National Green Tribunal
D. Sulif S/O. Damodaran Pillai 19/177 ... vs 1. The Government Of Tamil Nadu Moef Rep. ... on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item Nos. 02&3 (Court No. 1)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SPECIAL BENCH
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 59/2017(SZ)
D. Sulif Appellant
Versus
The Government of India, Rep., by its Director,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
New Delhi and Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Appeal No. 80/2017(SZ)
Conservation of Nature Trust Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Ministry of Environment
and Forest, New Delhi and Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 14.02.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant(s)
In Appeal No. 59/2017: M/s. J. Anandhavalli.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1, R3 & R8.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R7.
Mr. Thankasivan for R2 & R9.
For Appellant (s)
In Appeal No. 80/2017: Mr. T. Arul for Mr. M. Murali.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. M. Sumathi for R1.
Mr. Thankasivan for R3 & R4.
1
ORDER
1. Common question for consideration in the two appeals is validity of EC dated 15.06.2017 granted by MoEF&CC for '4/6 laning of Kerala/Tamil Nadu Border to Kanyakumari Section of NH-47 and Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru Section of NH-47B' in Tamil Nadu, by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) mainly on account of adverse impact of construction of the highway on the waterbodies in the area. Case of the Appellants is that the adverse impact on the water bodies mentioned in the Revenue record has not been duly accounted for in the EIA. Earlier order of this Tribunal dated 14.09.2016 in Application No. 104, 111, 112, 116 and 127 of 2013 (SZ) (THC), Conservation of Nature Trust & Anr. v. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District & Ors.
has not been complied.
2. Appeal No. 59 was filed on 31.07.2017 while Appeal No. 80 was filed on 03.10.2017. The same have been dealt with by several orders in the last more than four years. We may refer to some of the orders passed by the Tribunal earlier. It will suffice to refer to the proceedings in Appeal No. 59/2017 (SZ), to avoid replication. On 02.08.2017, Notice was issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 which include MoEF&CC, NHAI, Tamil Nadu PCB and District Collector, Kanyakumari. Some of them have filed their respective counter affidavits. On 09.01.2020, the Tribunal constituted a Committee to give its views to the Tribunal on the issues raised i.e. mitigation of adverse impact on the water bodies in the course of construction of the Highway. The Committee has filed its report on 17.02.2021.
23. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. In view of the report of the joint Committee which is not questioned, we find it difficult to accept the submission of the appellants.
There is no violation of earlier order of this Tribunal dated 14.9.2016, supra. Thereby, this Tribunal dealt with a group of Writ Petitions transferred from the Madras High Court against EC granted earlier. It was held that appraisal conducted while granting EC earlier was not adequate and fresh appraisal was required. The relevant observations are as follows:-
"78. However, it is most unfortunate to note that inspite of the fact, as it is seen from the records, during the public hearing, many of the participants have raised their anxiety not only about the displacement of large number of people; but also possibility of large number of water bodies getting affected and in many cases the participants have objected that nearly 40 ponds are going to be affected by virtue of the new alignment but the EAC has not taken note of any of those statements made in the public hearing, except making a condition that all statements made in the public hearing must be complied with in spirit. We do not understand the meaning of the same. During the ''appraisal'' the EAC is expected to apply its mind independently about the impact of the project on various aspects and in this case when the public have made objections about the water bodies, as to what will be the impact of the project on the water bodies and what are the steps to be taken by the project proponent for saving the waterbodies and what are the efforts to be taken by the project proponent for minimising the number of trees to be cut, ought to have been considered and obtained clarification. If felt necessary, a spot inspection ought to have been made by the committee of EAC. We do not understand the effect of directing the project proponent to follow what happened in the public hearing, after recommending for EC. This, in our view, is not a proper appraisal. During appraisal, there was some scope for giving proper direction in the form of mandatory conditions . That is lacking in the appraisal It would have been more prudent, if the EAC has applied its mind about the efforts to be taken to preserve the water bodies and minimise cutting of trees. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that such appraisal has been done on the facts of the case.3
79. It may be true that in the impugned EC granted by the MoEF & CC, which is the Regulatory Authority, the said authority is definitely expected to make an independent study of the ''appraisal'' before granting EC. But ultimately it is the recommendation of EAC, which plays a vital role for the Regulatory Authority to either grant EC or not, since it is an Expert Body. The way in which the ''appraisal'' has been done in this case in the meeting held between 21.7.2010 and 23.7.2010 is certainly not in conformity with the procedure of appraisal and its spirit explained in the EIA Notification,2006.
80.to
88........................xxx.......................xxx........................xxx
89. Now that we have come to a conclusion that the EAC has not properly made its appraisal, the next question that arises for our consideration is as to whether on that ground and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the EC granted by the MoEF & CC should be set aside. As we have already held that other portions of the process of EC have been done in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006, except the portion of ''appraisal'', we are of the considered view that instead of setting aside the same, the EC shall be kept under suspension for a period of six months within which time the MoEF & CC shall refer to EAC for reappraisal of the issue based on the above said facts and then make recommendation based on which the Regulatory Authority may pass appropriate final orders."
5. As seen from the above, the Tribunal directed EC to be kept under suspension for six months for reappraisal. Accordingly, reappraisal has since been conducted on 22.02.2017 by the EAC as follows:-
"3.1.1 ..........The NGT vide order dated 7th March, 2016, directed that the project proponent not to proceed further with the project. Subsequently after hearing the contentions of the applicant, the Tribunal passed an order dated 16th March, 2016 permitting the respondent to proceed with the project activities subject to the conditions that the same shall not affect any ponds which are situated in the course of the execution of the project and no trees on the way to be cut.
NGT vide order dated 14th September, 2016 directed ordered as under:-
'Application No. 104, 111 and 112 of 2013 are partly allowed with a direction that the EC granted by MoEF&CC to the project proponent dated 9.9.2010 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six months within which time the MoEF&CC shall refer the entire matter back to 4 the EAC for reappraisal, which shall, after taking into consideration of the above said facts particularly the objections raised at the public consultation processes and referring to revenue records, as stated in the RTI information elicited above and, if necessary, to depute a team of its members to visit the place before making appropriate recommendations and pass appropriate orders and thereafter the regulatory authority viz. MoEF&CC to pass appropriate orders. The entire process shall be completed within six months.' 3.1.2 The project was last considered by the EAC in its meeting held on 1 December, 2016. During the meeting, the project proponent informed that:-
(i) There are total 43 water bodies (system tanks and ponds) and 207 canal and drain crossings along the project alignment.
(ii) In compliance of the observations and directions of the NGT, the proposal has since been revised with more major/minor bridges and cross drainage structures proposed with the details as under:-
S. Structure type Quantity of structuresQuantity ofstructures No proposed at the time of Proposed in compliance EC dated 9th Sept, to Hon'ble NGT order 2010 dated 14th Sept, 2016 1. Major Bridge 1 34 2. Minor Bridge 25 43 3. Box Culvert 141 82 4. Hume Pipe 91 Culvert Total 167 250
(iii) No tree has so far been cut for project development in compliance of the earlier order of the NGT dated 16th March, 2016.
In view of the observations of the NGT, the EAC opined for a site visit to be undertaken shortly to assess the ground situation, especially in respect of ensuring protection of water bodies, feasibility of the structures proposed, and minimizing the trees to be cut along the project alignment.
The EAC decided that the site visit may be conducted by a team consisting of one of its members Shri K. Gowarappan and one member from the Regional Office of MoEF&CC of Chennai. It is only after receipt of their report suitably addressing the concerns of the NGT, the 5 proposal would be placed before the Committee for re- appraisal.
3.1.3 The EAC was informed that the site visit was conducted during 17-18 January, 2017 by the team comprising of Shri K. Gowarappan and Dr. C. Kaliyaperumil, Director at Regional Office of MoEF&CC, Chennai. The site inspection report was forwarded by the Regional Office of MoEF&CC, Chennai vide letter dated 7th February, 2017.
While deliberations in the above background and perusal of the site inspection report, the Committee noted the following:-
(a) Abstract of the objections raised during the public consultation process, which included the following:-
Effect on water bodies between km 62.000 and km 68.000 numbering 6/7 and subsequently affecting agricultural activities, To expand the existing NH-47 and NH-47B adequately on both the sides to minimize the demolition/acquisition of structure and agricultural lands, To avoid routing through the present market area around 40 no. of water bodies besides water structures,
(b) Salient points put up before NGT, which have been taken cognizance of:-
(i) The deviated curved alignment in between km 62/000 and km 66/000 stretch affecting seven system tanks forming part of Kothaiyar Irrigation System, and three temple tanks. Some of the water bodies cater to the needs of nearby hamlets and villages partially for drinking water needs apart from indirectly influencing the water table and aquifers of the nearby areas besides alleviating the flooding during heavy rainfall. Moreover agriculture being the stay of the habitants, the preservation of ponds and other waters structures are essential for their livelihood and ecological sustains and further refers to 22 canals existing in this area
(ii) This district need not have another highway and the existing NH could be widened instead of present routing and further this would affect large no. of ponds partially and few numbers with full destruction apart from other water structures like canals/streams, etc. Two nos. big ponds will be destroyed apart from destruction structure and felling of larger no. of trees.
(c) The proposal was revised after the orders of the NGT and the public consultations. The same was examined 6 by the inspecting team vis-a-vis the ground situation, mainly considering protection of water bodies along the alignment. The salient features of the revised proposal along with the status of clearances required, were noted as under:-
NH-47
(i) The proposed alignment of 53.714 km on NH-47 involves a total area of 332.49 ha, mostly passing through agricultural fields (Government land - 41.90 ha, Agricultural land - 280.59 ha, Existing road - 10 ha).
(ii) The alignment is preferred over the other options due to minimal effect on bio-diversity, away from the coastal area and minimum damage to the existing structures.
(iii) The section encounters 33 no. of ponds formed due to drainage from streams, and one formed due to localized precipitation.
(iv) For protection of these water bodies, 11 minor and 22 major bridges have been proposed against 2 no. minor bridges, earthen fillings/embankments on 18 no. of ponds and 14 no. of box/pipe culverts planned earlier.
(v) The WRO Division of the Public Works Department of the State Government is the administrative authority for the water bodies, and the required permission is under process.
(vi) No forest clearance is required. However, wildlife clearance would be required since part of the stretch falls within 10 km from the sanctuary.
(vii) Tree cutting permission for 11209 nos. have been obtained.
(viii) Out of total 460 no. of structures to be removed, 90 have been demolished so far and the compensation paid. For the remaining, action is under progress.
NH-47B
(i) The proposed alignment of 16.376 km on NH-47B involves a total area of 108.56 ha(Government land - 16.57 ha, Agricultural land - 58.99 ha, land utilized for windmill - 33 ha).
(ii) The alignment is preferred over the other options due to being away from major habitations, minimal effect on bio- diversity and agricultural activities, away from the coastal area and minimum damage to the existing structures.
7(iii) The section encounters 5 no. of ponds formed due to drainage from streams, and one formed due to localized precipitation. All these ponds shall now have major bridges against box and pipe culverts proposed earlier
(iv) The WRO Division of the Public Works Department of the State Government is the administrative authority for the water bodies, and the required permission is under process.
(v) For diversion of 0.88 ha of forest land, the proposal is in final stages. Wildlife clearance would be required since part of the stretch falls within 10 km from the sanctuary.
(vi) Tree cutting permission for 3064 nos. have been obtained.
(vii) Out of total 108 no. of structures to be removed, 7 have been demolished so far. For the remaining, action is under progress.
(d) With the proposal so revised, the details in respect of major/minor bridges and cross drainage structures would be as under:-
S. Structure Structures Structures proposed in No proposed at the time of EC dated compliance to Hon'ble NGT 9th Sept, 2010 order dated 14th Sept, 2016
1. Major/Minor 26 66 (42 no. of additional Bridge
2. Box/pipe 130 structures 177 (69 no.proposed) of additional culvert Total 156 structures proposed) 243
(e) Summary and recommendations by the inspecting team
(i) Towards compliance of NGT orders and public consultation objections, NHAI will provide 42 Nos.
of major and minor bridges with modifications as suggested by during the site visit, with elevated structures as per the drawing.
(ii) Expanding the existing road This is not prudent one since the present road is heavily built on both the sides leading to large scale demolition of residential commercial, religious and educational institutions apart from disturbing a host of water bodies and well grown trees.
(iii) Formation of this bye-pass road with four lane divided road would ease out the present heavily 8 congested traffic of about 70 km taking a minimum of 3 hours for travel.
(iv) The requirement of Environmental Clearance for project less than 100 km is now deleted vide S.O.2559 (E) dated 22nd August, 2013. However since the projects has been dealt by Hon'ble NGT and in order to abide by their orders and in the interest of complying with public grievances raised in the hearing and to minimize/nullify ecological impacts on water regime, the reappraisal has been undertaken.
(v) There have been persistent representations by the public to speed up this road work 3.1.4 The EAC, after deliberations, and duly taking note of the recommendations of the visiting team, recommended the proposal for grant of environmental clearance to the project, subject to commitments and satisfactory clarification in respect of the following:-
The revised scope of work entailing additional major/minor bridges and other cross drainage structures along the NH alignment shall be easily implementable without any land acquisition and/or encroachment of water bodies (including the hydraulic characteristics).
Additional cost of Rs.380 crores to be incurred due to the said revision shall be precisely earmarked for the project for timely completion.
The environmental clearance to the project in terms of the EIA Notification, 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, shall be further subject to the following additional conditions:-
The user agency shall submit the undertaking that execution of work on non-forest land shall not be cited as a reason for grant of approval under the Act and in case approval under the Act for diversion of forest land is declined, width of the portion of road falling in the forest land will be maintained at its existing level. The environmental clearance is subject to obtaining prior clearance from wildlife angle including clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife as applicable. Grant of environmental clearance does not necessarily implies that Wildlife, Clearance shall be granted to the project and that their proposals for Wildlife Clearance considered by the respective authorities on their merits and decision taken. The investment made in the project, if any, based on environmental clearance so granted, in anticipation of the clearance from wildlife angle shall be entirely at 9 the cost and risk of the project proponent and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change shall not be responsible in this regard in any manner. The project proponent shall obtain necessary permission from the owning agencies of water bodies/temple tanks before execution of works as per the revised scope of the project.
There shall not be any encroachment and/or downsizing the water bodies and no disturbance to their hydraulic regime and hydraulic structures that cater to the existing needs of drinking, agricultural etc. The project proponent shall deposit 1% of project cost for conservation of wetlands in the State of Tamil Nadu. Also, the State Government of Tamil Nadu should establish an independent Wetland Foundation where 1% contribution to be deposited as a corpus fund and its interest will be used to undertake wetland conservation and restoration activities. Guidelines to establishment of the Wetland Foundation can be followed based on the guidelines of Mangrove Foundation of Maharashtra."
6. Thus, there is compliance of directions of this Tribunal. The NHAI has stated that the waterbodies in question will stand protected by adopting safeguards like construction of bridges as per EC conditions.
Some of the relevant extracts from the counter affidavit are as follows:-
"(5)......(a) to (c).........xxx.......................xxx............................xxx
(d) It is very important to note that admittedly this respondent was permitted to proceed as per the EC dated 09.09.2010 even while the appellant's earlier application No.127/2013 filed by this appellant and various other applications were pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal subject to the condition that the water bodies should not be disturbed and trees should not be cut. In view of such specific permission granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal this respondent has been implementing the project by opening the land, removing the obstructions and large scale leveling, land scapping etc. have been done already. Now in pursuance of the above proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 15.06.2017, further work has been commenced and implementation is half-way through. The trees standing in the stretch essentially required for implementation of the project are being removed and most part of the same have been cut and removed in accordance with law by obtaining orders from the concerned authorities.
In fact W.P.No.1952 of 2017 was filed by one Mr.C.Boaz before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking to 10 prevent the cutting and removal of trees and the Hon'ble Division Bench passed an order 13.07.2017 dismissing the writ petition after accepting the contentions of this respondent and permitting the cutting and removal of trees for implementation of the project. Only in order to safeguard the water bodies as ordered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 14.09.2016, 33 major bridges have been proposed and the number of minor bridges have been increased to 43 from 25. Further number of culverts has also been increased to 173 from 141 and the total additional expenses for complying with the conditions put forth by the 3rd respondent in the proceedings dated 15.06.2017 is more than 380 crores. The proceedings dated 15.06.2017 specifically stipulates that no water body shall be encroached or downsized and no disturbance to the hydraulic regime and structures catering to the existing needs of drinking and cultivation should be caused. Only in order to comply with the conditions for protection of such water bodies, huge planning has been done by construction of more than 33 additional major bridges in the said short stretch. As such without reference to any of the above aspects the above appeal has been filed with the unholy intention of somehow disturbing the implementation of the project and as such the same is completely untenable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(e) It is submitted that the Appellant is not a Law abiding citizen. The Appellant has been indulging in criminal activities against Government authorities. On 13-07- 2012, the Special Tahildhar (Land Acquisition), NH, Vilavancode with the officials of Horticulture, PWD and Forest was performing official duties of measurement work of this project in Valvatchagoshtam village, KalkulamTaluk of Kanyakumari district. At that time, the appellant D. Sulif and ten others had prevented the Government officials from discharging official duties by intimidating and snatched and destroyed Government records. Immediately, the above said Special Tahsildhar (LA/NH), Vilavancode lodged a complaint at Thuckalay Police Station and a case was registered vide FIR 826/2012 under Section147, 353 and 379 of IPC. The news appeared/published in Newspapers (Dinamalar and Daily Thanthi) on 14-07-2012. Subsequently on 15.08.2017 also the appellant D.Sulif and his men physically prevented the employees of the contractor of this respondent from discharging their 11 duty and hence a police complaint was lodged on 15.08.2017.
(f) Final Detailed Project Report was prepared in the year 2008 itself and the process of implementation/execution of the Project had been commenced. Out of 428.75 hectares of land required, 426.99 hectares of land have been acquired. Out of Rs. 327,38,83,497 allotted for compensation, an amount of Rs.254,91,10,454 (i.e. 81%) has already been disbursed to the land owners. Only 0.88 hectares of land has to be acquired from the Forest Department for which proceedings have already been initiated. Few erstwhile land owners have invoked Arbitration Clause and an amount of Rs. 69 crores have been awarded to them under the New Land Acquisition Act depending on the market value of the land prevailing here. So far about 1610 Arbitration cases have been settled by the Arbitrator/District Collector, Kanyakumari and payment of compensation towards Fair and Enhanced Compensation for Land Acquisition and Resettlement is being paid to Pattadars/erstwhile land owners and the general public as well as the erstwhile land owners are all welcoming the implementation of the above project whole heartedly.
(g) This Project is being welcomed by vast majority of the people living in Kanyakumari district in view of the fact that the traffic is over congested in all the roads in Nagercoil and also all over Kanyakumari district for want of 6 lane road. Kanyakumari district is a place of national/international importance attracting tourists at a large scale throughout the year. Lakhs of people all over India/World visit this district every year. Almost all the people in this district except a very fewlike this Appellant welcome and support this Project. So many demonstrations have been organized by public in large in support of speedy implementation of this Project in various places of Kanyakumari district. It is also very important that the people of Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari district mainly depend upon multi specialty hospitals in Thiruvananthapuram for serious health ailments. For such purpose hundreds of patients are transported through ambulance to Thiruvananthapuram by the existing narrow two lane NH-47 and such ambulances are stuck in traffic for hours together in various bottle necks in Nagercoil- Thiruvananthapuram stretch as a matter of routine. Further for reaching Thiruvananthapuram international airport, railway station etc. thousands of general public use this narrow stretch and they are put to unbearable misery due to traffic congestion. Due to the urgency of doing away with such serious public inconvenience, the Government of India is implementing the project. Only speedy implementation of this project 12 is the solution for easing the traffic concession suffered by the general public for years together. Any further delay would result in serious hardship to the national interest, general public apart from heavy monetary loss to the public exchequer. For this reason also, the above appeal is liable to be dismissed."
(6) to (20).............xxx.......................xxx............................xxx (21) It is further submitted that the Appellant is the only person coming out of the entire Kanyakumri district to challenge revised the EC (proceedings dated 15.06.2017) which seeks to protect the water bodies at a huge additional cost of about 400 crores. In fact the Appellant should show interest in protecting the trees to be planted if he is really interested in protecting the environment. On the other hand, he is making false allegations to stop implementation of the project. This 4/6 lane project has already been implemented in all the States all over of India and also in Tamil Nadu except in Kanyakumari district of Tamilnadu due to few so called pseudo environmentalists of Kanyakumari district, who are acting with ulterior motives to sop prestigious public project like this."
Report of the Committee
7. Further, we find that in pursuance of order of this Tribunal, the joint Committee has given its report as follows:
"The constituents of the committee have jointly inspected the Site from Tamlinadu Kerala Border to Kanyakumari Section of NH-47 and Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru Section of NH-47B on 25th- November 2020 and reported as under:
1) The map showing Project Alignment is furnished (As in Annexure-A).
2) The number of sub-divisions which are classified under different categories of water bodies and which are crossed by the alignment is furnished below:
Tanks/ Ponds River Canal Drain & others Total 61 5 137 227 430 The details of above water bodies with survey numbers and its extent as per the Revenue Records are furnished in Annexure -- B.
3) The satellite images of the year 2020 have been verified with the satellite images of the year 2017, it is found that suitable 191 13 structures have been constructed out of above water bodies (26 Major / Minor Bridges and 155 Culverts). Construction works have not been started so far in 59 cases and works are yet to be taken up at these locations. NHAI authorities have informed that the bids have been floated, for the construction of additional structures. The satellite images of the year 2017 and 2020 are enclosed as Annexure-C.
4) In the Environmental Clearance given by MoEF&CC on 15.
06.2017 is laid down that a total no. of 250 structures should be constructed across the water bodies. Based on the site visit and on verification of revenue records, the committee found that 191 structures (26 Major / Minor Bridges and les Culverts) have been constructed so far and 59 structures (41 Major / Minor Bridges Aqueducts and 18 culverts) are proposed to be constructed by NHAI Total structures constructed and proposed to be constructed are tabulated below:
Sl. Descriptio Kerala/Tamil Nadu Villukuri to Grand No. n border to Villukuri Kanyakumari section of Total Section of NH-47 NH-47 & Nagercoil to (Package-I) Kavalkinaru section of NH_47B (Packagae-II) Present Tender Total Present Tender Total Contract called Contract Called
1. Major 1 6 7 5 18 23 30 Bridge
2. Minor 6 7 13 17 4 21 34 Bridge
3. Aquaduct. 1 4 5 0 0 0 5
4. Culverts 37 18 55 139 0 139 194 Total 45 35 80 161 22 183 263 Further NHAI officials have informed that a number of 13 additional cut/sits have been constructed in acquired portion of patta lands to ensure proper drainage and irrigation purposes. So it is observed that au the constructions required to be made over all the water bodies which fall under entire project alignment are covered in the Environmental Clearance dt 15.06.2017
5) (i) In compliance of the order of the Hontble National Green Tribunal. The project was taken up for re-appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee and it was first considered in its meeting held on 01.12.2016.
(ii) Further, in view of the obsertuations of the NGT. a committee comprising of Sh. K. Gowrappan. EAC Member. Infra-1 and Dr. C. Katiyaperumat. Director (5). MoEF&CC, RC, Chennai has been constituted to make site visit and to furnish 14 report. The committee has visited the site on 17rt & 187 January 2017 and furnished report vide its fetter dt 07.02.2017,
(iii) On considering the public consultation objections regarding the impact on water bodies. it has been suggested to provide new structures of 33 Major Bridges. 18 Minor Bridges and 22 culverts across water bodies with a view to conserve the water bodies. Accordingly an undertaking has been obtained from NHAI for the construction of above structures before issuance of fresh Environmental Clearance.
In the circumstances enumerated above, the MoEF&CC has complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Nations! Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai vide its order dated 14.09.2016 in letter and spirit.
6) The Committee members were appraised by NHAI that a professional Consultancy firm was appointed for detailed study and design about the additional structures structures in consultation with Public Works Department duly taking into the consideration of various Hydraulic parameters. Alter submission of final report by the Consultancy firm, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MORTH) has decided to construct all the Culverts in NH-47 & NH- 47B and Major Bridges in NH-47B (i.e. Nagergoil to Kavalkinaru Stretch) through the existing Contractor and the remaining Major & Minor Bridges (in NH-47) are to be taken up through Competitive Bidding for which bidding process is under finalization.
7) Technical details of the Bridges and Culverts constructed and proposed to be constructed by NHAI authorities across water bodies have been verified by the Committee and following are observed.
Sl. No Description Nos.
1. No. of water bodies where the structures found 149
sufficient
2. No. of water bodies which are not affected by 7
construction but lies within RoW
3. No. of water bodies where construction works are yet 41
to be started and proposed structures is sufficient
4. No. of water bodies for which remarks have been 60 given for necessary work to be done such as clearing inlet & outlet, completion of balance work, connecting the existing drains, miscellaneous work, etc. Total water bodies within the RoW 257 NHAI officials have agreed to do necessary works in the above SO locations within the project completion period, to ensure that no hindrance is made to the water bodies due to formation of four lane road.
158) The Committee members were informed by NHAI that the trees were cut and removed only after getting permission from the Revenue Department for this purpose. Further they have furnished the details of permission obtained from the Revenue department for 19077 trees. It is also noticed that few trees for which permission obtained are still standing at the edge of the Right of Way. NHAI authorities have informed that for the purpose of Environmental Clearance trees with 330 mm girth alone were taken into account. The bushes and small tender trees were not considered as trees. However,_for the compensation purpose, every email tree including Amite, Guava, lime: etc were taken into account and the list has been furnished to the Revenue authorities for getting tree cutting permission. The permissions obtained by NHAI authorities are furnished in Annexure-D. The committee members are of the opinion that diligent care and due efforts were taken to protect the water bodies as per the terms and conditions as stated in the Environmental Clearance. The following points have also been taken into cognizance for the maintenance of environment and ecology:
A total no. of 263 structures (re 30 Major Bridges. 34 Minor Bridges. 5 Aqueducts and 194 Culverts) have been provided as against a number of 250 structures met- toned in the reassessed EC, based on the direction of Hon'ble NGT and MoEF&CC for which an amount of Rs.601.83 Cr. had been allotted additionally. Copy of the order of NHAI is furnished in Annexure-E. All the survey numbers have been considered during the construction of four lane road and suitable mitigation measures have also been provided such as provision of Major Bridges, Minor Bridges. Culverts. Side drains, Retaining wall. etc. to protect the water body. An amount of Rs. 1349 Cr. has been remitted to the Government of Tamilnadu on 07.06.2018, towards conservation of wet lands as per specific condition stipulated in the Environmental Clearance. Copy of the same is appended in Annexure-F, Likewise, an amount of Rs. 4.04 Cr has been remitted to the Executive Engineer. FWD' WRO, Nagercoil on 17.01.2019. towards restoring the tanks/ ponds in Kanyakumari District falling within the proposed alignment of Project Highway. Copy of the same is appended in Annexure-G. NHAI has submitted the Methodology to be followed for taking up the work on water bodies by the Construction Agency to the Executive Engineer. FWD and copy of the same is appended in Annexure-H."
8. Thus, it is clear from the report of the Committee that all necessary steps have been taken for protection of the water bodies. While the highway project is of great importance for connectivity for the people, 16 having regard to the ecological significance of the water bodies, the project must be executed without damaging the water bodies as proposed by the EAC and by the joint Committee, constituted by this Tribunal. If any adverse impact on water body becomes inevitable, including division of the water body, area equal to double of the area affected by the water body must be alternatively provided, with the approval of the joint Committee of District Magistrate, Kanyakumari, SEIAA and State PCB to offset such adverse impact. State PCB will be the nodal agency in this regard. The Project Proponent - NHAI, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tamil Nadu, may take further action as per the observations of the Committee.
9. A report of compliance status as on 30.06.2022 be filed by the NHAI with the Registrar of the Southern Bench, NGT on or before 30.06.2022. If any direction becomes necessary, the Registrar may place the matter before the Bench.
Subject to above, the appeals are disposed of.
If any grievance survives, it will be open to the aggrieved party to take remedies in accordance with law.
A copy of this order be forwarded to NHAI, Executive Engineer, PWD, Tamil Nadu, District Magistrate, Kanyakumari, SEIAA and State PCB by e-mail for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP K. Ramakrishnan, JM 17 Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM February 14, 2022 Appeal No. 59/2017(SZ) & Appeal No. 80/2017(SZ) SN 18