National Green Tribunal
Vikraman, S/O Sadasivan Pillai vs The Member Secretary, State Level ... on 30 September, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.5 &6:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 96 of 2016 (SZ)
With
Original Application No. 88 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Francis, S/o Dhas,
30/86A, Akkivilai Veedu,
North Street,
Marthandam Post,
Kanyakumari District,
PIN 629 165. ....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil: 629 001.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Water Tank Road, Nagercoil,
PIN 629 001.
3. M.J.D. Construction & Engineering,
Contractors Private Limited,
M.J. Bhavan, Kannumamoodu,
Palukal Post, Kanyakumari District
Represented by M.D.
4. Mrs. Janaka Jebangelin Devadhas,
W/o Manikandan, M.J. Bhavan, Kannumamoodu
Kanumamoodu Post,
Kanyakumari District PIN: 629 170.
1
5. Manikandan S/o Kujupillai,
M.J. Bhavan, Kannumamoodu
Kannumammoodu post,
Kanyakumari District,
PIN: 629 153.
6. Mr. Jebamani S/oKolappan
3113A(1), Koottappuly,
Kulappuram, Kulapuram Post,
Kannumamoodu Post,
Kanyakumari District,
PIN 629 152.
7. Mrs. Tulasibhai,
Edassery House
Ramavarmanchirai,
Ramavarmanchirai Post,
Kanyakumari District,
PIN 629 152.
8. Smt. Lekha,
Manglavu Veedu, Ramavarmanchirai,
Ramavarmanchirai Post,
Kanyakumari District
PIN 629 152.
9. Mr. Manoj, Ramavarmanchirai,
Ramavarmanchirai Post,
Kanyakumari District Pin 629 152.
...Respondent(s)
With
Vikraman, S/o.SadasivanPillai,
PuthenVeedu,
Ramavarmanchirai,
Ramavarmanchirai Post,
Kanniyakumari District. 629152.
....Applicant
Verses
1. The Member Secretary,
State Level Environment
2
Impact Assessment Authority,
3rd Floor, Panagalmaligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
2. The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil, Nagercoil post.
3. Mr.Manikandan,
S/o.Kujupillai(late),
M.J.Bhavan, Kannumamoodu,
Kannumamoodu Post, PIN 629170
Kanniyakumari District.
4. Mrs.JanakaJebangelinDevadhas,
W/o.Manikandan, M.J.Bhavan, Kannumamoodu,
Kannumamoodu Post,
Kanniyakumari District PIN 629170.
... Respondent(s)
Date of Judgment: 30.09.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
O.A. No.96/2016 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): None
For Respondent(s): Sri. M. Mani Gopi for R1.
Sri. C. Kasirajan through
M/s. Meena for R2.
Sri. R. Saravana Kumar for R3 to R6.
3
O.A. No.88/2017 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): None
For Respondent(s): Smt. ME. Saraswathy for R1.
Sri. M.Mani Gopi for R2.
Sri. R. Saravna Kumar for R3 & R4.
JUDGMENT
1. Original Application No. 96 of 2016 was filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"Therefore it is humbly prayed that, this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents 3-9 for the restoration of the wet lands comprised in the survey numbers 127/12-127/16, 298/4 and 126/19A and 126/19B of Edaicode Village of Kanyakumari District, to the Original position immediately before the illegal conversion and thus render justice."
2. It is alleged in the application that survey numbers 127/12- 127/16, 298/4 of Edaicode Village of Kanyakumari District of Ramavarmanchirai are agricultural lands as per the revenue records. These lands and other adjacent lands are agricultural lands and owners of these lands are engaged in cultivation of these lands. Respondents 3 to 6 began to fill the said lands with earth and mud. The 3rd respondent is a private company 4 registered with the Registrar of Companies in Chennai and 4th respondent is its Managing Director and 5th respondent in her husband. Though 5th respondent is not a Director of that Company, but he along with his wife is actually managing the affairs of the company. The 3rdrespondent had registered as class „A‟ contractor of the road works with the Tamil Nadu State Highways Department.
3. It is also alleged in the application that there were certain irregularities found in the activities of 3rd respondent in their contract works and some vigilance case is also pending in respect of the same.
4. The allegation was that on account of the filling up of the wetland namely, „Chirakulam‟ the cultivation of the nearby neighbouring properties are affected. Further Government Notification No. M2/25418/2010(2) dated 23.07.2010 clearly bars such illegal conversion of wet lands without following the proper prescribed procedures. The respondents 3 to 6 have not obtained any such permission from the authorities.
Though this was brought to the notice of the authorities, no action was taken. Since the application has been filed to restore the water body in the wet land, it is within limitation, 5 though the conversion was made in the year 2011.
5. O.A. 88 of 2017 was filed by the another applicant alleging that the survey numbers 126/10, 126/14, 126/15C, 126/19A, 127/4, 127/5, 127/6, 127/7, 128/8, 127/9, 127/10, 127/14, 127/15, 127/17, 298/2A, 298/2B, 298/4, 298/5A, 298/5B, 131/11, 302/12B, 302/13 in Edaicode and Devicode Villages of Vilavancode Taluk of kanyakumari District are classified as a wet land as per revenue department record and they are in the names of respondents 3 and 4.
6. Though survey numbers 131/11, 302/12B, 302/13 are not included in the list forwarded to the applicant‟s counsel under the „Right to Information Act‟, 2005 by the revenue department, these lands are also wet lands according to the applicant. These lands have been unauthorisedly filled by the respondents 3 and 4 in that case, without getting necessary permission from the authorities and on account of the same, agricultural activities in the neighbouring lands have been affected. Further the respondents 3 and 4 have even encroached into the water bodies in the poramboke land in „Puramboke Streams‟ in survey numbers 127/18 & 127/19 and 298 and filled the same with earth. Without getting 6 proper conversion order, no construction can be possible in these lands. So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:
"Therefore it is humble prayed that, this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Third and fourth Respondents to restore the lands contained in survey numbers 126/10, 126/14, 126/15C, 126/19A, 127/4, 127/5, 127/6, 127/7, 127/8, 127/9, 127/10, 127/14, 127/15, 127/17, 298/2A, 298/2B, 298/4, 298/5A, 298/5B of old Edaicode Village (New Devicode Village) of Vilavancode Taluk of Kanyakumari District, to the original position as existed before the illegal conversion, under the supervision of the First and Second Respondents and thus render justice."
7. 1st respondent in O.A.No.96/2016 has filed the counter contending as follows:
"2) I humbly submitted that Thiru. Somasekharan Nair had filed a writ petition W.P.(MD). No.2285/2016 before the Hon‟ble High court Bench Madurai against the storage of metals and broken rock in six acres of Palukal Town Panchayat area of Ramavarmanchirai surrounded by compound wall by illegally without any valid licence. The Hon‟ble High Court has granted an interim injunction and issued direction to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Nagercoil to cause inspection of the other units within the District and submit a report. As per High Court direction seven premises were inspected and report submitted to the High Court Madurai. Then the unit of the 3 to 5 respondent was closed sealed on 18.06.2016 as per the directions of Hon‟ble High Court Madurai dated 16.06.2016.7
Subsequently the Hon‟ble High Court has delivered final judgement in W P(MD). No. 2285/2016 on 09.09.2016. Then the Managing Director of MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors Private Ltd., had requested to remove the seals in the gates of MJD Hot Mix Unit as this writ petition is dismissed. In the above judgement it is stated that this writ petition is dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal. There is no mention about the earlier interim injunction and direction to close the unit of Hot Mix and storage of materials and broken rocks in the unit. Therefore clarification was sought for from the Government Pleader, High Court, Madurai. As per the opinion of the Special Government Pleader, Thiru. M. Govindan, the seals in the gates of the above premises were removed after getting undertaking to abode the rules and conditions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011. Necessary action has been also initiated against the respondents of MJD Constructions or the following unauthorized stocks of minerals found at the time of inspection by the assistant Director of Geology and Mining as per the directions of the Hon‟ble High Court, Madurai Bench.
1. Jelly 20 mm = 3000 cft
2. Jelly 12 mm =50000 cft
3. Jelly 6 mm = 20000 cft
4. Dust = 7000 ct
5. Bilumen stored heap = One Hence, Thiru. Francis, S/o Dhas, Akkivilai Veedu, North Street, Marthandam has filed this application before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) Chennai against the storage point used by the MJD Constructions in Ramavarmanchirai, Vilavancode Taluk of Kanniyakumari District.
3. I humbly submit that the survey numbers 126/3 to 126/19 and 127/17 are classified as wet land in Revenue Records. The survey numbers 127/18 and 127/19 are classified as Government Poramboke land "Streams" (tha;f;fhy;). These lands are situated at a locality namely 8 Ramavarmanchirai. The surrounding lands are also wet lands and irrigated through the tank called "Chitrkulam". The Environment of the locality is well balanced, unpolluted and highly hydrate and the air in the locality is also unpolluted and healthy. The climate condition of this area is also very comfortable and well balanced. The 3rd respondent is a private registered company and doing road works as „A‟ class contractor in Highways and Public Works Department. Thiru. Somasekharan Nair had filed a writ petition W.P. (MD). No. 2285/2016 before the Hon‟ble High Court Bench Madurai against the storage of metals and broken rock in the premises Palukal Town Panchayat of Ramavarmanchirai. The Hon‟ble High Court Madurai Bench has granted an interim injection and as per the directions of Hon‟ble High Court, the storage unit was closed and action was initiated to levy penalty for the stocks of materials at the time of sealing the storage point.
4. I respectfully submit that the storage point functioning in S.F. No. 127/16 and 127/17 of Edaicode Village is registered as wet land (patta) in the revenue records. No objection petition is received from the adjoining wet land pattadars against this storage point of the MJD Constructions so far as stated by the petitioner. No complaint regarding the encroachment in "Chitrakulam" Tank by the respondents 4 & 5 from the adjoining and surrounding wet land Chitrakulam, the water course, it will definitely affect the irrigation of the surrounding wet lands. Therefore they will definitely raise objection by the elected body of the irrigation committee in Agricultural Grievance Day Chairman and members meeting of every month conducted by the Collector of Kanniyakumari District. No such incident was noticed so far. There is no chance and source to affect the lively hood of the surrounding wet land pattadars as stated by the petitioner. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is against truth and false.
5. I humbly submitted that the respondents 3 to 5 have running this godown without getting proper permission from the competent Authority as per the rules and conditions of Tamil 9 Nadu Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules 2011. Therefore necessary action is being taken for the storage of materials in the unauthorized premises and necessary instructions have been issued to the Sub-Collector, Padmanabhapuram to levy penalty for the illegal stock of materials found at the time of inspection of the then Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Nagercoil as directed by the Hon‟ble High Court Madurai Bench vide W.P. (MD). No. 2285/2016.
6. I respectfully submit that if the adjoining and surrounding pattadars lively hood is truly affected as stated by the petitioner definitely the pattadars and general public of this area will no such incidents are noticed so far. This is not an industry ad it is punished as per rules and regulations in force. Therefore the operation of storage point is closed and sealed 23.11.2016 by the District Engineer, Pollution control Board, Nagercoil. The objection petitions are received only after filing of this application.
7. It is submitted that the full survey number 126/19 in Revenue in an extent of 0.33.0 hects is a patta land, classified as wet land in Revenue Records. The S.F.No. 126/19A in an extent of 0.08.0 hects is a patta land in the name of Thiru. Vickraman Nair and the S.F.No. 126/19B in an extent of 0.25.0 hects registered in the name of Thulasibai in Revenue records as wet land. These lands are cultivated by Banana trees as per revenue records. The storage yard and godown is situated only in S.F. No. 127/16 and 127/17 of Devicode Village and not situated in S.F. No. 127/12 and 127/16 as stated by the petitioner. Therefore this is a cultivatable land by irrigation and no baron land as stated by the petitioner. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is wrong and against truth. The S.F. Nos. 126/19A and 126/19B of Edaicode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District are not included in the consent application whereas the consent orders has been issued for M/s. Manikandan Hot Mix Plant located at S.F.No. 127/12 of Edaicode Village ad M/s. MJD Constructions and Contractors 10 Private Limited at S.F.No.127/16 of Edaicode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District by the Pollution Control Board.
8. It is respectfully submitted that the surrounding lands of the illegal storage yard is cultivated by Banana trees, Coconut, Tapioca etc., as per Adangal of the present Fasli year. The surrounding area of the storage point i.e., in S.F. NOs. 126/19A, 126/19B, 127/12, 127/13, 127/14 & 127/15 are covered and cultivated by Banana, coconut and Tapioca etc., Therefore there is the reason ad no chance for affecting the environmental and cultivation process of the entire locality as stated by the petitioner. No sluice was cut off or affected badly, due to the encroachment by the MJD Construction Company. If truly the sluice of the Tank "Chitrkulam" was damaged or cut off, it will be immediately taken to the notice of the District Collector by the elected body and representatives of the Agriculturists in the agriculturists grievance day meeting every month conducted by the Collector. No such information or incident was noticed to the Collector so far. However the concerned Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, the Executive Engineer irrigation Public Works Department are instructed to enquire and inspect the "Chitrakulam" Tank in Devicode Village, formerly Edaicode Village and found if any encroachment in the Tank will be evicted immediately and any damage to the sluice of the Tank or cult off of the sluice will be set righted and the water will be flowed through the sluice without any hindrance.
9. I humbly submit that moreover, there is strict rule in approval of Building plan by the local bodies. The local bodies have no power to approve the construction of building in wet land. The District administration of Kanniyakumari District is very rigid in conversion of wet land in to house site or dry land.
10. It is respectfully submitted that the storage yard and Hot Mixing unit of the MJD Constructions was already closed and sealed by the District Environmental and Pollution Control Engineer as per the directions of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ) Chennai. Necessary action is also being taken to 11 levy penalty for the unauthorized stock of jelly materials without getting any prior permission from the competent authority as per the rules and conditions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and storage of Minerals and Minerals Dealers Rules, 2011.
11. I further submit that there is no second opinion in this regards to that the Convert of wet land in to dry land. Already the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2010 (47A) is amended to arrest the conversion of wet lands only after getting prior approval of the Collector as per the amended Act. Therefore the conversion of wet land to dry land is mostly curtailed now. Therefore it is humble prayed that the Hon‟ble Tribunal may please to dismiss this application.
At the outset, this Respondent denies the averments/allegations raised by the Applicant, except for those specifically admitted hereunder.
This Respondent humbly reserves their right to file an additional affidavit/reply as and when deemed necessary."
8. 2nd respondent in O.A. No. 96/2016 has filed counter contending as follows:
1) I am the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Nagercoil and I am filing this Report on behalf of the 2nd Respondent Board and as such I am acquainted with the facts of the case from the records.
2) It is respectfully submitted that the unit M/s. Manikandan Hot Mix Plant located at S.F.No. 127/12 of Edaicode Village, Kanyakumari District has a applied for Consent of the Board under Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 07.01.2010. The application was rejected by the DEE, TNPCB, Nagercoil vide Proc. Dt. 22.01.2010 for the following reason:
"The unit is located in a complaint prone area like agricultural plantation, religious pace and residences.12
Also the emission from the manufacturing process will affect the surrounding environment."
Another unit M/s. MJD Construction & Engineering Contractors Private Limited, S.F. NO. 127/16 of Edaicode Village, kanyakumari District has applied for consent of the Board under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 07.01.2010. The application was rejected by the DEE, TNPCB, Nagercoil vide Proc. Dt. 2.01.2010 for the following reason:
"The unit is located in a complaint prone area like agricultural plantation, religious place and residences. Also the emission from the manufacturing process will affect the surrounding environment."
The unit M/s. MJD Constructions & Contractors Private Limited went for an appeal before the Hon‟ble Appellate Authority vide Appeal No. 23 and 24 of 2010. Based on the order passed by the Appellant on 03.05.2011 by the Hon‟ble Appellate Authority Consent to Operate to the unit was issued on 10.10.1012 with validity up to 31.03.2013.
3) The industry M/s. MJD Constructions & Contractors Private Limited has been sealed by the District Collector as per the order of Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court‟s Order dated 16.06.2016 in the W.P. No. 2285 of 2016. M/s. MJD Constructions & Contractors Private Limited has been reopened on 19.10.2016 based on the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Order Dated 09.09.2016 in the W.P. No. 2285 of 2016.
Based on the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) in Application No. 164 of 2016 order dated 17.06.2016, the industry was sealed by the TNPCB officials along with Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram and Thasildar, Vilavancode Taluk on 09.11.2016.
M/s. M.J.D. Constructions & Engineering Contractors Private Limited vide their letter dated 17.11.2016, as requested for de-silting the premises, to conduct Ambient Air 13 Quality Survey in the vicinity of the unit and to consider ht issue of renewal of consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The above request was submitted to Board office vide letter Dated: 08.12.2016 and order is yet to be passed by the Board.
The Hot Mix Plant is still in the sealed condition. Under the above circumstances, it is humble prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai may be pleased to pass order or further order as this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
9. 3rd respondent in O.A. No. 96/2016 has filed the counter contending as follows:
1. The respondent has gone through the application filed by the applicant and the respondent firmly denies all the averments against the respondent, except those that are specifically admitted herein. The respondent submits the application filed is misconceived both on law and facts and liable to be dismissed.
2. The respondent submits that the application has been filed by the application for a direction, directing the respondents to restore the wet lands in Survey No.127/12 to 127/16, 198/4, 126/19A and 126/19B in Edaicode Village, Kanyakumari District to its original position.
3. The application has been filed by the applicant, stating inter-
alia that Revenue Authorities have classified the lands as wet lands and that the lands were under cultivation and that the respondents 3 to 6 began to fill their lands with earth and mud in 2011 that the respondents has installed scrubber in their plant; that the sluices in the adjoining canals were closed and a pond, namely Chitrakulam was 14 encroached by the respondent. The respondent further submits that the application has stated that there is no permission obtained from the Authorities for filling up the wet lands and caused environmental damage and the respondent have purchased the adjoining wet lands at cheap rates and converted the same illegally to construct flats and shops.
4. At the outset, the respondent submits that the averments made by the applicant are completely baseless and legally untenable in law. The respondents purchased the lands only for purpose of putting up a Hot Mix Plant at Edaicode Village and the same are classified as unclassified lands as per the Planning Authority, namely Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning.
5. The applicant submits that the averments made by the applicant and the personal allegations are baseless and irrelevant to the applicant filed before this Hon‟ble Tribunal and the applicant is put to strict proof of such allegations. The respondent submits that these allegations made against this respondent are only to pressurize and stop the operation of the unit with an ulterior motive.
6. The respondent submits that in the land in Survey No.127/16 at Edaicode Village, Kanyakumari District, the respondent intended to put up a Hot Mix plant and the 3 rd respondent sought for consent from the Board and the application, seeking consent was rejected by the Board, vide Proceedings dated 22.01.2020. As against the order of rejection, the respondent filed appeals before the Appellate Authority in Appeal Nos.23 and 24 of 2010 and 26 of 2010 respectively.
7. The respondent submits that the Hon‟ble Appellate Authority was pleased to set aside the impugned order and directed the Board to give consent to the respondent for establishment the Hot Bitumen Mixing plant, subject to the condition that respondent shall carry out the pollution control measures.
158. The respondent submits that after the order was passed, the Board issued the consent to the respondent on 10.10.2020 for both units for the period upto 31.03.2013. The respondent submits that though the applicant got the consent for the Hot Mix plant, they were operating the same only for 30 to 60 days in a year. The respondent submits that the respondent are first class contractors, registered with National Highways Department and are engaged in laying roads in and around Kanyakumari District.
9. The respondent further submits that the Hot Mix plants are operated only for about two months and there was no need for operating the same throughout the year. Further, the residential houses in the village are located atleast 100 meters away from the unit and they are not affected by the operation of unit. The respondent further submits that the land in Survey No.127/16 and the adjacent lands which were purchased and owned by this respondent measures about 10 acres approximately and the operation of the unit by the 3rd respondent would not in any way caused hindrance to the agricultural operations. The respondent submits that in the recent past, the local villagers preferred to grow rubber and coconut trees only and except the applicant and some of the disgruntled persons, who have joined hands with the applicant, there is absolutely no issue in operating the said Hot Mix unit.
10. The respondent submits that the lands in which the units are located, falls under unclassified area", as classified by the Director of Town & Country Planning and the manufacturing process involves preheating the aggregated and mixing it with asphalt, which are loaded into lorries for the transportation to the road laying site. The smoke for the mixing operation is sucked through a blower and passed through a wet scrubber and the emission form the hot mixing plant within the standard and the scrubbed effluent is recycled in the scrubbing process. Thus, the hot mix plants are Zero Liquid Discharge units.
1611. It is necessary to mention that in the appeals before the Appellate Authority, objections were raised by one Thulasibaiamma and after considering all the issues, the appeals were allowed by the Hon‟ble Appellate Authority. The respondent submits that there is no prohibition for establishing Hot Mix plant close to the agricultural lands. The respondent further submits that adjacent to the site, trees like coconut and teak are in existence for more than 15 years and even plantain trees are grown every year. The respondent further submits that the mixing of bitumen will be done only for a period of one or two months in a year. The location of the temple is 60 meters away from the unit and there is no prohibition for setting up the unit. Further, the Ambient Air Quality Standards prescribed by the Board are complied with by the respondent.
12. The respondent further submits that the respondent paid the renewal fee for renewing the consent and the last such fee was paid on 21.01.2016. The respondent submits that they have installed the Air Pollution control measures, Dust suppression system, development of greenery around the unit and the respondent is willing to comply with any other conditions or norms that may be imposed by the Pollution Control Board. The respondent submits that the respondent is awaiting orders from the Pollution Control Board in this regard.
13. The respondent submits that since the land fall in an unclassified area, the respondent submits that the records of the Registration Department showing as wet lands is for the purpose of registration only and the same cannot be relied for land use classification. The land use classification is made by the Planning Authorities, namely Town and Country Planning and as per their records, the lands are shown as unclassified area only. In the unclassified lands, there is no prohibition for running any unit, provided it satisfies the norms of the Pollution Control Board. The 17 respondent submits that in the adjacent lands, cultivation is going on unhindered.
14. The respondent submits that the applicant has stated in the application that the land conversion was done in August 2011 and therefore, the application filed before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal is within the period of 5 years and as such with limitation. The respondent submits that the application for running the unit was made in 2009 and the respondent filed Appeal Nos.25 and 26 of 2010 and the appeals came to be allowed on 03.05.2011. Hence, the applicant is put to strict proof of the same and hence, the averments in the application that the reclamation is done in 2011 is false and baseless and the applicant is put to strict proof of the same.
15. The respondent submit that the renewal of consent sought for by the respondent i.e. for a direction, directing the respondents to convert the lands is beyond the ambit and jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Tribunal and further, the application is filed with an ulterior motive and without any statutory right or merit.
Hence, it prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application and thus render justice."
10. Respondents 7 and 8 in O.A. No. 96/2016 filed their counter contending as follows:
1. It is submitted that Survey No.126/19A of the old Idaikode village of Kanyakumari District is owned by seven respondent and survey No.126/19B of the old Idaikode village of Kanyakumari District is owned by eighth and ninth respondents. These respondents have no connection with the other survey numbers mentioned in this application.
The area of the Survey No.126/19A, is only an extent of 59 cents and the area of the survey number 126/19B is only an 18 extent of 59. However it is noticed that the survey numbers 127/12-127/16, 298/3, 298/2A, 298/2B, 298/5A, 298/4 & 298/5B of the old Edaicode Village (now Devicode village) of the Kanyakumari District are in the possession of respondents 3-6. It is admitted that as per the Government departments, the above said survey numbers are classified as wet lands, double crop type-I. But now those wetlands contained in the above said survey numbers have been converted by filing with earth. These respondents have no knowledge whether the respondents 3 - 6 have obtained due permission from the concerned authorities for such conversion which took place during 2011. Before that most of the wetlands were used for cultivation while the some wetlands remained as water retaining bodies. It is admitted that there is a water tank in the nearby area namely, Chirakulam but it is strongly denied that due to the conversion of seventh & eighth respondents any water sluice is cut off and water supply from the above said water tank has been affected. After all, the area of the above said wetlands owned by these respondents is very small. In fact the water sluices from the water tanks namely, „Kattukulam‟, „Kovilkulam‟ and „Chirakulam‟, had been cut off due to the large scale filing of the above said wetlands in which the respondents 3 - 6 are in the occupation. Due such conversion by the respondents 3 - 6 the free flow of water became impossible. They did not heed out requests to allow us to maintain the old water sluices. It is denied that there is any ecological change due to the act of the Seventh and Eighth respondents alone. As compared to the respondents 3 - 6, the extent of conversion by the Seventh and Eighth respondents is very small and hence does not play much part in the ecological change. It is also denied that the environment of the locality became imbalanced, polluted and dehydrated due to the acts of the seventh and eighth respondents alone. If any such imbalance, pollution and dehydration took place respondents 3 - 6 are mainly 19 responsible for that. It is denied that there is any change in the temperature now due to the acts of seventh and eighth respondent alone. These respondents have no say in respect of all other matters mentioned in the first paragraph, those being mere facts.
2. It is submitted that, the contents in the second and third paragraphs of the application related to the acts of respondents 3 - 6 and hence respondents 7 & 8 have no say as those contents are mere facts.
3. It is submitted that the contents of the fourth paragraph are mere facts. It is correct that the nearby wetland owners have been forced to convert their lands due to the acts of the respondents 3 - 6. Seventh and eighth respondents have no say over the other contents of this paragraph as those are mere facts.
4. It is submitted that the Survey No.126/19A of the old Edaikode village of Kanyakumari District is owned by seventh respondent and survey No.126/19B of the old Edaikode Village of Kanyakumari District is owned by eighth and ninth respondents and both these survey numbers are situated at a place namely, Ramavarmanchirai. There is no dispute that the both the above said survey numbers are classified as wet lands, double crop, type -1 by the Government. But the seventh & eighth respondents were forced to convert their wetlands due to the acts of the respondents 3 - 6. In fact the respondents 3 - 6 have started to convert the wetlands contained in survey numbers 127/12-127/16, 298/3, 298/2A, 298/2B, 298/5A, 298/4 & 298/5B during the last part of the year 2011. But respondents 7 & 8 started to convert their survey numbers much after the conversion of the respondents 3 - 6 i.e. in the middle of the year 2012. The fact is that when the respondents 3 - 6 had converted their wetlands contained in their survey numbers the water supply to the seventh and eighth respondents above said survey numbers was affected. Consequently it became 20 impossible for these respondents to make any cultivation in those survey numbers. Thus the seventh and eighth respondents also had to fill their survey numbers with earth and mud and converted from 03.05.2012, much later than the conversion by the respondents 3 -6. But due to such conversion of the seventh and eighth respondents no environment has been affected as the area was very small extent. But the area of conversion of the respondents 3 - 6 is larger. Seventh and eighth respondents are ready for the restoration of their wetlands into the original position which was immediately before the conversion if this Hon‟ble Tribunal directs so. But without the restoration of the above mentioned survey numbers of the respondents 3 - 6, restoration by the Seventh and Eighth respondents will be of no use. All other contentions are denied.
5. It is submitted that the allegation of any damage to the environment and cultivation due to the acts of the respondents 7 & 8 is strongly denied. The Seventh and eighth respondents are duty bound to comply any order by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in respect of the conversion. It is also denied that the seventh and eighth respondent will cause any damage to the environment in future. In fact petitioner has exaggerated the matters by styling as the protector of the environmental interests. It is also denied that due to the conversion of the seventh and eighth respondents the cultivation of the above mentioned survey numbers and the adjoining survey numbers was affected. The cultivation of those survey numbers was affected by the conversion of the respondents 3 - 6 only. Seventh & Eighth respondents have no say over the other contents of the paragraph as there is no allegation against them. The attempt of the petitioner is to exaggerate the things under the pretext of the environmental protecting and hence it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the application with costs and thus render justice."
2111. 1st respondent filed counter in O. A. NO. 88 of 2017 contending as follows:
1) It is respectfully submitted that I am the First Respondent herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case from the records available in this office.
2) It is respectfully submitted that at the outlet, I deny the averments stated in the application as false except these that tat specifically admitted hereunder and put the applicant to strict proof of the same.
3) It is respectfully submitted that a complaint has been received from Thiru. Vikraman, Puthenveedu, Choorankuzhi, Rmavarmanchirai Village and post, kanyakumari District -
629 152 regarding the reclamation of wetlands in Kanyakumari District without Prior Environmental Clearances. The said complaint was forwarded to the District Collector, kanyakumari District for taking action vide this office Letter No. SEIAA-TN/002914/2017 dated 10.03.2017.
4) It is respectfully submitted that as per the EIA Notification, 2006, the proposal for building and construction projects built up area > 20,000 Sq.M is required to obtain prior Environmental Clearance under 8(a) - building and construction project under EIA Notification, 2006.
5) It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent 3 & 4 have not filed application seeking Environment Clearances S.F.N0.126/10, 126/14, 126/15C, 126/ 17, 126/19A, 127/4, 127/5, 127/6, 127/8, 127/9, 127/10, 127/14, 127/15, 127/27, 298/2A, 298/2B, 298/3, 298/4, 298/5A, 298/5B, 131/11, 302/12B & 302/13 Old Edaicode Village (New Devicode Village), Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumarii District.
6) It is submitted that regarding cases of violations, the Ministry Environment, Forest and Climate Change 22 (MoEF&CC) Vide Notification dated 14.03.2017 has stated that the cases of violations will be dealt strictly as per the procedure specified in the following manner "In case the project or activities requiring prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification 2006 from the concerned Regulatory Authority are brought for environmental clearance after starting the construction work, or have undertaken expansion, modernization and change in product-mix without prior EC, these projects shall be treated as cases of violations and in such cases, even Category B projects which are granted environmental clearance by the SELAA constituted under section(3) section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act shall be appraised for grant of environmental clearance only the Expert Appraisal Committee and environmental clearance will be granted at the Central Level".
7) It is submitted that, subsequently the MoEF&CC notification S.O. 1030 (E) dated 08.03.2018 has stated that the cases of violations projects or activities covered under category A of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 including expansion and the modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall be shall be appraised for grant of Environmental Clearance by the EAC in the Ministry and the Environmental Clearance shall be granted at Central level, and for category B projects, the appraisal and approval thereof shall vest with the State or Union territory level Expert Appraisal Committees and State or Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authorities in different States and Union territories, constituted under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
8) The MoEF&CC office memorandum No. F.N0.Z- 11013/22/2017IA.II(M) dated: 15.03.2018 have issued the following guidelines regarding implementation of Notification S.O. 1030 (E) 23 i. The proposals received up to 13th September, 2017 on the Ministry's portal, shall be considered by the EAC or the SEAC / SEIAA in the respective States / UTs, as the case may be, in order of their submission ii. All the proposals of category 'B' projects / activities pertaining to different sectors, received within six months only i.e. up to 13th September, 2017 on the Ministry's portal, but yet not considered by the EAC in the Ministry, shall be transferred online to the SEAC / SELAAs in the respective States / UTs.
iii. The proposals submitted directly for considering of EC (in place of ToR), shall also be considered on the same lines, in order of their submission on the Ministry's portal.
iv. All the projects of category 'B' pertaining of different sectors, although considered by the EAC in the Ministry and accorded TOR, shall be appraised for grant of EC by the SEAC / SEIAA in the respective States / UTs.
v. All projects / activities of all sectors, shall be required to adhere to the directions of Hon'ble Madras High Court vide order dated 13th October, 2017 while upholding the Ministry's Notification dated 14th March,2017 The MOEF&CC office memorandum No. F.No.Z-
11013/22/2017-IA. II(M) dated: 16.03.2018 has issued the following directions regarding compliance of directions of Hon'ble Madras High Court order dated14th March, 2018 in WMP Nos.3361, 3362 & 3721 of 2018in WP. No 11189 of 2017.
1. The project opponent, who have not submitted the proposals within six months window i.e. up to 13th September, 2017 in pursuance of the Ministries‟ notifications O.804 (E) dated: 14.03.2017, are required to submit the proposals within thirty days to the EAC for category A projects or SEAC/SEIAA in the respective states/UTs for category B projects.
2. The project proponent, who have submitted the proposals on the Ministries‟ portal after 13 September 2017 are also 24 required to submit the proposals within 30 days, to the EAC for category A projects or the SEAC/EIAA in the respective states/UTs for category B projects.
It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone at Chennai may be pleased to record the above mentioned facts and pas such order (or) any other orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in this and thus render justice."
12. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, none represented the applicant in both the cases. Sri. M. Mani Gopi represented 1st respondent in O.A. No.96/2016 and 2nd respondent in O.A.No.88/2017, Sri. C. Kasirajan through M/s. Meena represented 2nd respondent in O.A. No. 96/2016, and Sri. R. Saravana kumar represented respondents 3 to 6 in O.A. No.96/2016 and respondents 3 & 4 in O.A. No.88/2017.
13. The common grievance in these applications was that without getting proper permission from the authorities, the agricultural lands have been converted for commercial purpose and they wanted to restore the same to its original position.
14. When the matter came up for hearing on 08.02.2020 it was brought to our notice that there was some proceedings pending before the District Collector, Kanyakumari District 25 regarding permission for the conversion for these lands and he had also produced the proceedings of the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, dated 02.04.2020which was extracted in para 1 of the order of this Tribunal dated 08.02.2020 as follows:
"1) When the matter came for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondent produced an order obtained under Right to Information Act and said to have been passed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District in the application filed by them for conversion of the Wet land, where they are conducting the impugned activities. The order states as follows:
Proceedings of the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
Present: Thiru. Prashant M. Wadnere, I.A.S., M2/23272/2017-I Dated:02.04.2018 Sub: Writ Petition - Requested for conversion of wet lands into dry lands in Sy.
No.298/3, 5A, 5B in Edaicode Village and R.Sy. No.126/14, 15C, 17, 19A, 127/4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 131/1, 2A, 2B, 3, 11 in Devicode Village, Vilavancode Taluk - W.P. (MD) No.21889/2017 filed by Tmt.Janaka Jebangelin - Judgment Pronounced -
Order issued - Regarding.
Ref: 1) Application of Tmt. Janaka Jebangelin dated 06.06.2017.
2) Application No.88/2017 filed by Thiru. Vikraman before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai.
3) Court order dated 09.01.2018 in W.P. 26 (MD) No.21889/2017 filed by Tmt.
Janaka Jebangelin before the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
ORDER:
One Tmt. Janaka Jebangelin has filed a W.P. (MD) No.21889/2017 before the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking directions to the District Collector, Kanniyakumari of passing of orders reclassifying the wet lands comprised in Sy. No.298/3, 5A, 5B in Edaicode Village and R.Sy. No.126/14, 15C, 17, 19A, 127/4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 131/1, 2A, 2B, 3, 11 in Devicode Village of Vilavancode Taluk based on the recommendation of Tahsildar, Vilavancode. While disposing the writ petition the Honourable High Court in its order dated 09.01.2018 in W.P. (MD) No.21889/2017 has directed the district collector, Kanniyakumari to pass reasonable orders on merit within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of the court order after considering all relevant records.
The representation of the individual dated 06.06.2017 was duly considered and the matter was examined in detail. The matter is related to the conversion of wet lands to dry lands in certain fields in Edaicode and Devicode village of Vilavancode Taluk. While scrutinizing of the relevant records, it seems that Application No.88/2017, filed by Thiru. Vikraman is still pending before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal against the illegal conservation of wet lands to dry lands.
As the matter is subjudiced before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, it would not be fit and proper to pass appropriate orders till the dispose of the case.
In the circumstances narrated above the individual is informed that appropriate orders in this case will be passed based on the verdict of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in Application No.88/2017 filed by Tr.Vikraman."27
15. So we directed the District Collector, Kanyakumari District to dispose of the application in view of the directions given by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in this regard and awaited for the outcome of the proceedings pending before the District Collector as the entire issues regarding doing certain activity in the agricultural land without getting necessary permission for conversion of the same for non-agricultural purposes and posted the case for the purpose of getting ultimate outcome of the application filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in O.A. No. 88 of 2017 before the District Collector for this purpose.
16. Even as per order dated 08.02.2020, this Tribunal had made it clear in Para 3 that pendency of the matter before this Tribunal is not a bar for considering the application and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, especially when the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras has directed the District Collector to dispose of the application in accordance with law by a reasoned order.
17. Today, the District Collector, Kanyakumar District has filed a statement before this Tribunal which reads as follows:
"STATEMENT FILED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNIYAKUMARI 28 I, Prashant. M. Wadnere, I.A.S., S/o. MukunthWadnere, Hindu, aged about 36 years, working as District Collector, Kannyakumari District, and residing at Collector‟s Bungalow, Nagercoil do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows.
1. I respectfully submit that, I am the 2rd respondent herein and I am filing this statement, herein, as such I am well conversant with the facts of the case from the available records in my office. The facts of this case are as follows.
2. I respectfully submit that the applicant has filed this Petition before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal Chennai with a prayer to restrain the Third and Fourth respondents from carrying out any kind of activities except restoration in R.Sy.No. 126/10, 14, 15C, 19A, 127/4, 5, 6, 7,8,9,10,14,15,17,298/2A, 2B,4,5A and 298/5B of Edaicode Village and Devicode Village in Vilavancode Taluk.
3. I respectfully submit that the 4th respondent of this case one Tmt.Janaka Jebangelin has submitted a petition before the District Collector with a request to reclassify the Nanja land in S.F. Nos. R.Sy.No.298/3, 5A, 5B of Edaicode Village and S.F. Nos.126/14, 15C, 17, 19A, 127/4,7,9,10,15,17, 131/1,2A,2B, 3, 11 of Devicode Village in Vilavancode Taluk Kanniyakumari District into Tharisu Nilam. Likewise one Tr.Manikandan had presented a petition before the District Collector with a request to reclassify the Nanja land in S.F. Nos. 298/1B,2A,2B,3,4,5A,5B, 302/12B2 of Edaicode Village and S.F. Nos126/10B, 127/6A,12,14,16B, 130/13 of Devicode Village in Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District into Tharisu Nilam.
4. I respectfully submit that, a report is called from the the Tahsildar, Vilavancode and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram for their remarks on the petitioners representation. In the meantime Tmt.Janaka Jebangelin had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 21889 of 2017 before the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court with a prayer to direct the District Collector to pass necessary orders to 29 reclassify the Nanja Lands in S.F. Nos. 127/6, 127/10, 126/17, 126/15C, 131/1, 127/15, 131/3, 302/13, 126/14, 127/17, 131/2A, 131/2B, 298/3, 298/5A,298/5B, 126/19A, 127/4, 131/11, 127/8, 127/9, 127/3, 127/7, 197/1, 306/17, 298/3, 298/1 of Idaicode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District into Tharisu Nilam based on the proceedings of the second respondent (Tahsildar, Vilavancode) within time frame. The Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its order dated:09.01.2018 has issued the following direction.
"However, now the matter is pending with the first respondent, in the above circumstances, the District Collector/ the first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and pass detailed reasoned order on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, after considering all relevant records.
Further Tr.Manikandan had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 21890 of 2017 before the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court with a prayer to direct the District Collector to pass necessary orders to reclassify the Nanja Lands in S.F. Nos. 298/2A, 298/2B, 298/10, 298/4 in Idaicode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District and S.F.Nos. 127/12, 302/12B, 130/13, 127/10, 137/14, 127/16 in Devicode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District into TharisuNilam based on the proceedings of the second respondent (Tahsildar, Vilavancode) within time frame. In this case, similar direction has been issued by the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The above Hon‟ble High Court Orders were carefully perused by the District Collector, Kanniyakumari and passed orders, "As the matter is subjudiced before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, it would not be fit and proper to pass appropriate orders till the dispose of the case". Aggrieved by this, both petitioners moved to the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and filed two Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) No.13623 30 of 2018 and 13624 of 2018 with a prayer to call for the records relating to the proceedings in M2/23272/2017-1, 2 dated:
02.04.2018 and quash the same consequently directing the District Collector to pass the Tharisu Nilam (Waste land) certificate in respect of above mentioned survey fields in Idaicode and Devicode Village of Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District. In this regard, the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued following directions to the respondents in para no. 6 and 7 in both Writ Petitions.
"6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the application for re-classification of the land belonging to the petitioner could not be processed, in view of the pendency of the litigation before the National Green Tribunal, South zone.
But, on the order hand, the order of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this court, in respect of the very same petitioner‟s land shows that the subject matter pending before the National Green Tribunal, South Zone, does not involve the lands in survey numbers mentioned in the application belonging to the petitioner. When the lands, which were sought to be re-classified are not subject matters of the litigation pending before the National Green Tribunal, South Zone, the first respondent (District collector) is duty bound to pass orders on merits.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued to the first respondent (District collector) to verify the revenue records and also the application pending before the National Green Tribunal, South Zone, as to the dispute in respect of the above mentioned Idaicode and Devicode Village land pass orders in the light of the findings given by the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court, dated 02.08.2017 in W.P.(MD) No. 8379 of 2017, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
5. It is respectfully submitted that in obedience to the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the applications presented by Tmt.JanakaJebangelin and Tr.Manikandan have been perused 31 and examined in details. While scrutinizing of the relevant records, it is found that most of the Survey Numbers for which reclassification certificate has been sought for have been covered in the application number 88/2017 pending before Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal. Further the petitioner has encroached in Government Odai Puramboke land in Sy.No.130/2, 131/4. Further one small odai is running adjacent to the petitioner land and it will be affected if the petitioner‟s land is used for commercial purpose. Action can be continued for issue No Objection Certificate for the above lands only on the basis of the final orders of the court case pending before Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal. Therefore the petitions of Tmt.JanakaJebangelin and Tr.Manikandan have been rejected by the Collector in his Proceedings No.M2/23272/2017-1, dated:14.08.2019 and M2/23272/2019-2, dated: 14.08.2019 for the above said reasons.
6. It is respectfully submitted that Tmt.
JenakaJebangelin has filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.(MD) No.1101 of 2019 for the alleged disobedience of the orders of the Hon‟ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 27.06.2018 made in W.P.(MD) No.13624 of 2018. The Hon‟ble High Court has dismissed the Contempt Petition with the following observations.
"2. When this contempt petition is taken up for hearing today, Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has submitted that, the orders of this court has been complied with and in support of his contention, he has produced the copy of proceedings issued by the respondent i.e., the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District in Na.Ka.No.M2/23272/2017-1 dated:
04.08.2019.
3. In view of the said compliance having been made and the same has not been controverter by the petitioner as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also does not appear before this Court, this Court accept the said contention 32 of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Accordingly this contempt petition is closed".
7. I respectfully submit that, the Fourth respondent had submitted petitions before the District Collector with a request to reclassify the Nanja land in S.F. Nos. R.Sy.No.298/3, 5A, 5B, of Edaicode Village and S.F. Nos. 126/14, 15C, 17, 19A, 127/4,7,9,10,15,17, 131/1,2A,2B, 3, 11 of Devicode Village in Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District into Tharisu Nilam, Kanniyakumari District into Tharisu Nilam. Likewise the third respondent Tr.Manikandan had presented a petition before the District Collector with a request to reclassify the Nanja land in S.F. Nos. 298/1B,2A,2B,3,4,5A,5B, 302/12B2 of Edaicode Village and S.F. Nos126/10B, 127/6A,12,14,16B, 130/13 of Devicode Village in Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District into Tharisu Nilam. The above petitions are processed and from the enquiry reports, it has been found that the petitioners have encroached the Government Odai Puramboke lands in Sy.No.130/2, 131/4. Further one small odai is running adjacent to the petitioner land and it will be affected if the petitioner‟s land is used for commercial purpose. The petitioners land and other adjacent patta lands are wet lands which are earmarked for carrying out agricultural activities (cultivation). The agricultural activities in the nearby fields will be affected if the petitioner‟s land is used for commercial purpose. The processing of the applications of Thiru.Manikandan and Tmt. JanakaJebangelin is stopped at this stage as the matter is subjudiced before the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal.
8. I respectfully submit that, the Third and Fourth respondents lands are wet lands which are earmarked for carrying out agricultural activities (cultivation). The wet lands may be used for agricultural purposes and they may be used for other purposes only with the orders issued by the competent authority as per the provisions contained in relevant Acts and Rules in force.
33In the light of the above details it is submitted that the petition deserves no merit and that the petition may kindly be dismissed forth with and thus justice may be rendered."
18. He has also produced the order passed by him as per proceedings no Roc.M2/23272/2017-1, dated 17.08.2019 and Roc. No.M3/23272-2, dated 17.09.2019 rejecting the applications filed by respondents 3 and 4 in O.A. No. 88 of 2017 showing the ground of the pendency of the cases before this Tribunal.
19. However we are not making any observation regarding the manner in which the orders have been passed by the District Collector in this regard. Once the applications filed by the applicant for conversion of the land were rejected for whatever reasons, then the applicants in those proceedings who are respondents 3 and 4 before this Tribunal are not entitled to use the land for any other purpose other than for agricultural purpose.
20. If they are aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, then their remedy is to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. Till permission is granted to convert the agricultural land for non agricultural purpose by the 34 competent authority, any activity done by respondents 3 and 4 in the agricultural land will be illegal and it will be detriment to the environment and that cannot be permitted to continue.
21. So under such circumstances we dispose of these applications as follows:
(i) Since the District Collector, Kanyakumari District has rejected the applications for conversion of agricultural lands for non agricultural purpose filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in O.A. No.88 of 2017 who are respondents 4 and 5 in O.A. No.96 of 2016, they are not entitled to use the disputed lands involved in these cases for any other purpose other than for agricultural purpose till they obtain necessary permission for conversion from the appropriate authorities. So they are restrained from doing any activity other than the agricultural activity in these lands covered by these two applications till they get necessary permission from the authorities for converting these lands for non agricultural purpose in accordance with law.
(ii) We make it clear, that this order will not prevent the 35 above respondents from challenging the order passed by the District Collector rejecting their applications before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(iii) Considering the circumstances the parties are directed to bear the respective cost in these applications.
22. With the above directions and observations, these applications are disposed of.
..................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ..............................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.96/2016 & O.A. No.88/2017, 30th September, 2020. Sr. 36