National Green Tribunal
Sarangam vs The District Collector & 11 Others on 22 August, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.3:- Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 181 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Sarangam
S/o Raja,
No.M 11, Vilva Nagar Housing Board,
Cuddalore- 607 001.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
The Collector
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. M. Sudharsan.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1, R5 & R7 to R10.
Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik for R2.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3 & R4.
Mr. Vijayamehanath for R6.
Mr. V. Neethidurai for R11 to R13.
Judgment Pronounced on: 22nd August 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.181/2020 (SZ) 22nd August 2022. Mn.
Page 1 of 27 Item No.3:- Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 181 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Sarangam
S/o Raja,
No.M 11, Vilva Nagar Housing Board,
Cuddalore- 607 001.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) The Collector
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore - 607 001.
2) The Chairman
Central Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India,
Parivesh Bhavan, East Arun Nagar,
Shahdara, New Delhi - 110 032.
3) The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
No.76, Mount Road, Guindy
Chennai - 600 032.
4) The District Environmental Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
No.A-3, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Kudikadu, Cuddalore - 607 005.
5) The Tahsildar
Taluk Office Complex, Beach Road,
Cuddalore - 607 001.
6) The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle
Capper Hills, Cuddalore - 607 004.
7) The Assistant Director of Fisheries
Parangipettai, Annamalai University Opposite Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District - 608 502.
8) The Assistant Director of Fisheries Fishing Harbour Complex Cuddalore (O.T.) Cuddalore - 607 003.
Page 2 of 279) The Joint Director of Agriculture O/o. Joint Director of Agriculture, Gudusalai, Semmandalam, Cuddalore - 607 001.
10) Member Secretary Coastal Aquaculture Authority 5th Floor, Integrated Office Complex for Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
11) Sambandam S/o. Ramachandran Suba Uppalavadi and Post Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
12) Dharanidharan S/o. Kumarasamy, No.59, Alpettai, Pondy Main Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore - 607 001.
13) Thiagaran S/o. Manickasamy Uchimedu, Suba Uppalavadi Post, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. M. Sudharsan.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1, R5 & R7 to R10.
Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik for R2.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3 & R4.
Mr. Vijayamehanath for R6.
Mr. V. Neethidurai for R11 to R13.
Judgment Reserved on: 19th July 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 22nd August 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes.
Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes.
Page 3 of 27JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. This case pertains to illegal functioning of Shrimp Culture units by respondent Nos.11 to 13 in Survey No.21/6B of Suba Uppalavadi Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District and consequential pollution of air, water and soil resulting in loss of agricultural income for the applicant and others.
2. It was alleged in the application that the applicant is an agriculturist by profession and he along with his brothers was doing vegetable, flower cultivation primarily and paddy was also cultivated occasionally. They are having properties to an extent of 0.25.80 Hectare of land in Sy. No.21/5B, 0.09.20 Hectare of land in Sy. No.21/6A and 0.04.60 Hectare of land in Sy. No.21/5A2 of the same village. The property of the respondent Nos.11 to 13 is situated immediately south of their property. Apart from the property in Sy. No.21/6B, they are having properties in Sy. No.21/7 & 21/8 as well. There is a poramboke property on the eastern side of the applicant's land and that of respondent Nos.11 to 13 in Sy. No.25 of that village. There is another poramboke land situated further north of the applicant's property. The 11th respondent is using 25 cents of poramboke land which is classified as 'Grazing Poramboke'. The 11th respondent had converted his 25 cents and another about 75 cents of poramboke lands, totally having an extent of 1 Acre into fish ponds and engaged in breeding fish and prawn. He is drawing water from river 'Uppanar' and the saltish water is being discharged into nearby agricultural lands which pollutes the groundwater making it saline affecting the agricultural activities. The 11th Respondent was doing this without obtaining necessary license and it is situated within 500 Meters of sea which is in the prohibited area.
3. Further, it was alleged that a bore well was dug from which he was getting drinking water which is 50 meters away from the place. The 11th respondent is being aided by official respondent No.1 to 10. They are influential persons and they have even laid a road by themselves in the government land for easy transportation to facilitate their trade. Since the Government officials were passive and not taking Page 4 of 27 any action which emboldened them to convert further extent of land comprised in Sy. No.21/6B into a pond for growing prawns and fishes and this was made in the year 2016. The applicant and his brother one Rajamanickam raised objection to the concerned officials by filing representation dated 23.02.2016 and the same was also followed up by them. The 7th Respondent sent a communication dated 10.05.2016 stating that the 11th respondent had applied for grant of license to dig a fish pond in Sy. No.21/6B and the District Committee had conducted an inspection on 09.02.2016 and 18.02.2016 and on getting the report, action would be taken. But, on the same date, the applicant received another communication stating that the application was pending consideration and the decision would be taken only after getting the report. Even without getting any permission, the 11th respondent had proceeded with work. It was also seen from the manner in which the communications were sent that instead of refusing permission, they intended to grant permission to them. The 11th respondent renewed his attempt by bringing JCB machine for digging a pond in Sy. No.21/6B. Though they filed objection dated 07.10.2017 to the Chief Minister's Cell from where they obtained acknowledgement dated 26.10.2017, no action was taken. A complaint was also made online on 11.10.2017, but only the 4th respondent acknowledged it by communication dated 11.10.2017 directing the applicant to contact the 8th Respondent. Though the applicant made representation to the respondent Nos.7 & 8 in person, there was no action taken. The applicant sent another representation dated 21.12.2017 to the 4th Respondent which was again forwarded to the 8th respondent on 10.01.2018, but no action was taken.
4. Since respondent Nos.1 to 10 did not take any action, the applicant moved the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, as the Southern Zone Bench of National Green Tribunal, Chennai was not functioning at that time, by filing Writ Petition as W.P. No.6756 of 2018 for mandamus to forbid the respondents from granting license for establishing and running the fish pond and notice was ordered to the respondents. Further, the Hon'ble High Court, by order dated 26.07.2018 dismissed the writ petition with a direction to approach the Tribunal through Video Conference. The filing of writ petition (W.P. No.6756 of 2018) irked the respondent Nos.11 to 13 and not getting interim orders, further emboldened them to do with the illegal work. Though Page 5 of 27 several complaints were made to the authorities, no action was taken.
5. The report obtained from the Assistant Director of Agriculture dated 16.07.2018 showed that the agricultural lands adjacent to the fish pond are not fit for any cultivation, but in spite of that the license granted to the 11th respondent was not cancelled. The 11th respondent also encroached into the poramboke land and dug a fish pond and doing prohibited prawn culture in that land as well.
6. Since the officials respondents did not taken any action, the applicant had no other option expect to approach this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
"1) Directing respondent 1 to 9 to revoke/cancel all licences/permissions granted to respondents 10 to 12 to run fish ponds in S. Nos. 21/6B, 21/7, 21/8 and 25/- in suba Uppalavadi Village, cuddalore Taluk, cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu:
2) Pass an order of permanent injunction against respondents 11 to 13 and also against any other third parties claiming through respondents 11 to 13 from carrying out illegal prawn and fish cultural ponds of any nature in the S.No. 21/7, 21/8 and 25/- in suba Uppalavadi Village, Cuddalore Tluk,cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu.
3) Directing respondent to remove the access road laid in the, poramboke land illegally and thereby remediate the land area and restore it to its original pristine nature.
4) Directing respondents to pay the aboratate applicant damages to the tune of Rs. One Lakhs together with interest at 12% per annum:
5) Directing the respondents to pay the cost of the proceedings."
7. Vide Order dated 24.09.2020, this Tribunal admitted the matter and appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) the District Collector - Cuddalore District, (ii) a Senior Scientist from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as deputed by its Chairman, (iii) the Assistant Director of Fisheries, who is in charge of that district to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found. The Joint Committee was directed to ascertain as to whether necessary permissions have been obtained for conducting fish/prawn culture as alleged, whether it was done in poramboke land without getting any permission, whether any area falls under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area where such activities are prohibited, and even if it is a permissible activity, whether any prior clearance has been obtained from the Coastal Zone Management Authority and if there is any contamination caused to the soil, mention the nature of contamination and suggest remedial measures, Page 6 of 27 including assessment of environmental compensation and the damage caused to agriculture activities as far as the applicant is concerned as well. The Fisheries Department was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and also for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
8. The 11th Respondent filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.12 & 13 contending that the application is not maintainable. The allegation that the applicant is engaged in agricultural activities and meeting his livelihood by doing agriculture is not correct. In fact, he was an Assistant Agricultural Officer and retired from service and getting pension from the Government. The applicant's daughter Geetha is working as Tahsildar. Taking advantage of official position and influence, he is giving unnecessary torture and trouble to these respondents. It is further contended that the allegation that the sale deed dated 12.05.2009 was not registered and referred under Section 47(A1) of the Stamp Act was not correct and hence denied. He is the absolute owner of the land in S. No. 21/6B and having patta and also registered Sale Deed dated 12.05.2003 as document no. 1115/2003 of Sub-Registrar Joint Office, Cuddalore. He never converted any poramboke land into a fish pond and was having his own fish pond at S. No. 21/6B and using water from borewell at S. No. No. 21/6B with a diesel engine and never used salinated water from Uppannar River for fish pond situated in that survey number. He is a member of District Fish Development Centre which is under the control of 7th respondent. The landed properties in S. No. 21/6B, 21/8, 21/7 are situated 700 meters from Bay of Bengal. Adjacent to the sea, Suba-Uppalavadi Village people's houses are there. Apart from that, there are agricultural lands also situated there belonging to several persons. At the western side of the property of the applicant in S. No. 21/6A, the Uppannar River is flowing with salinated water and during heavy rain and cyclone the salinated water from the Uppanar River flow into the land of respondents 10 to 12 and also the land of applicant and the agricultural produce was used to be damaged on account of the same.
Page 7 of 279. The 11th respondent further contended that considering these aspects, the 9th respondent officer orally advised the village people to go for fish pond in order to avoid revenue loss to Government as well as to the village people. Accordingly, he is running a fish pond in fresh water with its PPT is 0% only. It was tested and certified by the Government Authority i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Aquaculture in its report dated 17.04.2018. So, the allegation that due to the activity of 11th respondent the land became salinated and affected the agricultural activity of the applicant etc are not correct. There are poramboke lands on the eastern side of the property of the applicant as well as respondents 11 to 13 in S. No. 25 and through that land agricultural drainage water from the agricultural field flows out. The applicant tried to raise road on that land by blocking the agricultural drainage water flow which was objected by the respondents 11 to 13 and also by the village people and they sent representations dated 21.09.2018 and 07.03.2018 to the respondents 1 and 5. In order to wreck vengeance on account of this, the applicant filed this application with ulterior motive. They are using water in the fish pond containing organic minerals and other organic nutrients, which are required for the growth of agriculture crops. They are using the fish pond water for irrigating their own agricultural land. They are using fresh water from the bore well and after harvesting the fish, the water was being used for agricultural irrigation and because of this re-cycling water, the agricultural crops grown by them are giving good yield. They are running the fish pond by getting subsidy from the Government. Though, the applicant filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court but the same was dismissed. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
10. The 2nd Respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the applicant had raised only the allegation of operation of fish/prawn culture in certain lands and the Central Pollution Control Board has no role regarding the allegations made in the application in respect of granting Environmental Clearance (EC) or other permission for such activities. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
Page 8 of 2711. Pursuant to the direction, the Joint Committee has filed the report dated Nil, e-filed on 23.03.2021 which reads as follows:-
"INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE In the matter of O.A.No. 181/2020 (SZ) concerned with alleged Prawn fish cultivation that is being done without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), constituted an independent committee comprising of District Collector, Cuddalore District.
Senior Scientist from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as deputed by its Chairman The Assistant Director of Fisheries and has directed the Committee vide ils Order dated:24.09.2020 to inspect the area in question and submit factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found.
It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, the Committee comprising of District Collector, Cuddalore. Senior Scientist K.Rajaraman deputed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Assistant Director of Fisheries, Parangipettai inspected the field on 04.11.2020 and made a detailed enquiry. The following details were ascertained from the field.
It is submitted that the fish culture pond has been constructed in Survey No.21/6B, Subauppalavadi. Cuddalore District with an extent of 0.20 Ares by Mr. Sammantham S/o. Ramachandran. There are no fish culture ponds of any nature in Survey No.2177, 21/8 and 25 in Subauppalavadi Village, Cuddalore as alleged by Petitioner.
The boundaries of the existing fish culture pond in S.No.21/6B is as follows:
It is respectfully submitted that sampling was done by the committee almost for an hour by throwing casting net but no fish or prawn / shrimp was caught. No stock of fish seeds or prawn / shrimp seeds were found in the pond. It was also observed by the committee that surrounding the fish culture pond a crab fence & a bird fence of about 20 feet which is used for vannamei prawn culture are erected in the said pond. The water in the pond during inspection was fresh and clear. The pond is bounded by agricultural field in 03 directions and in the west side it is bounded by Uppanar river which is running adjacent to all cultivators land. The agriculture lands lies very next to the pond. Polyethylene sheet was embedded in three side of pond dike to prevent seepage.
The Committee enquired the applicant Thiru. Sarangam and the respondent Thiru.Sampantham and adjoining farmers land owners viz Thiru. Tharanidharan, Thiru. Thiyagarajan. In the enquiry the petitioner Thiru.Sarangam stated that Thiru.Sampantham has been doing Prawn Culture using salt water drawn from Uppanar river through diesel engine. However presently he has removed the diesel engine and has drained out all the sea water from the pond and has filled it up with fresh water. Thiru. Sampantham stated that he has been doing only fish culture. The adjoining land owners Thiru. Tharanidharan and Thiru. Thiyagarajan has stated that they have been continuously doing agriculture in their land and have harvested 40 and 23 bags of paddy respectively during last crop. There is no damage to the land because of the fish culture pond.Page 9 of 27
The facts that the crab & bird fence used for vannamei prawn culture is seen in the pond and that, not even a single fish seed was seen in the pond, gives a reason for the committee to ponder that, there might have been a chance that shrimp cultivation was already carried on in the said pond.
It is submitted that soil samples were collected in and around the sites of the pond and sent to soil testing lab of Agriculture Department and the lab results indicates that the soil suits all types of crop cultivation and the tested water samples has light salt and hence, the soil is suitable for all types of agriculture.
The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal has directed to ascertain the following issues.
a) Whether necessary permission have been obtained for conducting fish/ prawn culture.
Thiru. Sampantham has obtained permission for fish culture vide Membership No.342 of the District Fish Farmers Development Agency dated:27.12.2017. He has not obtained license for prawn culture.
b) Whether the fish / prawn culture was done in poramboke land without getting any permission.
The pond is constructed in Survey No. 21/6B Subauppalavadi, Cudddalore which as per Village records is a patta land which stands in the name of Thiru.Sambantham.
c) Whether any area falls under Coastal Regulation Zone where such activities are prohibited.
The pond in s.no. 21/6B, Subauppalavadi Village falls under Coastal Regulations Zone-III. In Coastal Regulation Zone-III, fish culture is a permitted activity and shrimp culture can be carried out only with proper license.
d) If there is contamination caused to the soil mention the nature of contamination on suggest remedial measures.
Laboratory testing of the sample soil in and around the pond indicates that the soil suits all types of crop cultivation and the tested water samples has light salt and hence, the soil is suitable for all types of agriculture.
It is therefore respectfully concluded that, Thiru. Sampantham has obtained permission for fish culture and has constructed pond in his patta land which is situated in S.no. 21/6B, Subauppalavadi village, Cuddalore District. The Subauppalavadi village falls under coastal Regulation Zone - III, where fish culture is a permitted activity and shrimp culture can be carried with proper license. As on date no shrimp/ fish cultivation is seen in the pond. The soil in and around the pond is not contaminated as per the laboratory test."
12. They also produced the analysis of soil sample and map showing the location of the disputed fish pond and the properties of the applicant and others along with certain photographs.
13. It is seen from the Joint Committee report that at the time of inspection, they found a fish culture pond in the property comprised in Sy. No.21/6B of Subauppalavadi, Cuddalore District having an extent of 0.20 Ares owned by the 11th respondent and no fish culture pond of any nature was found in Sy. No.21/7, 21/8 and 25 of Subauppalavadi, Cuddalore District as alleged by the applicant. They further mentioned that the surroundings of the fish culture pond, a crab fence and a bird fence of about 20 feet which was used for vannamei prawn culture was erected in the said pond. During inspection, there was no fish/prawn culture activity found and the Page 10 of 27 water in the pond was fresh and clear. When the applicant was contacted, he reiterated the allegations made in the application that the 11th respondent was drawing the salt water from Uppanar River using diesel engine, but he had removed the diesel engine and drained out all the salt water from the pond and filled up with the fresh water. This was denied by the 11th respondent who was also present. The neighbouring property owners submitted to the Joint Committee members that they were doing agricultural activities and their agricultural activities were not affected. The committee also observed that because of the presence of crab fence and bird fence used for vannamei prawn culture in that area, there might have been a chance that shrimp cultivation would have been carried out in the pond. The soil analysis showed that it suits for all type of cultivation and there was no contamination caused, though it contains slight salt. The committee also mentioned that the village falls under CRZ - III and fish culture is a permitted activity and shrimp culture can be carried out only with proper license.
14. The applicant filed objection to the Joint Committee report, wherein he denied the allegation that the 11th respondent had converted only the land in Sy. No.21/6B into a fish pond, but he was having an extent of 0.48.8 Ares in Sy. No.21/6 and 21/6B which were also recorded as agricultural lands. Further, the 11th respondent had converted the entire land into a pond for breeding fish/prawn, but the Committee had mentioned that 0.20.0 Ares alone was converted as pond which is not correct. According to the applicant, the 11th respondent also converted poramboke land in two places into prawn growing ponds which is in Sy. No.25 situated on the east of the property of the applicant and he was having a total extent of 6.71.0 Hectare, of which, he had converted 0.80.0 Hectare which is equivalent to 2 Acres and this was mentioned in the representation submitted by the villagers on 12.03.2018. According to the applicant, the District Collector did not mention anything about the occupation/encroachment of the poramboke land by the 11th Respondent. The presence of Uppanar River on the east of the property comprised in Sy.No.21/6B within 81 meters or 300 feet from Uppanar River was admitted. But this aspect has not been mentioned whereas the Committee mentioned that the property is situated 1 Km from the sea. They have not mentioned anything about the trespass Page 11 of 27 of proamboke land having an extent of 2 Acres in Sy. No.16/2 and converted the same into prawn culture pond. The Uppanar River which flows in Sy. No.16/1 and it receives back waters from sea and having tidal effect and since it carries salt water, it was named as Uppanar River which means salty river. In the entire area, the ground water is influenced by salt. According to the applicant, visit of the committee was informed in advance to the 11th respondent through the 7th Respondent and immediately he had removed the salt water and filled with the fresh water. It was also alleged in the objection that the District Collector had posted in facebook account that he had gone to inspect the pond under prawn culture referring to this pond and posted the photographs as well and this was done after five days of inspection, but when filing the report, he had changed his view. The existence of bore well and pipe were not noted by the committee, though it was pointed out to the committee members. The committee members also informed the press that the pond contained salt water and prawn culture is being done and that was reflected in some newspaper reports, but subsequently they filed different report before the Tribunal under the influence of the 11th Respondent. The Joint Director of Fisheries had even informed the District Committee for cancellation of the license granted as it is likely to affect the nearby agricultural lands. The 11th Respondent obtained two electricity service connections bearing SC Nos.468/2004 and 632/2013 and both were in Sy. No.21/3 having an extent of 25 cents one in the name of 11th respondent and other in the name of his mother Kuppammal. As per the rules of TANGEDCO, electricity service connection will not be given for an area of less than 1 Acre and two service connections will not be given normally in the same survey number. A peace committee meeting was conducted by the Tahsildar, Cuddalore on the basis of the agitations made by the local people and the 5th respondent had given a finding after enquiry that the 11th respondent had encroached upon the common pathway and passed a strange and conditional order regarding the use of common pathway. They have not tested the soil from the property of the applicant.
Page 12 of 2715. The documents produced by the applicant along with the reply did not confirm the allegations made that the committee had come to a different finding than the finding noted in report submitted before the Tribunal. It only reflects that as per the direction of the Tribunal, they inspected the area and collected the samples and nothing more.
16. The 1st respondent filed reply in the form of rejoinder to the reply cum objection filed by the applicant denying the allegations and reiterating the fact that they have conducted inspection and gave the report without any fabrication as alleged.
17. The 7th Respondent has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the applicant denying the allegations. It was alleged in the reply/rejoinder that the fish culture is not a prohibited activity even in CRZ area and he had obtained necessary permission from the Fisheries Department with Membership No.342 of the District Fish Farmers Development Agency dated 27.12.2017 and there is no necessity to cancel the same. He had also reiterated the findings of the Joint Committee that there was no loss of income caused. The documents produced by the Government departments shows that earlier the 11th Respondent had filed an application for conducting shrimp culture, but on inspection by the Fisheries Department, it was revealed that it was not fit for shrimp culture and so, he withdrew the earlier application and applied for conducting fish culture and also given an undertaking that he will not do any activity without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities.
18. It is seen from the documents produced that even the 11th respondent is also undertaking agricultural activities and the same has not been affected on account of the fish culture activity carried on by him. The 11th Respondent also produced certain documents to show various complaints filed by the applicant and the results. He denied the allegations that the documents by which he obtained the property was not registered and they produced the copy of the registered document bearing Document No.115 of 2003 of District Registrar Office, Cuddalore to show that he had obtained the property as per the registered document and not by an unregistered document as alleged by the applicant.
Page 13 of 2719. Though the application was earlier taken up for Judgment by Order dated 30.07.2021, on going through the reports, since this Tribunal found that on the basis of the objection filed by the applicant, no report was filed, it was decided to reopen the matter and directed the Committee to file a further report on the basis of the objections filed by the applicant to the earlier report. This Tribunal had taken up the matter for Judgment only on the basis of the submissions that the Joint Committee has filed the report, but on verification, it was revealed that the earlier report filed by them was re-filed as a new report. So, the matter was reopened and directed the Joint Committee to file a further report.
20. Subsequently, the Joint Committee filed a further report dated Nil, e- filed on 01.10.2021 extracted in Para (2) of the order dated 05.10.2021 which reads as follows:-
"INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE In the issue of objections raised by Thiru.Sarangam, the applicant herein not to permit Thiru R.Sambandam to do prawn culture, stating that prawn culture can be done only with the salt water, the salt water will affect their adjacent lands by leakage of water, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai, constituted an independent committee in 0.A. No. 181 of 2020 on 24.09.2020 comprising of ► The District Collector, Cuddalore District.
► Senior scientist from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as deputed by its chairman ► The Assistant Director of Fisheries.
and had directed the Committee to inspect the area in question and submit the factual as well as action taken report, if any violation found.
It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai the committee visited the field on 04.11.2020, and submitted the report to the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai on 18.01.2021. On 24.02.2021 the applicant has submitted his objections and produced the additional documents. Hence the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai directed the same committee to consider the objections of the Applicant and conduct further inspection and test, if any required and then submit a further report to the Tribunal. And also the Tribunal directed the respondents to file independent statement regarding the allegations made in the application.
On 30.07.2021 the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the committee to file a further report as directed as per the order dated : 24.02.2021 on the basis of objection filed by the Applicant and documents produced by them along with application.
It is submitted that in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai the committee comprising of the District Collector, Cuddalore District, a Senior scientist Thiru K. Rajaraman deputed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, and the Assistant director of fisheries, Parangipettai again visited the field on 08.09.2021 and made pond inspection and a detailed enquiry. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry also accompanied the team. The photographs taken during the inspection by the Joint Committee is submitted in Annexure -1 It is submitted that during inspection it is observed that that the pond was filled with water and fishes were found in the pond, agricultural lands surrounded by the pond, paddy cultivation was Page 14 of 27 found, no physical damage to the surrounding agriculture lands was observed. During Inspection, Samples of water was taken by the Joint Director of Agriculture from the 800 feet bore well of Thiru.Dharanitharan and 18 feet bore well of Thiru.Sambandam bore wells which is situated 70 mts and 30 mts away from the subject filed respectively. There is no contamination of water as inferred from the Report of Analysis (ROA) of the water samples.
It is submitted that eventhough the 7th respondent requested the Applicant to be present before the committee on 08.09.2021 at 10 A.M at the time of field visit, the applicant refused to receive the letter and had not attended the field visit. But on evening of that day he gave letter at Collectorate to the collector during the enquiry. In the letter the Applicant Thiru.Sarangam stated that the water from the pond leaked to his agriculture land, and damaged his dry land cultivation and the horticulture crop cultivation, and also stated that if permission was given to the 10th respondent for fish culture after some time he may do prawn culture, and requested the committee not to permit the 10th respondent either prawn culture or fish culture.
The committee enquired the 10th respondent Thiru.Sambandam, and the 11th and the 12th respondents who are the farmers of adjoining field to the fish pond namely Thiru.Dharanidharan and Thiru. Thiyagarajan were enquired and depositions were obtained from them. The 10th respondent stated that he is a small farmer, depends on revenue generated from the agriculture field and fish pond and doing fish culture in his fish pond. He stated that he does not cultivate prawn in the said pond. He stated that future also he will never do prawn culture in the said pond and produced the bill for the purchase of fish seeds, and also stated that he will fill up the pond with the fresh unsaline water from the 800 feet deep bore well. He said that in the fields adjoining to the fish pond he has been doing agriculture and stated that last year he has harvested 20 bags paddy, 3 tons of brinjal and 30 bags of onion and also he stated that this year he has cultivated paddy, brinjal, onion and which are in good condition. Therefore presence of pond is no way affecting the cultivation of crops. The cultivation of crops in the agriculture field also was verified with Adangals maintained by Village Administrative Officer Subauppalavadi, Cuddalore. The adjoining lands are cultivated regularly.
The 11th respondent, the farmer of adjoining land had stated that last year he has harvested 40 bags paddy, 3 tons of brinjal and also he stated that this year he has cultivated paddy which is in good condition. The 12th respondent had stated that last year he has harvested 20 bags paddy, 1 ton of brinjal and also he stated that this year he has cultivated paddy which is in good condition. And both the 11th and the 12th respondents had stated that they will not do prawn culture in their agriculture land and also stated that the 10th respondent has been doing only fish culture in his fish pond.
It is submitted that during the field visit it was found that the 10th respondent‟s fish pond is situated in a portion of land in Survey No. 21/6B (only 0.20.0 ares) and the remaining 0.28.80 ares are cultivation land.
It is submitted that during the field visit it was verified that the 10th respondent has not made fish pond in 0.80.0 hectare of the poramboke land in Survey No.25. And also it is was seen that the poramboke land was encroached by cultivation by the twelve persons including the Applicants for long time and it is grazing land. Notice has been issued to the twelve persons by the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Cuddalore to vacate the grazing land in his notice R.C. No. 1210-A-2020 dated : 31.12.2020. Further, it is ascertained that the land bearing S.No.16/1 is a patta land stands in the name of one Rajamanickam.
It is submitted that during the field visit it is ascertained that the property Survey No. 21/6B is about 600 meters away from the sea and less than 1 km from the sea.
It is submitted that four water samples were taken by the Agricultural Department on 07.09.2021 from the 800 feet Bore well of Thiru.Sarangam, fish pond of Thiru.Sambandam, Uppanar river and Panchayat OHT. During the inspection by the Joint committee 08.09.2021 two water samples were taken respectively by the Agricultural Department from 800 feet Bore well of Thiru. Dharanitharan and 18 feet Borewell of Thiru.Sambandam. It is Page 15 of 27 submitted that Electrical Conductivity of water range 0 to 1 dsm is good for all agricultural crops. The report received from Joint Director of Agriculture, Cuddalore is submitted in Annexure -2.
On scrutinizing the water sample analytical results of the bore well (800 Feet) belonging to Thiru. Dharanitharan S/o. Kumarsamy, which is situated next to fish pond and used for irrigation of Thiru.Sambandam's field shown an Electrical Conductivity of 0.77 dsm and PH of 7.5. The water sample taken from the Borewell of Thiru.Sarangam S/o. Raja is having an Electrical Conductivity of 0.4 dsm and PH of 7.3, which is suitable for cultivation. The water sample from the panchayat OHT bore well which is approximately 500 meters away from the fish pond is having an Electrical Conductivity of 0.54 dsm and PH of 7.6.On the contrary, the water sample collected from the Uppanar which is flowing adjacent to these fields is having an Electrical Conductivity of 5.7 dsm and PH of 6.70. The water sample collected from the 18 feet deep bore well of Thiru. Sambandam is having an Electrical Conductivity of 4.5 dsm and a PH of 7.6. Therefore it is implied that the salinity of water is high in the upper level than the water in the deeper level underneath the ground. The water sample collected from the fish pond is having an Electrical Conductivity of 6.1 dsm' and PH of 7.7. Further the fish pond is having a lining of polythene sheets around, there is less likely of seepage and therefore no harm to the neighbouring fields soil and crops. However, we have obtained a written affirmation from Thiru. Sambandam for not using the bore well water(18 feet deep) and to use only the water from the bore well of Thiru. Dharanitharan(800 feet) with quality water for filling the farm pond and to replace the water immediately with soft water. Further as per the instructions of the first respondent, the Department of Agriculture has proposed to collect at surprise and analyze the sample from the fish pond after replacing with soft water once in a month for about one year.
It is submitted that soil samples were taken by the Agricultural Department on 07.09.2021 from the field of Thir.Samband am Thiru.Sarangam(Applicant) which is situated approximately 40 meters away from the fish pond. Further soil samples was also taken from the field of Thiru.Panneerselvam which is situated approximately 100 meters away from the fish pond and sent to the laboratory testing of the sample. The report received from Joint Director of Agriculture is submitted in Annexure -3. It is submitted that Electrical Conductivity of soil range 0 to 1 dsm' is good for all agricultural crops. The soil sample is having an EC (Electrical Conductivity which is a measure of salinity) 0.07dsm and a pH value of 7.7 in the field of Thiru. Sambandam, S/o. Thiru. Ramachandran. The soil is in good condition for cultivating all crops and at present the growth of crops like paddy, onion are good in that soil. The land of the Applicant, Thiru.Sarangam's field next to Thiru.R.Sambandam field approximately 40 meters away from Fish Pond is having an Electrical Conductivity of 0.08 dsm-1 and a pH of 7.8 is good for the cultivation and the Paddy crop stand is good. Soil samples were taken from the field of Thiru. Panneerselvam approximately 100 feet away from the fish pond , on the other side of the road, is having an Electrical Conductivity of 0.12 dsm and pH of 7.7 and the growth of pumpkin and onion crop is good. As per the Analytical report, it is concluded that that there is no evidence to support that soil and crops are affected due to the salinity and alkalinity of farm pond water and the soil in and around the pond indicates that the soil suits all types of crop cultivation.
It is submitted that during the enquiry it was seen that the 11th Respondent is culturing inland fish alone which is not prohibited. Further, the pond in S.No. 21/6B, Subauppalavadi Village falls under Coastal Regulations Zone III where fish culture is a permitted activity.
It is therefore respectfully concluded that, Thiru.Sambandam has constructed pond in his patta land which is situated in Survey No. 21/6B, Subauppalavadi village, Cuddalore District and he is also admitted as a member in the Cuddalore District Fish Farmers Development Agency. The Subauppalavadi village falls under Coastal Regulation Zone-III, where fish culture is a permitted activity. No shrimp culture was seen in the pond. The soil in and around the pond is not contaminated as per the laboratory test. It is humbly submitted that Fish Culture in Pond is a part of permitted activity under Integrated Farming System in Agriculture to improve the income of farmers. Therefore banning of such integrated activity will Page 16 of 27 not go in the interest of farmer community as long as it does not affect the crop cultivation in agricultural land. In the subject case, the Applicant land is about 40 meters away from fish pond and he has been doing crop cultivation and there has been regular crop cultivation in the adjoining fields to the fish pond belonging to the respondents. Soil samples and water samples taken in adjoining fields does not lead to infer that fish pond causes land or water pollution. Therefore the committee recommends that fish culture need not be stopped at the same time the water from 18 feet bore well belongs to Thiru.Sambandam should not be used for filling in fish pond."
21. On that day, this Tribunal had considered the report submitted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board dated 04.10.2021, e-filed on the same day and extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
.........
3. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble NGT (SZ) has passed order dated 24.02.2021 and directed inter alia as follows:
"the respondents are also directed to file independent statement regarding the allegations made in the application in support of their case along with the documents which they want to rely on for the purpose of sustaining the activity in that area. If no such statement is filed, then this Tribunal will be compelled to pass an order against them with the available materials on record".
4. It is respectfully submitted that, the Hon'ble NGT has passed further order dt.30.07.2021 directed as follows:
"So, the matter is re-opened and posted to 23.08.2021 for the committee to inspect the area and file a further report in compliance with the order dated 24.02.2021"
5. It is respectfully submitted that in pursuance to the above said NGT order, that the aquaculture farm/pond was inspected by the officials of the Advanced Environmental Laboratory, TNPCB, Cuddalore along with Assistant Director (Fisheries & Fisherman Welfare) Parangipettai, Joint Director(Agriculture) & Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry) on 26.08.2021, during inspection, the following were observed:
i. The Aquaculture farm/pond was filled with water and fishes were found in the pond.
ii. Agricultural lands surrounded by the aquaculture farm/pond, paddy cultivation was found on the Northern, Southern and the Eastern sides of the farm/pond. Sea water creek was found in the Western side of the farm/pond.
iii. No physical damage to the surrounding agriculture lands was observed.
iv. The water samples from the aquaculture farm/pond and the Bore well about 25 meters from the aquaculture farm/pond of 10th respondent Thiru.Sambandam, were collected and sent for analysis.
v. The Report of Analysis (ROA) of the above water samples, shows that the parameters such as pH, BOD, COD, TSS, Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen & Ammonical Nitrogen are of less values and the level of TDS shows the proximity of coast and the nearby sea water creek. The copy of ROA report is submitted herewith as Annexure.
There is no contamination of water is inferred from the Report of Analysis (ROA) of the water samples.
6. It is further submitted that as per the decision of the committee the Aquaculture farm/pond was inspected again on 08.09.2021 by the committee with the District Collector, Cuddalore. During the inspection the farm/pond was inspected by the committee, larger sizes of fishes were found to be cultivated in the farm/pond. As per the advice of the District Collector, water samples from the nearby bore well at a distance of about 150m on the southern side of the farm/pond and from a bore well in the agriculture land at a distance of about 100m on the Eastern side of the farm/pond were collected by the Joint Director (Agriculture) for analysis."
Page 17 of 2722. Respondent Nos.1 & 7 also filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the applicant.
23. The 1st Respondent also filed a further report which reads as follows:-
"REPORT FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT
1. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Green Tribunal in its order dated: 07.12.2021 in O.A.No.181 of 2020 (SZ) has observed as follows:
"5.However, the question as to whether the person who is maintaining the fish pond, requires permission under the CRZ Notification, apart from obtaining membership under the District Fish Farmers Development Agency and whether they will have to obtain any permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for conducting the same, if it falls under any category which is regulated by the pollution control laws applicable (B.P.No.6 of 2004)
7. The District Collector being the District Authority under the CRZ Notification is also directed explain this aspect as to whether this pond requires any CRZ clearance under the CRZ Notification"
2. It is submitted that Section 8 of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification deals with the norms for regulation of activities permissible under the notification, Section 8 (III) which deals with the Coastal Regulation Zone III reads as follows:
"Coastal Regulation Zone III Area upto 200mts from HTL on the landward side in case of seafront and 100mts along tidal influenced water bodies or width of the creek whichever is less is to be earmarked as "No Development Zone (NDZ)",
(i) the NDZ shall not be applicable in such area falling within any notified port limits;
(ii) No construction shall be permitted within NDZ except for repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structure not exceeding existing Floor Space Index, existing plinth area and existing density and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for activities; Construction/ reconstruction of dwelling units of traditional coastal communities including fisher folk may be permitted between 100 and 200 metres from the HTL along the seafront in accordance with a comprehensive plan prepared by the State Government or the Union territory in consultation with the traditional coastal communities including fisher folk and incorporating the necessary disaster management provision, sanitation and recommended by the concerned State or the Union territory CZMA to NCZMA for approval by MoEF;
(iii) however, the following activities may be permitted in NDZ -
(a) agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pasture, parks, play field, and forestry; (b) projects relating to Department of Atomic Energy; (c) mining of rare minerals; (d) salt manufacture from seawater; (e) facilities for receipt and storage of petroleum products and liquefied natural gas as specified in Annexure-11; (f) facilities for regasification of liquefied natural gas subject to conditions as mentioned in subparagraph
(ii) of paragraph 3; (g) facilities for generating power by non conventional energy sources, (h) Foreshore facilities for desalination plants and associated facilities; (i) weather radars; (j) construction of dispensaries, schools, public rain shelter, community toilets, bridges, roads, provision of facilities for water supply, drainage, sewerage, crematoria, cemeteries and electric sub-station which are required for the local inhabitants may be permitted on a case to case basis by CZMA; (k) construction of units or auxiliary thereto for domestic sewage, treatment and disposal with the prior approval of the concerned Pollution Control Board or Committee; (l) facilities required for local fishing communities such as fish drying yards, auction halls, net mending yards, traditional boat building yards, ice plant, ice crushing units, fish curing facilities and the like; (m) development of green field airport already permitted only at Navi Mumbai"
Since fish culture is an allied activity of agriculture, fish culture is a permitted activity in Coastal Regulation Zone III. Therefore the person who is maintaining the fishpond, apart from obtaining membership under the District Fish Farmers development Agency do not require any other permission/clearance, including permission from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under the CRZ notification."
Page 18 of 2724. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and respondents.
25. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that even now, the reports have not been properly reflected the grievance of the applicant. Further, no soil sample was taken from the property of the applicant and the earlier report will go to show that there was an attempt on the part of the 11th respondent in conducting shrimp culture without obtaining any permission, as the property falls under CRZ - III. So, the learned counsel for the applicant wanted to consider their objections and pass appropriate orders in this matter.
26. The learned counsel appearing for the State Departments argued that the fish culture is deemed to be part of agricultural activity which is permissible in CRZ area and fish culture is not a prohibited activity and the report will go to show that the 11th respondent is not conducting any shrimp culture and he had obtained permission from the Fisheries Department for conducting fish culture activity and he was doing the same within his property only and there was no encroachment into the poramboke land and converted the same as fish pond as alleged by the applicant. The committee as well as the official respondents have given the true picture and this Tribunal may consider those aspects and pass appropriate orders.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board argued that the report filed by them will go to show that this will not come under the consent mechanism and the soil analysis report and inspection report showed that there was no damage caused to the soil/water and as such, there was no pollution caused as alleged in the application.
28. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.11 to 13 argued that they are conducting only fish culture and due to some enmity, the applicant had made false allegations. The committee report will go to show that there was no violation committed by them and they will carry out the activity only with necessary permission.
29. We have considered the pleadings, reports submitted, objections filed, submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also perused the documents available on record.
Page 19 of 2730. The points that arose for consideration are:-
i. Whether the respondents Nos.11 to 13 are involved in shrimp culture activity in CRZ area without obtaining necessary permission?
ii. Whether there was any damage caused to soil or water on account of the activities carried on by the respondent Nos.11 to 13?
iii. Whether there was any loss of income caused to the applicant on account of the alleged pollution to the water and soil due to the activities of the respondents No.11 to 13?
iv. Whether the respondents Nos.11 to 13 are liable to pay any compensation for the damage caused to the environment or violations committed by them?
v. What is the nature of directions (if any) to be issued applying the „Precautionary Principle‟ to protect the environment in this regard?
vi. Relief and costs.
POINTS:-
31. Grievance in this application was that the respondent Nos.11 to 13 are conducting illegal shrimp culture in the lands belonging to them and also in the neighbouring Government Poramboke lands by encroaching into the same by digging ponds, drawing salt water from the Uppanar River and doing shrimp culture and discharging the same into the neighbouring properties which resulted in damage to the agricultural properties and agriculturists, including applicant have suffered loss of income. These allegations were denied by the respondent Nos.11 to 13.
32. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations made in the application, this Tribunal appointed a Joint Committee and the Joint Committee has filed two reports. In both reports, they have categorically stated that at the time of inspection, the 11th respondent was not conducting any shrimp culture, but some of the materials available on that area viz., crab fence, birds fence in the pond Page 20 of 27 suggest that there could have been shrimp culture conducted in that area. It was not known as to when exactly that shrimp culture was conducted and when that was stopped.
33. It is seen from the documents produced on the side of the Government Departments that earlier the 11th respondent had applied for shrimp culture in that property and on examination, when it was found that it is not fit for the same, he had withdrawn the application and applied for fish culture in that land. So, at present, there is no evidence to show that the 11th respondent was conducting shrimp culture in the property.
34. Admittedly, the area falls under CRZ - III and the last report submitted by the 1st respondent dated 24.12.2021 where they have extracted the permissible activity which includes agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pasture, parks, play field and forestry.
35. According to the Government Departments, fish culture is part of agricultural activities and it is a permissible activity, even in No Development Zone (NDZ), as per the CRZ Notification. But according to the 1st respondent, since it is a permissible activity, the person who is carrying on the activity need only to obtain permission from the Fisheries Department and no further permission/clearance required either under the CRZ Notification or from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. But it is contrary to the orders passed by the Special Bench of National Green Tribunal by Common Judgment dated 26.05.2022 in O.A. No.82 of 2016 (SZ) [A. Paramasivan Vs. TNPCB, Chennai & Ors.], O.A. No.173 of 2016 (SZ) [K.M. Raji Vs. TNPCB, Chennai & Ors.] and O.A. No.175 of 2016 (SZ) [S. Srinivasan Vs. TNPCB, Chennai & Ors.] and while considering the applicability of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and CRZ Notification, the Special Bench has observed as follows:-
"11. From the above, it is seen that apart from procedure for registration, sub-section 8 contains prohibition against aquaculture activity within 200 meters from High Tide Line (HTL) and in creeks, rivers and backwaters within the Coastal Regulation Zone area. However, pre-existing activities on the appointed date i.e. 16.12.2005 are saved and non-commercial activities operated by research institute fall under provision of exemption. Under Sub-section 9, traditional coastal aquaculture activity in CRZ area is separately dealt with.
12. As per CRZ notification, aquaculture activities in CRZ were prohibited but under CAA Act, the same have been permitted beyond 200 mtrs from HTL in CRZ area, subject to registration. Even permitted coastal aquaculture activity has to undergo regulation as per CRZ Notification, 1991/2011/2019. Section 27 of the Act merely validated activities which are prohibited by para 2 of CRZ Notification, 1991 but Page 21 of 27 even to the extent such activity is permitted, CRZ regulations are not excluded. There can also be no dispute that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Water Act and other statutes not covering the field of regulation of aquaculture registration continues to apply in area of their operation which issues are not subject matter of regulation under the CAA Act 2005. Notification of 2006 under Section 2 (d) of the CAA Act is applicable for purposes of this Act, on the subject of definition of coastal area.
13. Thus, while the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court deal with the issue generally and are binding, to the extent CAA Act has made conflicting provision, in absence of challenge to such provision, the said provisions can be enforced. However, CAA Act is not exhaustive law and does not exclude other statutes on the subject. Water pollution is still governed by the Water Act. Wildlife protection is governed by the Wildlife Act. Assessment of impact on coastal area is governed by CRZ notifications. CAA Act provides for prohibiting such activities without registration to the extent permissible. Thus, no unregistered activity can continue. Prohibited activity under section 13(8) can also not continue. Even permitted activities, apart from registration require compliance of environmental norms under other statutes. In our view this position is clear and no other view appear to be tenable, nor has been canvassed. We clarify the confusion, if any, accordingly."
36. Thereafter, this Tribunal passed the following directions in that case:-
"16. To sum up, our directions are :-
i) Coastal Aquaculture Authority, Chennai may remove and demolish all illegal Coastal Aquaculture activities in their jurisdiction, operating without registration or in violation of Section 13 (8) of the CAA Act, 2005. Apart from such prohibition, the said Authority may initiate prosecution by filing a written complaint under Section 15 of the Act and also assess compensation for the past violations as per „Polluter Pays‟ principle, following due process of law. Compensation be used for restoration of environment.
ii) TN CZMA may enforce CRZ Notification in relation to prohibited activities in terms of the said notification or permissible activities, which do not comply with the regulatory requirements.
iii) State PCB may enforce Water Act or other applicable provisions within its purview.
iv) Chief Wildlife Warden, Tamil Nadu may take action against Coastal Aquaculture Activity operating in violation of the Wildlife Act, if any.
v) We also constitute a monitoring Committee headed by Member Secretary, NCZMA with nominee of Director, NCSCM, Chennai, TN CZMA, CAA and Chief Wildlife Warden TN as Members for a period of six months. The Chairman of the constituted Committee may call a meeting within two weeks, take stock of the situation, prepare an action plan and execute the same within reasonable time thereafter.
The meeting may be held physically or online. It will be open to the Committee to coordinate with other concerned Departments/ individuals/Experts, to interact with stakeholders and also to undertake visit to the site in question. Its proceedings may be placed on the website of TNCZMA.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to NCZMA, Director, NCSCM, Chennai, TN CZMA, CAA and Chief Wildlife Warden, TN by e-mail for compliance.
If any grievance survives, it will be open to the aggrieved parties to take remedies in accordance with law."
Page 22 of 2737. So, it is clear from this that though the activities are permissible one, if it is done in CRZ area apart from obtaining license from the Fisheries Department, they will have to obtain clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority as well. If any activity is done without obtaining CRZ Clearance, then it will amount to violation. So, the findings of the District Collector that it does not require CRZ Clearance cannot be accepted in view of the findings made by the Special Bench dealing within this issue, wherein it was observed that even if the registration is obtained under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, they will have to obtain necessary clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority as well, if the activity is permissible or regulated activity to be carried out in the CRZ area.
38. Further, the documents produced by the Joint Committee and the findings arrived at by them will go to show that the 11 th respondent had not encroached into any of the Government land, dug any fish pond and doing any activity. Further, the soil analysis showed that there is no contamination caused to the soil affecting the fertility of the land and the soil is fit for all type of cultivation and the evidence collected by the committee from the neighbouring agricultural owners will go to show that there was no reduction in income caused in their agricultural activity on account of the activity of the 11th respondent.
39. So, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any contamination caused on account of the activities of the respondent Nos.11 to 13. In the second report of the Joint Committee, it was specifically mentioned that since the fish pond did not cause any damage to the neighbouring properties and there was no water or soil pollution caused, there is no necessity to stop the fish culture activity, but at the same time, the water from the 18 feet bore well belong to the 11th respondent should not be used for filling the fish pond. Since the Special Bench of this Tribunal had already observed in the cases cited supra that even if it is permissible activity, they will have to obtain CRZ Clearance apart from making registration with the Fisheries Department, there was a violation committed by the respondent Nos.11 to 13, as they did not obtain any CRZ Clearance.
Page 23 of 2740. So, under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed with the following directions:-
a) There is no evidence to show that on the date of filing of the application, the respondents Nos.11 to 13 are conducting any shrimp culture in the agricultural land belonging to them and there was no evidence to show that they had encroached into the Government poramboke land (Grazing Poramboke) and converted the same into fish pond without obtaining necessary permission from the Government department.
b) If the authorities found that prior to conducting the fish culture activity, if respondent Nos.11 to 13 have involved in shrimp culture in that property, the Coastal Zone Management Authority is at liberty to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.11 to 13, including imposition of environmental compensation for the violation after giving opportunity to them and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
c) Respondent Nos.11 to 13 are not entitled to proceed even with the fish culture activity in the property, though it is a permissible activity in the CRZ area under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and 2019 without obtaining necessary clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority in accordance with law.
d) If respondent Nos.11 to 13 continue with the activity even after the orders passed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal cited supra, then the authorities are directed to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.11 to 13, including imposition of environmental compensation for the violation committed, after giving opportunity to them in accordance with law.
e) Respondent Nos.11 to 13 are directed not to use the water from the 18 feet bore well for filling the fish pond as suggested by the Joint Committee for their fish culture activity in future, even if they obtained necessary clearance under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and 2019 and started their activity in the property.
f) The official respondents are at liberty to conduct further investigation as to whether the 11th respondent had trespassed into the government land and converted the same as fish pond and engaged in shrimp culture/fish culture against the provisions of the CRZ Notification and then they are at liberty to take appropriate action against the 11th Respondent for such alleged illegal activity, if any committed by them and pass appropriate Page 24 of 27 orders after giving opportunity to the 11th respondent in accordance with law.
g) The District Collector, Cuddalore District and the State Pollution Control Board are directed to take appropriate action against the 11th respondent, if there is any violation found strictly in accordance with law.
41. The points are answered accordingly.
42. In the result, the Original Application is allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) There is no evidence to show that on the date of filing of the application, the respondents Nos.11 to 13 are conducting any shrimp culture in the agricultural land belonging to them and there was no evidence to show that they had encroached into the Government poramboke land (Grazing Poramboke) and converted the same into fish pond without obtaining necessary permission from the Government department.
(ii) If the authorities found that prior to conducting the fish culture activity, if respondent Nos.11 to 13 have involved in shrimp culture in that property, the Coastal Zone Management Authority is at liberty to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.11 to 13, including imposition of environmental compensation for the violation after giving opportunity to them and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
(iii) Respondent Nos.11 to 13 are not entitled to proceed even with the fish culture activity in the property, though it is a permissible activity in the CRZ area under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and 2019 without obtaining necessary clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority in accordance with law.Page 25 of 27
(iv) If respondent Nos.11 to 13 continue with the activity even after the orders passed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal cited supra, then the authorities are directed to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.11 to 13, including imposition of environmental compensation for the violation committed, after giving opportunity to them in accordance with law.
(v) Respondent Nos.11 to 13 are directed not to use the water from the 18 feet bore well for filling the fish pond as suggested by the Joint Committee for their fish culture activity in future, even if they obtained necessary clearance under the CRZ Notification, 2011 and 2019 and started their activity in the property.
(vi) The official respondents are at liberty to conduct further investigation as to whether the 11th respondent had trespassed into the government land and converted the same as fish pond and engaged in shrimp culture/fish culture against the provisions of the CRZ Notification and then they are at liberty to take appropriate action against the 11th Respondent for such alleged illegal activity, if any committed by them and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the 11th respondent in accordance with law.
(vii) The District Collector, Cuddalore District and the State Pollution Control Board are directed to take appropriate action against the 11th respondent, if there is any violation found strictly in accordance with law.
(viii) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.Page 26 of 27
(ix) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman - Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority, District Collector - Cuddalore, Chairman - Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Cuddalore, and Director - Fisheries Department for their information and compliance of directions.
43. With the above observations and directions, this Original Application is disposed.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.181/2020 (SZ) 22nd August 2022. Mn.
Page 27 of 27