National Green Tribunal
G. Devarajan vs State Of Tamilnadu on 28 September, 2022
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal No. 10 of 2021 (SZ)
With
O.A. No. 91 of 2021(SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
G. Devarajan, M/A 58 years,
S/o Govindappa Naidu,
15, Gandhi Nagar, 2nd street,
Reliance Backside,
Arumbakkam Chennai- 600106
...Appellant/Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai- 600009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600003
3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep by its Chairman
493, Rajaji Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600001
4. State Level Environment Impact Assessmet Authority,
Rep by the Member Secretary,
SEIAA 3rd Floor, Panagal maaligai,
No. 1 Jeenis Raod, Saidapet,
Chennai-600015
5. M/s. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co.,
Rep by its Managing Partner,
Shri S. Anandavadivel
No.40-D, 6/276 Surya Garden,
Trichy Road,
Namakal- 637001
...Respondent(s)
(In both cases)
For Appellant(s)/Applicant(s): Mr. T. Shrinikethan
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 & R2
1
Mr. Neelakandan, AAG along with Mr. D. R
Arun Kumar for R3 along with Mr. N.
Moorthy, Superintending Engineer and R.
Gandhi, Executive Engineer.
Mr. G. M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R4
Judgment Reserved on: 2nd August, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 28th September, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member Appeal No. 10 of 2021
1. This Appeal is directed against the grant of Environmental Clearance to the 3rd respondent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short „TNHB‟) for their proposed construction of mixed used developmental project issued by the 4th respondent, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (for short „SEIAA) in its proceedings TN/F.No.7627/EC/8A/739/2020 dated 23.01.2021 and also the NOC for the proposed project granted by the 2nd respondent.
2. The proposed project is coming up on the banks of Cooum River at Arumbakkam in Chennai. The Cooum River which was once a fresh water river had become a carrier of untreated sewage with multiple encroachments on the river banks all along. On the said river banks, the 3rd respondent had proposed a project for construction of mixed use development consisting of a commercial block with double basements, ground floor and 19 floors and two residential blocks with double basements with 19 floors accommodating 152 dwelling units in each with a total of 304 dwelling units. The project is situated in Sy. Nos. 249/1, 3, 4 and 5, 250/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 251 and 252/2A, the project is expected at a cost of Rs. 399.84 Crores and the total built up area of 1,35,031.13 Sqm in a land area of 33,157 Sqm.
23. The apprehension of the applicant is that since the project is on the river bank which falls in the flood plain region of the Cooum River, it raises serious concerns regarding the sustainability given the fact that the Cooum River is prone for flooding/inundation and causing environmental damage.
4. The primordial objection of the appellant is that the Environmental Clearance obtained by the project proponent is not in consonance with the EIA Notification, 2006. Admittedly in this case the project proponent, who is 3rd respondent, had applied for the Environmental Clearance for its proposed project on 06.07.2020 and the same was granted on 23.01.2021 by the 4th respondent which was uploaded on 01.02.2021. The 2nd respondent, which is the PWD Department, also had issued No Objection Certificate for the said project. The objections of the appellant are as follows:
(i) The measurements under the revenue records submitted by the project proponent are materially different from those specified in the revenue records of year 1906 and were further contradictory to records available with the 2nd respondent. According to the appellant, the project proponent has encroached the land comprised in Sy. Nos.
127, 128 and 129 of Naduvankarai Village on the left bank of the Cooum River.
(ii) Secondly, the Chennai River Restoration Trust ( for short „CRRT‟) has made substantial strides in restoring the Coocum River to establish the Baby canal to regulate the flow and prevent stagnation of water in the river. Due to the dumping of earth by the 3rd respondent without permission or approval of the 2nd respondent, the Baby canal in Cooum River has been encroached and the width has reduced from 14 metres to 04 metres at the stretch along the proposed project. Hence the appellant contended that the duty of the 2nd respondent is to preserve the Baby canal and there is also a boundary conflict between respondent nos. 2 and 3.
(iii) Thirdly, the 3rd respondent had not conducted any scientific analysis to give due consideration to the river slope, river width, maximum probable discharge and the existing discharging capacity of the river as it is situated in the flood prone locality. As the proposed project is in low lying area below the anticipated maximum flood level.
(iv) The next objection is that as per the NOC, the proposed project should have an internal storm water drainage network of size not less than 1.50 x 1.20 meters as peripheral and 0.90 x 0.75 meter as a lateral drain with road side drains to drain the rain water towards northern side of the Cooum River.
(v) The project proponent had ignored the potential risk expressed by the 2nd respondent for the proposed basement floor as it may not be technically feasible with the proposed project site located in the flood prone area. This is evident from the fact that the 2nd respondent had 3 specified that the basement floor is to be used only for parking facility to avoid human casualties.
(vi) The next aspect is that there shall be minimum offset of 15 metres as a buffer zone, though the proposed project is only having 10 metres from the Cooum River.
5. On the above said grounds, the appellant has challenged the grant of Environmental Clearance by the 4th respondent and NOC granted by the 2nd respondent to the project proponent, which is the 3rd respondent.
6. The 1st respondent, who is the Principal Secretary, has filed his status report wherein he has traced the Madras Neighbourhood Scheme from the year 1960. It is stated that in G.O. Ms. No. 728(Housing) Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department dated 13.02.1960 orders were issued for the formation of West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme. The lands in Sy. Nos.249/1, 3, 4 and 5, 250/1, 2,3, 4, 5,6,7 and 8, 251 and 252/2A measuring about 7.29 acres were acquired and an award was passed in Award No. 14 of 1966 dated 28.03.1966 and the land in Sy. Nos. 249/2 and 249/6 measuring an extent of 2.12 acres of Arumbakkam Village were also acquired in Award No. 15 of 1966 dated 28.03.1966. Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was issued, an enquiry under Section 5(A) was conducted on 04.10.1960 and Section 6 declaration was published on 01.11.1961. Award enquiry was conducted on 26.09.1962 and there were challenges before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras as there were residential buildings. At this stage the scheme was transferred to Special Deputy Collector for land acquisition, State Housing Board Schemes. Thereafter, fresh Section 5-A enquiry was held and Section 6 declaration was published on 10.03.1965 and the award enquiry was held on 08.04.1965 excepting an extent of 0.20 acres in Sy. No. 249/4 and 0.72 acres in Sy. No. 249/6 the possession of 8.49 acres vested with the TNHB from the year 1966. Thus the project proponent, namely, the TNHB is in possession of land from 1966 till date.
7. The Appeal which challenges the NOC issued by the PWD-WRO dated 03.10.2020, it is specifically stated by the PWD Department that the NOC is required only from the inundation point of view for obtaining planning permission from CMDA. The Revenue Authorities have also surveyed the impugned site on 16.11.2021 and the demarcation of the limits of the Public Works Department and TNHB has been completed in that stretch. The plan preferred after measuring the area by the revenue authorities 4 was also filed. The report of the 1st respondent categorically states that the 3rd respondent had not encroached any part or piece of the land of the river and the construction by the TNHB is confined only to their limits and none of the buildings are forming part of the river as alleged in the Appeal. The 1st respondent also stated that there is a clear distance of 21.2 metres to 36 metres between the construction work and the revised boundary of the Cooum River fixed on 04.11.2021.
8. The District Collector, Chennai also has filed a report dated 31.01.2022. The said report is pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal on 03.01.2022 stating that the boundary of the river has been traced on the basis of the original records of pre independent Era and direction was given to ascertain the boundary on that basis and also to ascertain as to whether any River Poromboke as in the revenue records have been converted into Patta lands on or after. The Tribunal had further directed to furnish the plan identifying the original flow of the river as per the original records which can give the clear picture of the boundary of the Cooum River to decide the matter effectively.
9. Pursuant to the said direction, the Field Map Book with respect to Sy. Nos. 249, 250 and 251 of Naduvakkarai Village pertaining to the year 1905 was sought for from the Archives and Historical Research Department. However, the same was not available as it was not traceable. As the FMB Book of Naduvakkarai Village could not be traced, a Joint Inspection was carried out by the officials of the Revenue Department, 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent and that the buffer zone details available on the southern side of TS No. 1 of Block No. 6 of Naduvakkarai Town of the year 1966 have been detailed in the combined sketch. During the said exercise, it is submitted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records that the details of the Baby Canal could not be traced since the original records are with PWD(WRD) and hence the same could not be marked in the sketch prepared in this regard.
10. Yet another report was filed by the District Collector, Chennai wherein it has been mentioned that the portion of land owned by the 3rd respondent is situated between the Cooum River on the northern side and the Poonamallee high Road on the southern side. In the said report, it is also mentioned that pursuant to the order of this Tribunal the subject property was measured on 04.04.2022 in the presence of the officials of the TNHB, PWD, Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, 5 Tahsildar, Aminjikarai, Deputy Inspector of Survey and Field Surveyor, Aminjikarai and the correlation of the boundaries for Sy. No. 231 of Block 9B and TS No. 49 of Block No. 9C and the measurements of the boundaries of the said Cooum River were determined as follows:
Boundary Boundaries as per Boundary of the river as Variation/Expansion points in Revenue records pr DGPS as on of the river meters pertaining to the year 04.04.2022 in metres boundary in metres.
1905 in meters 7 to 17 95.8 133.6 37.7 5 to 18 85.3 109.4 24.1 3 to 19 74.9 94.8 19.9 1 to 20 85.9 85.9 0
11. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent also had filed a status report in which it was stated that the revenue authorities surveyed the impugned site and demarcation of the limits of the PWD has been completed in the stretch. It is further stated that TNHB had not encroached any part or piece of land of the river and all the construction of the TNHB were confined to the TNHB limits and none of the survey numbers forming part of the river is encroached by the TNHB. Attention was also invited to condition no. 5 of NOC which reads as follows:
"5. At present the applicant fixing their Northern boundary with available latest documents as FMB, Block Map & Patta which lies along the middle portion of the existing Cooum river where the Baby canal recently formed during the restoration works by CRRT which seems to be an encroachment in S.F. No. 253 of Arumbakkam and S.F. No. 97 of Naduvankarai village. Cooum River reduced to 4m wide at this stretch due to dumping of earth by TNHB without concurrence and prior permission from PWD/WRD. In case of any legal proceedings in respect of the developmental activities in the said water course poromboke, since it is violation against prevailing Government orders. Circulars, Hon‟ble Supreme Court & High Court, NGT Judgements, Tank Protection Act 2007 and G.O. Ms. 78/H&UD (UD4(3) D/ 04.05.2017 etc. This was already brought to the notice of TNHB officials during marking. Hence, the PWD/WRD will not held responsible if any litigation arises. The above proposal is to be deferred due to the above said reasons. Also if there is any discrepancy in the Revenue records produced by the applicant, and the applicant will be held responsible. Hence, the applicant should immediately restore the Cooum River with baby canal to its original standards as per G.O. Ms. No. 78/H&UD 9UD4(3)D/04.05.2017 or otherwise upper reaches will out flank and leads to inundation and affect public and property and this could create flood surge and afflux during heavy flood and inundate the adjoining areas. It should be restored before the ensuing North East Monsoon which will set in first week of October, 2020."
12. It is further informed that the project proponent was already informed of the reducing of the width of the Baby canal formed in the centre of the river to facilitate lean flow from 14m to 04m and the same should be restored to the standards as per G.O. Ms. No. 98 (Housing and Urban Development) Department dated 05.05.2017.
613. There is yet another report dated 16.04.2022 by the Superintending Engineer, WRD, Palar Basin Circle who stated that the width of river is available as on date as per the revenue records pertaining to the year 1905 and also the width of the river is extended beyond 1905 revenue records in certain parts of Arumbakkam and Naduvankarai Villages. It is specifically stated in the report that the width of the river has not been reduced at any point along the boundary. As per condition no. 3 of NOC the buffer zone of 15 metres from the existing boundary of TNHB land has been provided and no construction activities have been taken by the project proponent and the same will not be allowed by the WRD even in future.
14. The project proponent, who is the 3rd respondent has filed its counter statement dated 04.10.2021. The 3rd respondent has specifically stated that as per G.O. Ms. NO. 728 dated 13.02.1960 orders were issued for the formation of the West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme and accordingly lands were acquired and awards were passed. It is stated that at the time of enquiry the PWD did not raise any objection for the above said proceedings. Survey Nos. 249/1, 2, 3 and 5, 250/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 251 and 252/A have been classified as „Dry lands‟ in the revenue accounts indicating that there was no water source in the above said lands, it had acquired these lands from various individuals. Though the acquisition was in the year 1966, the lands are in custody of TNHB till date. All the encroachments on the above lands were already removed. Since the TNHB is the owner of the land, the said project was proposed and the PWD cannot have any dispute with regard to ownership of land. The NOC that was obtained from the PWD is only from inundation point of view for obtaining planning permission and they cannot have any dispute with respect to the boundary.
15. Similarly, SEIAA also has granted Environmental Clearance only after thorough scrutiny of all the records pertaining to the proposed project on 23.01.2021. The FMB sketch also clearly reflect the fact that the upstream side of the river near the inner ring road is 130 metres but while nearing the project land it has an average width of 78 metres only. The NOC from the PWD(WRO) was obtained on 03.10.2020 after the survey work was done and it was meant for obtaining planning permission from inundation point view only. The counter affidavit categorically states that the boundary of the TNHB land is 38m beyond the Baby canal and based on the scientific analysis the retaining wall was 7 designed as recommended by the PWD and the stilt floor level is fixed above 92.75cm from the road level i.e. 13.80m in order to reduce the impact of any flood. The retaining wall referred also was designed to reduce the risk of inundation and flood surge.
16. A look at the FMB sketch would show that the average width of the river is 78m but the PWD form the earthen bund in 110m in later dates of 2006 by encroaching the TNHB lands. The TNHB had also conducted one more survey on 29.09.2021 and it was established that the present river regime width is intact as it was before the execution of the construction work which is 78m as reflected in the revenue records. Therefore, according to the TNHB even in the CRRT review meeting it was decided to conduct a joint inspection by the team of Survey Department, PWD and TNHB. The northern boundary of the site lies in the bank of the Cooum River and extent measuring 8,250Sqm of land reserved in the northern boundary is treated as water way and alignment of elevated corridor. Therefore, there is no impact on environment as alleged by the appellant and the 4th respondent had granted the Environmental Clearance only after thorough scrutiny of all the records pertaining to the subject matter. Therefore, the Environmental Clearance issued in favour of the 3rd respondent is perfectly valid and the grounds raised in the Appeal are motivated and frivolous.
17. The 4th respondent, SEIAA has also filed a report in which it is stated that as per EIA Notification, 2006 the proposal of building and construction projects having a built up area of more than 20,000sqm is required to obtain Environmental Clearance, since the proposed project also has a built area of 1,35,031.13 sqm, the project proponent had submitted an application for Environmental Clearance in the prescribed format. The above proposal comes under 8(A) category as per the EIA Notification, 2006 for which public consultation is not required. The project was placed in the 182nd meeting of SEIAA on 17.10.2020 a detailed presentation was given by the project proponent. Based on the documents furnished and the presentation made by the project proponent, SEIAA, Tamil Nadu decided to direct the project proponent to furnish the following details:
(i) The inundation certificate from PWD.
(ii) A village map, „A‟ register and FMB sketch of the proposed site.
(iii) A detailed disaster management plan.
(iv) Land use classification obtained from CMDA.
8
(v) The project proponent shall revise the water balance as per the MoEF&CC guidelines for the building project.
(vi) The project proponent should submit the details of STP and GWTP system and the design details based on the characteristics of the sewage and grey water.
(vii) The project proponent should furnish the necessary permission from the CMWSSB for supply of fresh water.
(viii) The project proponent shall furnish the necessary permission from the Competent Authority for the disposal of the excess treated sewage for avenue plantation along with the revised EMP.
(ix) The project proponent should also submit revised solid waste management plan as per National Building Code guidelines.
(x) The revised lay out for the children‟s park on the other side of the project.
(xi) A proposal for rain water harvesting.
18. As per the requirements of SEIAA, the project proponent has submitted all the details sought for by the 4th respondent and again it was placed in the 188th meeting on 18.12.2020. It is after detailed deliberations, SEIAA, Tamil Nadu had recommended the proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance subject to the conditions mentioned therein. SEIAA also had imposed additional conditions along with normal conditions which included the treatment of the sewage water, stability certificate from the Government institution before starting the construction activity, to ensure the solid waste generated not dumped in the Cooum River and the project proponent shall ensure that no material should be stored or dumped near the Cooum during construction.
19. The project proponent also shall furnish the detailed EMP to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board mentioning CER activities for Rs. 599.70 lakhs as committed and the CER activities shall be carried out before obtaining CTO from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Thus it was submitted that only after thorough scrutiny and analysis the Environmental Clearance was granted to the project proponent.
O.A. No. 91 of 202120. The appellant in the above Appeal has filed this Original Application for declaring the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu implementing the proposed project in contravention of the applicable laws and voilative of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and direct the project proponent not to undertake any construction activities until the application is decided.
921. The applicant has raised identical grounds which have been raised in the above Appeal while challenging the Environmental Clearance and NOC granted. Therefore, the pleadings are not repeated.
22. From the above pleadings the questions that arise for determination are as follows:
(i) Whether the Environmental Clearance granted by the 4th respondent is correct?
(ii) Whether the NOC issued by the 2nd respondent is proper?
Discussions:
23. Considering the objections raised by the appellant, the major concern of the appellant is that the Baby canal of 14 meters width has been reduced to 04 meters due to dumping of debris and other garbage. The project proponent also had not located the Baby canal and removal of the encroachments from the river.
24. In this regard, independent report of the District Collector would be relevant. During the pendency of the Appeal this Tribunal had given direction to ascertain the boundary and also to ascertain whether any river poromboke as per the original records has been converted into a patta land. In this regard, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records in his report dated 29.01.2022 has submitted that the Arumbakkam Village was originally attached with Saidapet Taluk and thereafter it was with erstwhile Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk till 11.02.2014. Consequent to the bifurcation of the taluk offices in Chennai, the said village was attached with the newly formed Aminjikarai Taluk with effect from 12.02.2014.
25. A joint inspection was also carried out by the officials of the Revenue Department, TNHB and the PWD and sketch was drawn to show the buffer zone details. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records has submitted that the details of the Baby canal could not be traced since original records are with PWD and hence the same could not be marked in the sketch prepared in this regard. A look at the combined sketch would go to show that the Cooum River has extended its boundaries by flowing through the TNHB land which is claimed to be the patta land of TNHB. Therefore, it now becomes necessary to fix the boundary line of the river which would now fall into the property of the TNHB.
1026. The Superintending Engineer in its report dated 03.02.2021 had submitted a report furnishing the boundaries and details of the Baby canal and buffer zone, changes in the measurements and also a report as to whether any patta was issued to anyone else during the pre- independent Era. The measurements of the property were taken up in the presence of the officials and the boundaries of old Sy. Nos. 117, 127 and 129 correlating to TS. No.31 of Block No. 9B and TS. No. 49 of Block No. 9C were taken and the measurement were given in the report which reads as follows:
Boundary Boundaries as per Boundary of the river as Variation/Expansion points in Revenue records pr DGPS as on of the river meters pertaining to the year 04.04.2022 in metres boundary in metres.
1905 in meters 7 to 17 95.8 133.6 37.7 5 to 18 85.3 109.4 24.1 3 to 19 74.9 94.8 19.9 1 to 20 85.9 85.9 0
27. From the above, it is clear that the PWD-WRD has given the NOC only from the inundation point of view. The PWD has given its technical remarks which states that there should be a minimum offset of 15 meters, (as per circular issued by the office of the Commissioner, Town and County Planning, Chennai by the ROC No. 4367(i)2019 dated 13.03.2019) which should be kept devoid of any construction activities and the site should be as it is in conditions before filing the earth and the Cooum River width of about 118 meters should be permanently provided excluding the width of the buffer zone otherwise the technical opinion along with the NOC of this Department will be deferred without any correspondence. The condition further mandates that the width of the river earmarked in the sketch should never be altered and must be maintained at all time as per revenue records. This is mandatory and no permanent structure should be constructed to allow water to drain without causing inundation or afflux on the upstream side of the river.
28. Admittedly, the width of the river in the impugned site varies from 85.90 meters to 133.60 meters and the river is in part of the TNHB land in the Arumbakkam Village. The buffer zone of 15 meters from the existing boundary of the TNHB land has been provided in compliance with condition no. 3 of the NOC.
29. Now the concern and the objection of the appellant is that there was no scientific analysis done with due consideration to the river slope, river 11 width and maximum probable discharge of water in relation to the existing discharging capacity of the river as the project is coming up in a flood-prone locality and in a low-lying area.
30. The word „River‟ is defined to be a large stream of water flowing in a channel of land towards the ocean, lake or river. A River is a body of flowing water of no specific dimensions larger than brook or rivulet: a running stream pent in on each side by walls or banks.
31. Cooum River is fed by Kosathalaiyar River surplus and Palar River surplus. Admittedly, the Cooum River in its upstream rural areas shows issues of catchment degradation and bank siltation, there is also no minimum flow maintained in the river during the lean season. There seems to be an increasing problem of water quality as the Cooum River flows through peri-urban areas. It is highly polluted leading to public apathy and disposal of solid waste on the river bed which impacts the downstream water quality and oxygen level in the water. When it enters the city it is basically used as an urban sewer receiving the industrial and municipal water including the solid waste from the slum areas.
32. Only a healthy river provides important eco-system services such as water for drinking and irrigation, flood control, transportation, re-creation and habitat for fish. A periodical survey of fish species in Cooum River has been dwindling and today the river is almost dead. In fact, it may not be an exaggeration to state that nobody alive today has seen the river clean. Today there are no riparian rights attached to the River Cooum. The current condition at the location of the site show a poorly vegetated riparian corridor, however, potential construction and development attempts though could weaken the area and cause a permanent damage. It is a reality that on the banks of the River Cooum, there are many constructions which would include even the temples, museum, forts and colleges.
33. The 3rd respondent also submitted its additional affidavit signed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board which reads as follows:
"11. It is submitted that TNHB engaged professional consultants to design the structure and got it vetted by Anna University; the basement is feasible, since the project basement is provided with the shear wall without any opening peripheral, the chance of flooding is „Nil‟. Moreover, the retaining wall is constructed upto the level of 14.80m over the raft foundation for a depth 1.80 metre rested over the pile foundation of 23.00 meter depth which is 31.80 metre below Poonamallee High Road Level and stretch of 338 meters of retaining wall with 700 mm thick upto the level of 2 nd basement roof slab and after that 380 mm thick retaining wall upto the stilt floor level; after that for a 12 height 1.00 meter RCC compound wall is provided. Therefore, no water would get into the basement floors and in addition to dewatering arrangements and emergency pumping operation provision have been given in the scheme proposal.
12. It is submitted that apart from the retaining wall structure, one more retaining wall with an average gap of 6.00 meter as an extended basement is also constructed throughout the stretch of the extended basement along with the retaining wall with same precautionary measures of 1.60 metre to 2.10 metre depth of raft with 23 metre depth of pile foundation. Within the average of 6.00 metre gap, rainwater collection sump, fire sump, Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and all other sub structures are provided, as per the EIA clearance. The height of retaining will is 1.00 meter over the extended basement retaining wall and 7.00 meter height from Coovum river, in both the structures extended basement i.e. 15.00 meter buffer zone from boundary of Coovam is also provided.
13. It is submitted that the construction of the stilt floor level is fixed as 13.80m which is well above the PWD inundation level of 13.475m. Apart from that, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is constructing RCC retaining wall to a height of +14.755m with the pile foundation with reference to the PWD levels, along the river side boundary up to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board land extent that provides sufficient buffer zone in the northern side which ensures strong protection of the ongoing project during floods in future.
14. It is humbly submitted due to formation of the earthen bund in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board land by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the water flow during the monsoon period were recorded and found that the maximum flood level was approximately 8 m above MSL (depth of flow 3.5m) and 0.9 m below the bund during the North East Monsoon period even during heavy rainfall from 07.11.2021 to 04.12.2020. In the other side of the Coovum river 9at Naduvankarai side), the maximum flood level was approximately 9.6m above MSL which is 1.90 m below level the bund top level on 29.11.2021. Maximum flood occur the project site laying in Arumbakkam Village and Coovum river flows in Naduvankkarai Village as per Revenue Records.
15. It is submitted that, basement level of the project is more than 3m height from the Maximum flood level (i.e.) (+) 11.375. I further submit that 4 th respondent has granted Environmental Clearance only after thorough scrutiny of all the records. During the flood which occurred in 2015, no flooding (or) breaching occurred in the site area.
16. It is submitted that Tamil Nadu Housing has obtained the planning permission from CMDA vide Permit No. 14509 dated 08.10.2021 and planning permission No. C/PP/MSB/57 (Atou) 2021, Building Permit from Greater Chennai Corporation vide permit No. CEBA/WDCN08/00343/2021, Environment Clearance from SEIAA vide letter No. SEIAA.TN/F.No. 7627/EC/8(a)/739/2020 dated 23.01.2021, NoC from the Fire and Rescue department vide letter No. PPNOC No. 24/2021 Dated 26.02.2021, the Traffic NOC from Traffic Police Department vide letter No. RC. NO. Tr/License/183/5023/2021 dated 30.03.2021. The project work has been commenced only after all statutory approvals were obtained by Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
17. I humbly submit that as per the NOC obtained from Fire and Rescue Department the basement will have the following requirements
(i) Design Criteria:
Basement in natural light and ventilation, their access points and integrating them into a building plan are thoroughly studied. Ramps with gradient of 1 in 8 are provided. The following criteria like access, ventilation, fire fighting and escape provisions. Bright lit, colour coded sections will be provided to indentify the different sections of the basements.
(ii) Flooding in basements
a) Every basement has in every part at least 2.4 m in height from the floor to the underside of the roof of slab or ceiling.
b) Adequate ventilation are met by providing adequate mechanical ventilation in the form of blowers, exhaust fans, air conditioning systems, etc. 13
c) The height of the ceiling of basement is 0.90m above the average surrounding ground level.
d) Adequate arrangements for storm water drains are made and surface drainage does not enter the basement.
e) The walls and floors of the basement is water tight and also adequate damp proofing treatment with PU coating is given.
f) The access to the basement shall be separate from the main and alternative staircase supplies from the incense‟s service and alternative supply cables are provided in basement.
g) Services room shall have fire resistance of not less than two hours.
18. It is humbly submitted that Solid Waste Management is also made as follows:
i. The waste generated from commercial and residential block would be around 896 Kg/day, out of which 40% is biodegradable and the balance 60% is non-biodegradable.
ii. The biodegradable wastes are converted, by using organic waste converter, to be utilized for green belt development and non- biodegradable are sent to authorized recycler or local body for disposal.
19. It is submitted that relating to establishment of Sewage Treatment Plant, the following steps are taken:
a) The Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) installed will be certified by reputed Academic institutions for its adequacy and a report in this regard would be submitted to the SEIAA, before the project is commissioned for operation. Steps are also taken for less power consuming systems viz baffle reactor etc., for the treatment of sewage.
b) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board would install STP as furnished.
c) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board will operate and maintain the Sewage Treatment Plant and grey water treatment plant to achieve the standard prescribed by the Pollution Control Board.
d) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board will ensure the complete recycling of treated sewage and grey water after achieving the standards prescribed by the Pollution Control Board.
e) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall provide separate standby DG Set for the STP for the continuous operation of the STP in case of power failure.
20. It is submitted that diagrams of the construction of the above mentioned retaining walls are also filed herewith.
34. So far as the 4th respondent, which is the SEIAA, is concerned, the project proposal was placed in the 182nd meeting of SEAC, Tamil Nadu on 17.10.2020. The project proponent, Housing Board, gave detailed presentation and also furnished all the relevant particulars. After submission of the details by the project proponent to the office of the SEIAA, Tamil Nadu on 19.11.2020, it was once again placed for appraisal in 188th meeting on 18.12.2020. After deliberations, the SEAC, Tamil Nadu recommended the proposal for the grant of Environmental Clearance to SEIAA, Tamil Nadu subject to the following conditions in addition to the standard conditions stipulated by the MoEF&CC:
i. The proponent shall comply with all the conditions imposed in the NOC on inundation point of view issued by PWD/WRD vide Lr. No. DB/T5(3)/F-NOC-Arumbakka/2020/dated 03.10.2020. ii. The project proponent shall provide sewage treatment plant & grey water treatment system as reported and continuously operate and maintain sewage treatment plant & grey water treatment system to achieve the standards prescribed by the TNPCB/CPCB.14
iii. The sludge generated from the Sewage Treatment Plant shall be collected and dewatered using filter press and the same shall be utilized as manure for green belt development after composting. iv. The proponent shall make proper arrangements for the disposal of the excess treated grey water from the proposed site in Division 100 parks and nearby areas as detailed in the EE/zone VIII/GCC Lr. No. Zo.VIII No SPL 2020 dated 16.11.2020 subject to the conditions stated therein. v. The project proponent shall provide entry and exit points for the OSR area Community Hall, play area as per the norms for the public usage as committed.
vi. The project proponent shall necessarily comply with the provisions given under Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016. vii. As reported, the proponent shall treat the Bio-degradable waste generated through Bio-methanation plant/Organic Waste Converter & Non-Biodegradable waste shall be disposed to Authorized Recyclers. viii. The proponent shall provide the dispenser for the disposal of Sanitary Napkins.
ix. The proponent shall always ensure no waste of any type shall be disposed of in any other way than the approved one. x. The height of the stacks of DG sets shall be provided as per the CPCB norms.
xi. The proponent shall earmark the green belt area with dimension and GPS coordinates all along the boundary of the project site with at least 3 meters wide and the same shall be included in the layout plan to be submitted for CMDA/DTCP approval. The total green belt area should be minimum 15% of the total area and the same shall not be used for car parking.
xii. Proper drainage facility should be provided for the entire above mentioned survey fields.
xiii. The proponent shall provide rain water harvesting sump of adequate capacity for collecting the rooftop, paved and unpaved road runoff as committed.
xiv. The proponent shall ensure that the storm water flows from the upstream side without any hindrance by designing the storm water drainage arrangement in accordance with the contour levels of the proposed project area and considering the surrounding development to avoid the future flood inundation at the project site. xv. Tapping of solar energy should be at least 10% of total energy consumption solar energy usage mainly for the illumination of common areas, street lighting etc. xvi. Adequate fire protection facilities shall be installed including fire detectors, fire alarm and fire fighting system to guard the building against fire. All fire protection facilities shall be designed as per the National Building Code 2016. According to prospective plans, fire- fighting arrangements such as fire extinguisher, hose reel, wet riser, yard hydrant, automatic sprinkler system, manually operated electric file alarm system, underground water storage tank, terrace tank, pumps shall be provided considering maximum building height as per NBC of India, 2016.
xvii. All the mitigation measures committed by the proponent for the flood management, evacuation plan, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment & disposal etc., shall be followed strictly.
xviii. As per the MoEF&CC Office Memorandum F. No. 22-65/2017-IA.III dated 30.09.2020 and 20.10.20220 the proponent shall furnish the detailed EMP mentioning all the activities as proposed in the CER and furnish the same before placing the subject to SEIAA.
35. Once again, the proposal seeking Environmental Clearance was placed in the 418th meeting of SEIAA, Tamil Nadu held on 11.01.2021 and 12.01.2021 wherein the Authority had unanimously accepted the recommendation of the SEAC, Tamil Nadu and granted Environmental Clearance vide office letter no. SEIAA-TN/F.No.7627/EC/8(a)/739/2020 dated 23.01.2021 subject to the conditions as recommended by the SEAC, Tamil Nadu and normal conditions in addition to the following conditions:
15i. The proponent shall ensure that the treated/untreated sewage/Grey water should not be disposed directly or indirectly to the nearby Coovum or inside/outside their premises.
ii. The proponent shall necessarily obtain the Stability certificate from the repute institution/Government Institution before starting construction activity as the proposal is abutting the River Coovum. iii. The proponent shall ensure that the Solid Waste generated should not be dumped in the Coovum River.
iv. The proponent shall ensure that no material should be stored or dumped near the Coovum during constructional/operational phase. v. As per the MoEF&CC office memorandum F. No. 22-65/2017-IA.III dated 30.09.2020 and 20.10.2020 the proponent shall furnish the detailed EMP to TNPCB, mentioning CER activities for Rs. 599.70 lakhs as committed and the CER activities shall be carried out before obtaining CTO from TNPCB.
Thus, the 4th respondent also has considered the project and imposed the additional conditions.
36. It‟s pertinent to note that the applicant and the appellant in O.A. No. 91 of 2021 and Appeal No. 10 of 2021 is satisfied with the action taken based on the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal.
37. In the light of the above discussions based on the subsequent developments, we issue following directions:
(1) The 4th respondent, SEIAA is directed to consider the undertaking given by the 3rd respondent, project proponent in its affidavit dated 30.06.2022 regarding the construction of retaining wall with the given measurements and also one more retaining wall with an average gap of 6.00 meters as an extended basement and other modifications undertaken by 4th respondent. Accordingly, 4th respondent would impose further conditions, if any, to the Environmental Clearance already granted based on the affidavit and also approve the rough plan filed by them.
(2) Though, CMDA is not a party to the proceedings, in view of the buffer zone indicated and the measurements from the retaining wall proposed, may once again consider the building permit as to whether it is within the norms for granting the required FSI (Floor Space Index) and accordingly pass appropriate orders.
(3) Since, Water Resources Department had issued NOC considering the inundation point of view only for the purpose of obtaining planning permission from CMDA, PWD-WRD is directed to satisfy itself of structural soundness of retaining walls as proposed by TNHB in their affidavit.
16(4) As there is variation in the extent of river and landline due to voluntary surrender of a portion of their land by TNHB, the Revenue Department is directed to make note of the fact and appropriately incorporate the necessary modification in the revenue records.
(5) SEIAA is also directed to take on record the modified river boundary and buffer zone in the light of the undertaking affidavit given by the TNHB.
38. The Appeal and Original Application are disposed of in the terms indicated above.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No. 10/2021(SZ) O.A. No. 91/2021(SZ) 28th September, 2022. (AM) 17 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) Appeal No. 10/2021(SZ) & O.A. No. 91 of 2021(SZ) G. Devarajan, Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Appeal No. 10/2021(SZ) O.A. No. 91/2021(SZ) 28th September, 2022. (AM) 18