dated 28.09.2020 which reads as follows:-
"PCB/RO(UDUPI)/NGT(SB)/OA71/2020/824 Date:28.09.2020.
To Registrar, 20 National Green Tribunal (SB), Kalas Mahal, Kamarajar Salai, PWD Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 005.
Dear Sir, Sub: Assessment of Environmental damage and environmental compensation payable as per the Hon‟ble NGT order dated 15.06.2020 in O.A. No.71 of 2017 - dredging of silca sand and soil in Sita river, Udupi Taluk and District Reg.
Ref: 1) Hon‟ble NGT order in O.A. No.71 dated 06.01.2020 appointing a committee and subsequent issue of OM by KSPCB, Bangalore vide order No.PCB/SEO/MIN/NGT/2019- 20/5756 dated 31.01.2020.
2) Submission of the Committee report on 12.05.2020
3) Hon‟ble NGT order dated 15.06.2020 in O.A.71
4) Letter addressed to all the concerned members of the committee to seeking methodology for assessment of environmental damage dated 24.07.2020.
5) Letter from Department of Forest, Divisional Office, Kundapura, vide dated 17.08.2020.
6) Letter from Regional Office, MoEF and CC vide No.414 dated 18.08.2020
7) Hon‟ble NGT order dated 01.09.2020 in O.A. No.71 ***** With reference to the above subject, Hon‟ble NGT (SB) in its order at reference (1) above has appointed a committee to look into the issue of silica dredging at Sita river in Udupi Taluk and district under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner and with members from Dept. of Mines and Geology, Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapur, Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority, Bangalore, Regional Office of MoEF and CC, Bangalore, Engineer from Water Resource Department, Udupi, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bangalore and nodal agency as Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). The committee has submitted its report before the Hon‟ble NGT 21 (SB) along with its finds and recommendations vide reference (2).
Hon‟ble NGT, after going through the said report vide reference (3), has made the following observations:
..... "7. Further, the committee has not considered the question of damage caused to the environment and also they have not assessed the environmental compensation for the degradation caused including the remedial measures to restore its original position. The exercise will have to be done by the committee and they cannot leave it to the violators to assess the same.
8. So, the committee is directed to assess the environmental damage caused and assess the environmental compensation payable and also the remedial measures to be taken for restoring the damage caused to the environment as well. For this purpose, we grant two months time..."
It is submitted before the Hon‟ble NGT that due to severe Covid-19 situations in the state and few members being outside the district, it was not convenient to call the members for any meeting. However, as observed in the committee report, the violations were with respect to CRZ issues, destruction of natural mangroves and compliance to EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments. Hence, it was decided to address letters to concerned Departments such as KSCZMA, Bangalore, Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Bangalore and Dept. of Forest, Kundapura Division, Udupi seeking any methodologies available with them for assessment of environmental damage in this particular case and letter was addressed vide ref (4) above.
Among the three Departments, only Dept. of Forest, Kundapura has replied positively to the above letter vide reference (5) above and communicated the assessment of damage caused due to destruction of mangroves. DFO has estimated the cost of rebuilding the mangroves in the region where the Dept. of Minor Irrigation has built the bunds across the river and this is equal to Rs.5,27,200/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Two hundred only). This is done considering the costs at the current rate for the year 2020-2021. Other two Departments, namely; KSCZMA and MoEF & CC have informed that they do not have any 22 methodology available with them for coastal area damage assessment and monetary compensation quantification. Because of this reason, the committee has not been able to complete the task of assessment of environmental compensation in this particular case.
Further, it is learnt through the order of the Hon‟ble NGT Vide reference (7) that the above matter has been posted for final hearing on 6th October 2020.
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted before the Hon‟ble NGT that the members in the committee do not have appropriate back ground for assessing the coastal area damage and quantification of Environmental loss. For this purpose, experts in the coastal areas/CRZ issues may be required, possibly from institutes like National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Monitoring (NCSCM), Chennai, National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) Chennai and NEERI, Nagpur, along with another representation from Central Pollution Control Board. Hence, it is the sincere appeal before the Hon‟ble NGT to issue an order incorporating the experts in the committee as above. The above facts are humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble NGT for kind perusal and favourable consideration. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Committee"
13. Thereafter, this Tribunal had passed the following order:
5.However, unfortunately when the Regional Office, MoEF&CC has been included along with the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) in the committee, the District Collector has come with a request that they are not able to assess the environmental compensation as they have no experts in the office of the members of the committee constituted by this Tribunal.
6.They wanted assistance of any one of the institutions like National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Monitoring (NCSCM), Chennai, National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai and National Environmental Engineer Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur and also a representative from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in the committee for carrying out the directions of this Tribunal for assessment of environmental compensation.
7.The committee should have co-opted any such expert on their own instead of asking for the indulgence of this Tribunal for this purpose. However, in order to save time, we feel that a Senior Scientist from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Regional 23 Office, Bangalore and a Senior Officer from National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai are included as additional members of the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal as per order dated 06.01.2020 for the purpose of carrying out the directions given by us as per order dated 15.06.2020.
8.The committee is directed to submit the report as directed by this Tribunal as per order dated 15.06.2020 on or before 25.11.2020 by e-filing along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules. They are also directed to serve the copy of the same to the counsel appearing for the parties in this matter.
14. The matter was taken up on 25.02.2021 and on that date this Tribunal had considered the Joint Committee report signed by the members of which two of them put their signature with the date 13.01.2021 received on 23.01.2021 which was extracted in para 4 of the order and reads as follows:
"Estimation of Environmental Compensation in OA No. 71/2017 of Hon‟ble NGT (SZ), regarding indiscriminate & unscientific dredging in river Seeta of Udupitaluk & district.
Petitioners: Sri. Thomas Rodrigues and others Respondents: Deputy Commissioner &Ors.,
1. Background The Petitioners, Sri. Thomas Rodrigues &Ors have filed objections before Hon‟ble NGT in OA No. 71 of 2017 (SZ) about dredging of Silica sand and soil etc in Seeta river located at Kodi and Irody village Udupi taluk and dist.
While hearing the said Original Application No 71 of 2017 (SZ), the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Bench has passed an order dated 06/01/2020 and directed, "... It is appropriate to get a status report regarding the allegations mentioned in this petition. Accordingly, we appoint a Committee consisting of District Collector, Udupi District, Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura, Udupi Dist., Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,, the Coastal Zone Management Authority, Karnataka, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Department of Mines and Geology, Senior Officer from Regional office, MoEF, Bangalore, Engineer, Water Resource Department, Udupi and State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. KSPCB will be the nodal unit and will submit the status report regarding the allegations made and during inspection if it is found that there are any violations of the directions given by this tribunal or in violation of the prevailing laws in this regard, then they are also directed to take necessary action against the violators and submit a status and action taken report to this tribunal within two months."
In compliance to Hon‟ble NGT order, the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) constituted a committee vide Office Memorandum (OM) No. PCB /SEO/MIN/NGT/2019-20/5756 dated 31-01-2020 consisting of the following members:
Sl.No Name & Designation Details 24 1 The District Collector, Udupi District Chairman 2 Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura Member Division, Udupi 3 The Zonal Senior Environmental Member Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mangaluru 4 Senior Officer from Regional Office, Member Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, South Zone Office, Kendriya Sadan,4th Floor, E & F Wings, 17th Main Road, 2nd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru -560 034 5 State Level Environment Impact Member Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Karnataka, (Ecology & Environment), Department of Forest Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka, Room No. 709, 7th Floor, 4th gate, MS building, Bengaluru-560 001 6 Karnataka State Coastal Zone Member Management Authority, Room No. 448, 4th floor, II gate, M S Building, Bangalore-560 001 7 Department of Mines and Geology, Member Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore 8 The Engineer, Water Resource Member Department, Udupi Dist. 9 Environmental Officer, KSPCB, Udupi Member Convener
The Joint Committee inspected the site, examined the matter in details and submitted the report before Hon‟ble Tribunal. Considering the reports submitted by the committee, the Hon‟ble NGT, vide order dated 15/06/2020 and dated 6/10/2020 directed as follows (Annexure 1 & 2):
"...So, the committee is directed to assess the environmental damage caused and assess the environmental compensation payable and also the remedial measures to be taken for restoring the damage caused to the environment as well. For this purpose, we grant two months‟ time".
"... a senior scientist from the Central Pollution Control Board Regional Office, Bengaluru and a Senior Officer from National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai are included as additional members of the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal as per order dt 06/01/2020 for the purpose of carrying out the directions given by us as per order dt 15/06/2020".
Accordingly, the following officials were nominated from the CPCB and NIOT as additional members to the Joint Committee:
Sl.No Name & Designation Details
25
1 Dr. Vijaya Ravichandran, Scientist G, Expert
National Institute of
Member
Ocean Technology , Chennai
2 Smt. Sowmya D, Scientist D, Central Expert
Pollution control Board,
Member
Regional Directorate (South), Bengaluru 2.0 Online meeting of the Committee with expert members:
The joint committee conducted the meeting with the expert members through online on November 12, 2020 for discussing the environmental damage caused due to dredging in Seeta River and estimation of environmental compensation. During the meeting, it was brought to the notice of the Committee that Hon‟ble NGT (PB) while examining the illegal sand mining cases from riverbeds in different states, in OA no. 360/2015 (13 clubbed cases) had constituted a Committee to look in to the assessment of Environmental compensation. The Committee had presented the final report to the Hon‟ble NGT titled as, "Recommendations of scale of compensation to deal with the cases of illegal sand mining" dated 30th January 2020, wherein the framework for assessing the value of ecological damage due to illegal sand mining was developed. Though in the present case of OA No. 71/2017, it was only sand dredging and the dredged sand was not sold, the Committee decided to adopt the same methodology, since the authorities concerned have dredged the river beds without any clearances from either CRZ authorities or MoEF and CC and there are no other methodologies available for such cases. The Committee agreed to the above and requested the expert members to provide the methodology. The minutes of the said meeting is enclosed at Annexure 3.
Experts submitted the methodology to the committee on 27.11.2020 vide Annexure-4. However, amount of rupees per ton of the sand removed and cost of restoration of the dumped site was to be decided and as such, another meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, during which time, Dept. of Mines and Geology was asked to furnish the rate to be charged for the dredged material and also to get the quality analysis of the material dredged. Proceedings of the meeting are enclosed as Annexure-5.
In the meantime, Dept. of Mines and Geology has submitted the rate of sand to the Committee vide letter dated 14.12.2020 and based on this, the estimation of environmental compensation is done as below:
Estimating Environmental Compensation:
Methodology: As reported in the earlier paragraphs. the environmental compensation for capital dredging is calculated based on the method described in the final report on "Recommendations on scale of compensation to deal with the cases of illegal sand mining" dt 30/01/2020 submitted to the Hon‟ble NGT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the matte of OA 360/2015, National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs Virendra Singh (State of Gujarat). The Approach 1: Direct compensation based on the market value of extraction, adjusted for ecological damage is adopted in the present case as follow:
Compensation Charge (Rs) = D * (1+RF+DF) Where, D = Z * Market value of the material per MT or M3 X = Permitted quantity of material extraction in MT or M3 Y = Total 26 quantity of material extracted in MT or M3 Z= Y - X; excess material extracted in MT or M3 Z/X = Excedance in extraction Deterrence factor (DF) = 0.3 if Z/X = 0.11 to 0.4 0.6 if Z/X = 0.41 to 0.7 1 if Z/X >= 0.71 Risk factor (RF) = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 as per the extent of severity of damage and ecological fragility of the river basin Severity of Mild Moderate Significant Severe Impact Risk level 1 2 3 4 Risk Factor 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Severity of impact: Severity of impact of illegal mining case to be categorised as mild or moderate or significant or severe for various components of the river and highest value to be used.
Sl River Impact Impact Severity Risk Risk component (sub of level factor Category) Impact 1 Morphology Instability of Bed channel degradation geometry Channel adjustment Bank erosion 2 Hydrology Ground water Change of level ground water table in adjacent area Change in Variation in flow river flow Energy 3 Ecology Loss of local Disturbance ecological to flora community Disturbance to fauna 4 River Instability to Damage to structures Hydraulic Hydraulic structure Structure and its surrounding 5 Any Other The estimation of environmental compensation in the present case consists of following components:
i) Environmental compensation for dredging carried out in 535 metre length in Seeta river without obtaining necessary clearances under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and EIA Notification 2006.
ii) Environmental compensation for dumping of 47,155 M3 of dredged materials to fill up part of the Seeta river and reclaiming about 5.9 acres of land in the CRZ (ecologically sensitive Mangrove buffer zone and fish breeding) area.
iii) Restoration cost of the 5.9 acres of reclaimed land a. Removal of dredged materials stored at 5.9 acres 27 b. Removal of bund constructed around stored dredged material c. Cost of restoration of mangrove Environmental Compensation estimation for dredging in River Seeta and reclaiming 5.9 acres of the river:
(i) Quantity of Material extracted due to dredging and Deterrence factor:
As per the report from Executive Engineer (EE), Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi, the dredging was carried out in 535 metre stretch of river Seeta during 14/04/2017 to 21/02/2018. During the period, 47,155 M3 or 80,163 MT of dredged material was removed from the river bed.
As per the report of MoEF and CC, "The dredging was carried out to create a navigation channel as navigation was not possible during low tide. And it was not for removal of silts/ sediments to restore the original depth of the channel. Therefore, it may fall under Capital dredging. Accordingly, it required prior EC under the EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments. Hence, there is violation of the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006 and its subsequent amendments by the authorities".
As the prior EC under the EIA Notification, 2006 was not obtained, the entire quantity of 47,155 M3 of material removed from the river bed is considered as excess quantity of extraction (Z) and Deterrence factor (DF) as 1.
i) Amount per MT of sand:
As per Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, rate of sand per MT is Rs:- 30/-(Rupees thirty only) as provided by Dept. of Mines and Geology (Annexure 6). is used as conversion factor for M3 to MT of sand.
ii) Severity of the impact and Risk factor (RF):
The risk factor reflects the severity of the ecological damage at the field site and accounts for the extent of severity of damage using a four point scale of mild, moderate, significant and severe risk based on the ecological fragility of the river basin.
Considering the ecological sensitivity and influence on morphology of the river and bar formations in the mouth factor, following severity of impact, risk level and risk factor are assigned:
Sl River Impact Impact Severity Risk Risk
component ( of Impact level factor
sub
Category)
1 Morphology Instability Bed degradation Nil
of channel
Channel adjustment Significant 3 0.75
geometry
caused
due to dumping of
dredged material in
5.6 acres in CRZ I-
A
Bank erosion Nil
2 Hydrology Ground Change of ground Nil
water level water table inadjacent area
28
Change Variation in flow Mild 1 0.25
energy - caused due
inriver flow to dumping of
dredged material in
5.6 acres
3 Ecology Loss Disturbance to flora Severe 4 1
- Removal of
oflocal Mangrove plants in
ecological CRZ I-A
community
Disturbance tofauna
Severe
- Destroying4 1
5.9 acres of
fishbreeding
area in
CRZ I-A
4 River Instability Damage toHydraulic
Nil Structure and its
structures to surrounding
Hydraulic
structure
5 Any Other
For estimation of environmental compensation, the highest factor of severity of impact and risk factor i.e., 1 is considered.
iii) Environmental Compensation Charge (Rs) = D * (1+RF+DF) = 47,155*1.7 * 30 * (1+1+1) =Rs. 72, 14, 715/-
Restoration cost:
The following measures are suggested for restoration of 5.9 acres of reclaimed land in Seeta River:
a) Removing and disposing the stored dredged material with suitable method and restore the area back to river.
a.Removal of the bund and road constructed around the stored dredged material.
b. Restoration of the mangrove plantation. Accordingly, the cost of restoration is estimated as follows:
a. Cost of removal of dredged material dumped at 5.9 acres The total quantity of dredged material dumped for reclaiming 5.9 acres of river is 47,155 M3. As per the approved rates by Superintendent Engineer, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department, vide letter dated 01/08/2019, the rate for dredging all types of soils, pebbles, soft rocks etc (Sl.No. 4) is Rs. 234/- per cubic meter (Annexure 7).
The estimated cost for removal of dredged material stored at 5.9 acres is, 47,155* 234=Rs. 1, 10, 34,270/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs thirty four thousand and two hundred seventy only) b. Cost of removal of bund constructed As per the cost estimate of the river protection work carried out near Kodikanyana Bridge, provided by Minor Irrigation and Ground water Department, Sub Division, Udupi vide letter dated 29 04/03/2020, the quantity of new embankment provided is 6930 M3 (Annexure 8). The schedule of rates for the year 2018-19, Minor Irrigation Circle, Mysore for removal and hauling of all kinds of soil/soft rocks as per Item No. 52a is Rs 186/- per cubic meter (Annexure 9).
The estimated cost of removal of bund is, 6930*186= Rs. 12, 88,980/- (Rupees twelve lakhs eighty eight thousand and nine hundred eighty only).
c.Cost of restoration of mangroves The Dept of Forest, Kundapura has estimated the cost of rebuilding the mangroves in the region where Dept of Minor Irrigation has built the bunds across the river is equal to Rs. 5, 27,200/- (Rupees Five lakhs twenty seven thousand and two hundred only).Enclosed Annexure-9.
4. Total cost of Environmental Compensation:
Sl Environmental damage/Restoration Amount (Rs) 1 Environmental damage cost 72, 14, 715/- 2 Restoration cost of the 5.9 acres of reclaimed land 2a Cost of removal of dumped dredged 1,10,34,270/-
material 2b Cost of removal of bund constructed 12,88,980/- 2c Restoration cost of mangrove 5,27,200/-
Total Rs.
2,00,65,165/-
The estimated environmental damage cost is Rs. 72, 14, 715/- (Rupees seventy two lakhs fourteen thousand and seven hundred fifteen only). The estimated restoration cost is Rs. 1, 28, 50,450/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakh fifty thousand four hundred and fifty only). Total cost of environmental compensation is Rs. 2, 00, 65,165/- (Rupees two crores sixty five thousand one hundred sixty five only).
5. Recommendations:
1. The total cost of environmental compensation estimated is Rs.
2,00,65,165/-
(Rupees two crores sixty five thousand one hundred sixty five only)
2. Out of this, the estimated environmental damage cost due to dredging and reclaiming 5.9 acres of river is Rs. 72, 14, 715- Rupees seventy two lakhs fourteen thousand and seven hundred fifteen only).
3. The estimated restoration cost is Rs. 1, 28, 50,450/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakh fifty thousand four hundred and fifty only).
4. Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department (Dept. of Ports and Fisheries, Udupi) and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi may be liable for paying the environmental compensation and restoration cost.
5. The detailed restoration plan and ToR for restoration of the region may be prepared by KSCZMA and Department of Forests and the restoration work be supervised.
6. A detailed study of the flora and fauna in region including water quality parameters shall be undertaken prior to the restoration and post restoration for 2-3 years to ensure that the ecological 30 parameters of the region are restored. The KSCZMA may get the study done through the qualified and accredited agencies with necessary ToR framed for the purpose.
In case of any such future activities, it should be under taken strictly in compliance with prevailing Rules and Regulation including conducting EIA studies, obtaining EC and CRZ clearance etc., as applicable."
15. Though, the matter was posted for objection to the report of the Committee, none had filed objection to the same.
16. The Fisheries Department had produced a letter dated 26.02.2020 through their Senior Assistant Director of Fisheries,Udupi stating that Karnataka Government had sanctioned dredging work of Sita River for navigation of fishing boats to Kodi Kanyana Jetty at the cost of Rs. 646 lakhs under Central Government fund. The civil work was handed over to Executive Engineer, Port & Fisheries Engineering Division, Udupi. The approved work was only dredging in the middle of the Sita River for the movement of fishing boats and the approved civil work did not destroy any mangroves plants and aquatic life. They have also mentioned in the para-wise remarks that a fishing jetty of 100 meters length was constructed at Kodi Kanyana Village of Udupi District (RIDF-15-RS.535.5) to provide berthing facilities for about 300 boats of different sizes in the year 2009-10 which had helped the local boat owners, crew members and fishermen. Prior to construction of jetty, boat owners in and around Kodi Kanyana Village were using Malpe and Gangoli fishing harbours. Now, local fishermen, boat owners and crew members are using this jetty effectively.
3117. It was submitted that based on the reports of the CICEF, Bangalore, CWPRS, Pune etc, Government of karnataka had taken the decision to dredge the bar mouth which helped the boats for safe entry to jetty and exist from jetty. Along the coast of Karnataka around 08 fishing harbours and 23 fish landing centres were constructed and dredging work would be carried out as and when required but no complaints had been received on issues like drinking water wells getting filled with saline water, soil erosion, etc. In fact by dredging the above said area free water flow can be maintained during rainy season as well as during high tide and low tide time.
18. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.07.2021Mr. S. Thilak Narayanan represented the applicant. Mr. Darpan K.M represented respondents 1, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 12 to 14, Mr. Vasanth H.K. represented respondents 2, 9 and 11 and Mr. Thirunavukarasu represented Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
19. Heard the Counsel for the applicant and respondents.
20. The Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that it will be seen from the report of the Joint Committee that huge damage has been caused to Sita River on account of unscientific manner in which the work has been done by the Government Officials and the mangroves plants were also damaged. So, according to the Learned Counsel the report submitted by the Committee will have to be accepted and appropriate order will have to be passed.
3221. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Government Departments submitted that the dredging was done in a scientific manner and deepening of the river was intended by doing dredging for the purpose of smooth navigation of the fishing boats to facilitate the local fishermen and boat owners to reach the nearby jetty without obstruction.
Further, according to the Learned Counsel it had improved the riverine environment and not affected the ecology and aquatic life in the river. They further contended that they will abide by any of the direction issued and condition imposed by this Tribunal.
22. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and Karnataka State Coastal Regulation Zone Management Authority submitted that since there was violation of CRZ Notification, notices have been issued to Public Works Department and Fisheries Department who had undertaken the work and appropriate legal action would be taken against them in accordance with law. They have also filed a report to that effect along the copy of proceedings initiated.
23. We have considered the submission made by both the Counsel and perused the records.
24. The points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether there was any violation committed by the Government Department, namely, Public Works Department, Port and Fisheries Department and Minor Irrigation 33 Department in carrying out the alleged work of dredging in Sita River, Udupi District?
2) On account of their act, any damage has been caused to environment?
3) If so, what is the nature of action to be taken against the violators including imposing environment compensation and for restoration of damage caused to the environment?
4) Relief and Cost?
Points
25. The grievance in this application is regarding the illegal and unscientific dredging in Sita River, Udupi District undertaken by the Government Departments through 15th respondent as their contractor. It is also alleged in the application that the people who were residing on either side of the bank of the Sita River were using the river water for their drinking as well as agricultural purpose. Further, the fishermen community were mainly dependent on this river for their livelihood by doing fishing, lime-shell collection and collection of Oysters and oysters shell. Apart from that they used to grow paddy, pulses, vegetables and coconuts in these areas.
26. Further, the Forest Department had planted Kandla trees and rearing the same on eastern and western side of the river and also in the middle of the river here and there where the depth of the water was very low. The Government of Karnataka also invested huge amount for planting and rearing Kandla trees 34 and they were taking action against those persons, who were causing damage to that Kandla trees as well.
27. It was also alleged in the application that the Government of Karntaka had called for tenders to deepen Sita River and 15 th respondent was the successful bidder and bid the same for the estimated cost of Rs. 6.5 crores. He had done illegal dredging without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities and thereby caused heavy damage to mangrove plantation there.
28. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made and also the violations alleged to have been committed and damage, if any caused to environment, this Tribunal had appointed a joint Committee and that Committee had first submitted a report explaining the nature of violations committed and thereafter, as directed by this Tribunal, they have assessed the environment compensation as well and submitted a further report and both reports were extracted above and as such we are not re-extracting the same again.
29. It is seen from the first report which was extracted in para 10 of this Judgement wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Department of Fisheries, Udupi had planned to undertake the expansion of existing jetty at Kodi Village to facilitate the surrounding fishermen and they wanted to dredge from the mouth of river Hangarkatte to the jetty to help the fishermen navigate their boats since the existing depth did not permit them to do so. The work was entrusted to Executive Engineer, 35 Ports and Fisheries and they undertook the dredging work of the river after calling for the tenders and the successful tenderer was M/s Yojaka* Pvt. Ltd, who is the 15th respondent herein. The dredging was proposed for a distance of 3.12 Km, width of 30 meters, depth of 2.5 meters and they did not do any mining on commercial scale at any point of time.
30. According to the Executive Engineer, the contractor had diverted the entire dredged material to fill up a part of the Sita River back water violating the CRZ Notification, 2011 and it was done at the request of the local people and they have reclaimed about 5.9 acres of additional land. The Minor Irrigation Department have formed the protective bund at this location to prevent washing away of the dredged sand and constructed the road on the reclaimed land, violating CRZ Notification, 2011.
31. As per the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011, there is no provision for reclaiming of land as it becomes river encroachment and the authorities did not obtain any permission or clearance from the Coastal Regulation Zone Management Authority as required under CRZ Notification either for dredging or reclamation of any portion of the river by dumping of the dredged material in the river.
32. It was also mentioned in the report that as per EIA Notifcation, 2006, which was amended in 2009, dredging activity requires environment clearance whereas maintenance dredging is exempted from environment clearance provided it formed part of the original proposal for which environment management 36 plan was prepared and environment clearance obtained.
Thereafter, as per EIA Notification, 2006 amended as per SO 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 on certain issues which also exempted requirement of environment clearance for certain activities including dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, up keep and disaster management as detailed in Schedule IX attached to that notification. But however, this Notification was challenged before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 186 of 2016 and as per order dated 13.09.2018, the National Green Tribunal had directed the MoEF&CC to revisit the procedures laid down in the impugned notification dated 15.01.2016.
33. The fact that there were mangroves planted by the Forest Department as well as by the Government in Sita River and that was also maintained by them is not in dispute. It is also seen from the report that the Minor Irrigation Department had started construction of bund and road (400 meters) to protect the land at river bank of KodiKanyana was started on 10.01.2018 and completed on 14.03.2018 during the pendency of this proceedings. Further, it is in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and legal notice had been issued by the Coastal Zone Management Authority by their proceedings dated 17.09.2019 and they sent a reply admitting the act but taken the defence that it was done at public interest by spending an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs.
3734. It is also seen from the report that dredging work was in progress even at the time of inspection within the CRZ limits as they were in Zone IV B of CRZ Notification, 2011. The dredged material were stored on the western side corner of the river besides bridge and the road reclaiming the river portion and this work was executed by Executive Engineer, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi through the agency M/s Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore, who is the 15th respondent. The dredging was falling in Zone IV B and the dredged material were stored in Zone I, III and IV of CRZ Notification, 2011 and no permission was obtained for such activity and this is a violation as per para 3, 4.2, 7(i) of CRZ-IA, 8(1) CRZ-I, 8 (III) and 8 (I) of CRZ Notification, 2011.
35. It was also seen from the report that in the course of their work, they have destroyed some mangroves on the western side and the Coastal Zone Management Authority have directed to stop the work. It was also seen from the reports that proceedings had been initiated by Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority against the persons who have committed the violations, namely, Minor Irrigation Sub-
Division, Udupi and also Executive Engineer Port and Fisheries Department as per CRZ Notification and Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Ultimately they made the overall observations and conclusion as follows:
8.0 Overall Observations of the Committee Department of Fisheries, Udupi, had built a fishing jetty for 100 meters in KodiKanyana Village at the end of the back 38 water of Sita River to provide berthing facilities for about 300 fishing boats in the year 2009-10. To make safe entry and exist of boats to and from the jetty, they proposed to take up dredging from the mouth of the river until jetty at a cost of Rs.6.46 crores.
The civil work was handed over to Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries, Engineering Division.
Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries has called for the tenders and given the work order of dredging for a 3.12 KM distance with a width of 30 meter and -2.5 meter depth to the successful bidder M/s. Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore on 14.02.2017. The contractor has conducted the pre-level bathymetric survey on March 2017 and started the dredging from 14.04.2017.
As per the request of local people, contractor has used the dredged material to fill the river back water and resulting in the reclamation of new piece of land and in total violation of CRZ Notification 2011.
Subsequently, AEE, Dept. of Minor Irrigation. Udupi sub division have constructed protection bund and road in the same area to prevent the dredged materials being washed away by the tidal effects, thus, the authorities have filled up a part of the river reclaiming 5.9 acres of land. They have carried out the entire work in the name of protecting the river from flooding and soil erosion, but, in reality they have made the area more prone to flooding by blocking and changing the course of the river.
Report given by the Regional Director (Environment) shows clearly two Google Maps of the location during 2017 and 2018. In the 2017 map, the location was clearly river itself and in 2018 map, the location is filled up and converted to a new piece of land. The two maps are put up here for quick perusal in Figure -1.
As can be seen from the two pictures, the authorities have clearly filled up the ecologically sensitive area of the river violating the CRZ Notification, 2011. Hence, KSCZMA has issued notice asking why criminal case shall not be filled as per provisions of section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to EE, Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi and AEE, Minor Irrigation, Udupi and Sr. Asst. Director, Fisheries, Udupi seeking explanation from the concerned officers. EE, Ports and Fisheries started acting on the notice on latter dates and stopped this part of dredging work from 21.02.2018 and applied for CRZ clearance. However, started the dredging work again on 14.02.2019 from the side of Hangarkatte river mouth towards upstream again violating the CRZ Notification 2011. Subsequently, this work was also stopped from 26.03.2019.
Total length of already dredged channel is 535 meters against the estimated 3.12 KM, dreged quantity is 47,155 Cu.M. and balance dredging to be taken is 1,95,396.70 Cu.M. EE, Ports and Fisheries have filled application of CRZ clearance on 28.03.2019 and rapid EIA study report on 15.10.2019 to Regional Director (Environment), Udupi. AEE, Minor Irrigation has submitted his reply to the notice of the KSCZMA issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 saying that they have constructed the bunds and roads in the location in question to protect the soil erosion and not done any harm to the environment and that 39 there were no mangroves in the location and done the work in the interest of public.
However, as seen from the Google images furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kundapura, there were Mangroves which were grown naturally due to tidal effect and the same is destroyed by the said activity.
Regional Director (Environment) also makes it very clear that authorities have filled up of the river (ecologically sensitive zone) itself and reclaimed about 5.9 acres of land, thereby disturbing the river course and destroying and Mangroves and breeding of other fish species in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011.
The pictures produced from Regional Director (Environment) show clearly the location to the breeding ground for various fishing species (ecologically sensitive). The authorities of Minor Irrigation have cut many mangroves and thrown on the sides, on the neighbouring land.
The dredging was carried out to create a navigation channel as navigation was not possible during low tide. And it was not for removal of silts/sediments to restore the original depth of the channel. Therefore, it may fall under Capital dredging. Accordingly, it required prior EC under the EIA Notification, 2006 and it‟s amendments. Hence, there is lapse on the part of the Ports and Fisheries in this respect. There is clear violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 by the authorities of EE, Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi and AEE, Minor Irrigation, Udupi. Violation is for not only taking up the dredging work without prior CRZ clearance and EC, but, also, filing up the area of river falling under ecologically sensitive zone, construction of bunds and roads in CRZ-I A area of the river and reclaiming 5.9 acres of land, thereby changing the river course and being responsible for making the area more prone to flooding.
Regarding apprehension that the extra saline water that gets filled up in the river due to deepening process will cause salt water intrusion in the wells in their surrounding villages, it is to be informed that the salt water intrusion can happen only when there is over exploitation of ground water in the coastal belt and not due to standing of saline water in the river channel.
9.0 Conclusion v. Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division, has taken up the dredging work and expansion of the KodiKanyana Jetty without obtaining necessary clearances under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments from time to time.
The authority has violated the provisions of the said Notifications not only in terms of obtaining necessary Clearances, but, also, by being responsible for dumping of dredged materials to fill up part of the river (falling under ecologically sensitive zone) and damaging the Mangrove buffer zone and fish breeding (CRZ-I A) area. vi. Office of the Asst. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Udupi has constructed of the bund and road on the encroached land formed due to dumping of dredged materials, i.e., in the CRZ I-A (ecologically sensitive Mangrove buffer zone and fish breeding) area in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011. They have been responsible for changing the river course, damaging the Mangroves and fish breeding ground and causing the area more prone of floods.
40vii. Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) in their meeting held on 14.02.2020 has considered the above issues as clear violation of the provisions of CRZ Notification 2011 and decided to file criminal case against the violators (Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division and Asst. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Udupi) as per section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also decided to direct the violators to submit a detailed study report regarding Environmental loss occurred due to their respective actions and also to bring back the area to its original state by removing the dredging sand and bunds. Copy of the meeting proceedings (English translation) enclosed as Annexure - 11.
viii. Executive Engineer, Ports and Fisheries Division Udupi shall comply with the requirements under EIA Notification 2006 and its amendments and CRZ Notification 2011 before recommencing the dredging work."
36. It is clear from this that the entire work was done in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and damage was also caused to the mangroves which was planted and reared by Forest Department and the Government of Karnataka itself.
37. Mangroves are among the most productive and biologically complex ecosystems on Earth acting as a bridge connecting the land and sea. Mangroves, specifically the underwater habitat their roots provide, offer critical nursing environments for juveniles of thousands of fish species, from 1-inch gobies to 10- foot sharks. Mangrove forests are important feeding grounds for thousands of species and support a diverse food web. Some organisms will eat the leaves directly, especially crabs and inspects, while other decomposers wait for the mangroves leaves to fall to the ground and consume the decaying material.
Microbes and fungi among the mangrove roots use the decaying material as fuel and in return, they recycle nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur and iron for the mangroves.
38. Underwater sponges, snails, worms, anemones, barnacles and oysters are a few animals that cling to the hard surface of the 41 roots. For swimming species, not only are the roots a great place for ample food they are also a great hideout to avoid predators. Many crabs, shrimp and fish will spend the early stages of life within the safety of the mangrove roots before making their way out into the open ocean as adults. For this reason, mangrove forests are considered nursery habitats.
39. Part of a mangrove forest's value comes from its ability to modify and support the surrounding environment. The complicated roots systems absorb the impact of waves which allows for the buildup of sand, dirt and silt particles. The roots even hold onto those sediments which lead to better water quality and a reduction in erosion. Mangroves further improve water quality by absorbing nutrients from runoff that might otherwise cause harmful algal blooms offshore. Both coral reefs and seagrass beds rely on the water purifying ability of nearby mangrove forests to keep the water clear and healthy.
Blue Carbon ecosystems Blue carbon ecosystems (mangroves, sea grasses and salt marshes) can be up to 10 times more efficient than terrestrial ecosystems at absorbing and storing carbon long term, making them a critical solution in the fight against climate change.
Blue carbon mangrove forests are excellent at absorbing and storing carbon from atmosphere. As the trees grow they take the carbon from carbon dioxide and use it as the building blocks for their leaves, roots and branches. Once the leaves and older trees die they fall to the seafloor and take the stored 42 carbon with them to be buried in the soil. This buried carbon is known as "blue carbon" because it is stored underwater in coastal ecosystems like mangrove forests, sea grass beds and salt marshes. Mangroves make up less than 2 percent of marine environments but account for 10 to 15 per cent of carbon burial. One acre of mangrove forest can store about 1,450 pounds of carbon per year.
40. Mangrove forests save lives when cyclonic storms like typhoons and hurricanes make landfall, they create a strong storm surge that can cause serious flooding. Mangroves naturally absorb influxes of water on a daily basis and are able to cope with the extra flooding during a storm. But the recent mangrove deforestation to make way for development and shrimp farms has created hazardous conditions for people living close to shore.
Mangroves can help keep people safe.
Mangrove forests-specially, their thick, impenetrable roots- are vital to shoreline communities as natural buffers against storm surges, an increasing threat in a changing global climate.
41. It is also a well known fact that mangroves play a greater role in protecting estuarine ecology and it provides breeding ground and protection for estuarine aquatic life as well. It is also a well known fact that mangroves are more sensitive in nature and retrievement of damaged mangrove plantation is very difficult as well. Apart from taking steps to rejuvenate the damaged mangroves planted area as any damage caused to mangroves 43 will amount to environment degradation and that will have to be compensated. So, it is clear from the report that there were violations committed by the Public Works Department, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi and they were responsible for the damage caused to the estuarine ecology and environment. As directed by this Tribunal the Committee had also estimated the environment compensation to be recovered and submitted its detailed report which was extracted in para 14 of this Judgement. It is self-
explanatory and we are not repeating the same again here. The Committee had assessed the environment compensation as follows:
4.Total cost of Environmental Compensation:
Sl Environmental damage/Restoration Amount (Rs) 1 Environmental damage cost 72, 14, 715/- 2 Restoration cost of the 5.9 acres of reclaimed land 2a Cost of removal of dumped dredged 1,10,34,270/-
material 2b Cost of removal of bund constructed 12,88,980/- 2c Restoration cost of mangrove 5,27,200/-
Total Rs.
2,00,65,165/-
The estimated environmental damage cost is Rs. 72, 14, 715/- (Rupees seventy two lakhs fourteen thousand and seven hundred fifteen only). The estimated restoration cost is Rs. 1, 28, 50,450/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakh fifty thousand four hundred and fifty only). Total cost of environmental compensation is Rs. 2, 00, 65,165/- (Rupees two crores sixty five thousand one hundred sixty five only).
42. We do not find reason to differ from the amount assessed as we are inclined to accept the same. So, Public Works Department, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department (Dept. of Ports and Fisheries, Udupi) and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi are jointly and severely liable to pay this 44 amount which they can recover from 15th respondent in accordance with law, if such provision is available in the contract.
43. The Committee had also given certain recommendations in para 5 of the subsequent report which reads as follows:
5.Recommendations:
a.The total cost of environmental compensation estimated is Rs. 2,00,65,165/-
(Rupees two crores sixty five thousand one hundred sixty five only) b.Out of this, the estimated environmental damage cost due to dredging and reclaiming 5.9 acres of river is Rs. 72, 14, 715- Rupees seventy two lakhs fourteen thousand and seven hundred fifteen only).
c. The estimated restoration cost is Rs. 1, 28, 50,450/- (Rupees one crore twenty eight lakh fifty thousand four hundred and fifty only).
d. Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department (Dept. of Ports and Fisheries, Udupi) and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi may be liable for paying the environmental compensation and restoration cost.
e. The detailed restoration plan and ToR for restoration of the region may be prepared by KSCZMA and Department of Forests and the restoration work be supervised.
f. A detailed study of the flora and fauna in region including water quality parameters shall be undertaken prior to the restoration and post restoration for 2-3 years to ensure that the ecological parameters of the region are restored. The KSCZMA may get the study done through the qualified and accredited agencies with necessary ToR framed for the purpose. In case of any such future activities, it should be under taken strictly in compliance with prevailing Rules and Regulation including conducting EIA studies, obtaining EC and CRZ clearance etc., as applicable."
44. So, under such circumstances, we conclude that the Public Works Department, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi along with 15th respondent have committed the violations and they are jointly and severely liable to pay the environment compensation of Rs.
2,00,65,165/- (Two Crores sixty Five thousand one hundred sixty Five) and they are also liable to comply with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee as well.
4545. The Points are answered accordingly.
46. In the result the application is disposed of as follows:
1) The Public Works Department, Ports and Fisheries Division, Udupi District and Yojaka* India Pvt. Ltd (through whom the work was done) the 15th respondent have committed violations of CRZ Notification, 2011 and also caused environment damage to the riverine ecology of River Sita in Udupi District.
2) The Public Works Department, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi are jointly and severely liable to pay the environment compensation primarily of Rs. 2,00,65,165/- (Two Crores sixty Five thousand one hundred sixty Five) which can be deposited with the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority under the account of Coastal Environment Management Fund within a period of three months and they are at liberty to recover the amount from the 15th respondent who had done this, if they are liable to obtain necessary permission under the tender conditions and committed any violation of tender conditions, in accordance with law.
3) The Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority is directed to take appropriate legal action against the violators under the CRZ Notification, 2011 read with Sections 15 and 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. They are also directed to recover the amount from the Public Works 46 Department, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi District and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi District in accordance with law, if the amount is not deposited within the time fixed by this Tribunal.
4) The Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority is also directed to take out restoration process as recommended by the Joint Committee for restoring this place after conducting necessary study as envisaged by the Joint Committee and, if any excess amount is required for conducting such study over and above the estimate made by them, then the same is also be recovered from the violators, namely, Public Works Department, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi District and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi District which they are liable to pay.
5) Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi District and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi District are directed to carry out any dredging or other activities in this area, if any, required in future after complying with the provisions of the environment laws and guidelines issued by MoEF&CC and this Tribunal in this regard and strictly in accordance with law.
6) If the Karnataka Government pays the amount from the Government account, then they are directed to initiate departmental action, if any required in this regard against the official responsible as per Rules.
477) The Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority is directed to undertake the rejuvenation of damaged mangroves portion with the assistance of Forest Department after conducting proper studies and methodology to be adopted for this purpose.
8) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear the respective costs in the application.
9) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority, Public Works Department, Port and Fisheries Department, Udupi District and Minor Irrigation Department, Udupi District, Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka and Principal Secretary for Environment, Public Works Department, Irrigation, Principal Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden for State of Karnataka for their information and also for taking further action in this regard.
47. With the above observations and directions, the application is disposed of.
.................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No. 71/2017, 27th September, 2021. AM.
*Corrected Copy 48