TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e lands to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu [SIPCOT]. As per G.O.Ms.650 Revenue department dated 13.11.2008, Government alienated an extent of 250 hectares of grazing ground poramboke lands comprised in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 of Thervoy village for establishment of second Industrial complex in Tiruvallur District to be transferred to the name of SIPCOT subject to certain conditions. Petitioner association claims to have been formed working for the benefit of residents of Thervoy kandigai village. (ii) Grievance of the Petitioner association is that the lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are being used as grazing lands as well as afforestation programme under the village community forest programmes. An Agreement to the afforestation of about 250 hectares in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 as part of social programme was entered into on 04.2.2008 by the department of Forest and Thervoy panchayat. According to Petitioner Association, after the execution of the agreement, village community and their representatives have been actively participating in the afforestation programme. While so, acquiring Meikkal poramboke lands for industrial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Respondent-Board has averred that once such application is made, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board would consider all relevant aspects before grant of consent to the industries proposed to be set up. 6. SIPCOT / 7th Respondent has filed counter contending that the lands transferred are not forest lands and there is no prohibition to transfer such lands and the lands in question were not acquired, but transferred by the revenue department to SIPCOT. The lands are though classified as grazing lands are not used for grazing for the past many decades which are covered by thorny bushes and shrubs are only converted into industrial land without any disturbance to water bodies and there is no forest or forest land in S.F.Nos.32/2 and 33/2. It is further averred that any industry established in any area will have to get clearance of the 5th Respondent with respect to pollution level and no effluent will be discharged as apprehended by the Petitioner and the catchment area will be preserved. 7. Submitting that only in exceptional circumstances Meikkal poramboke could be transferred, Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia raised the following contentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader[Forest] for 2nd Respondent submitted that S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are classified as Meikkal poramboke and there was no intention to notify them as forest land. It was further argued that there is no forest land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 and therefore, provisions of Forest Conservation Act would not apply. 10. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned standing counsel for 5th Respondent Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board [TNPCB] submitted that so far no application has been received for the proposed SIPCOT blocks and as and when application is received, 5th Respondent would examine and consider all the aspects before grant of consent to the industries proposed to be set up in the said land as per the provisions of relevant Acts. 11. Raising serious doubts about the bonafide of Petitioner Sangam, Mr. P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General for 7th Respondents submitted the following contentions:- Petitioner's Sangam came into existence only ten days prior to the filing of the Writ Petition and lacking in bonafide. For development of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illage has passed resolution even as early as on 30.1.2007 consenting for the transfer of the above lands to SIPCOT. It was further argued that only after careful consideration of the proposal, the lands were alienated to SIPCOT for establishment of industrial complex which would pave the way for development of area. 14. Land and grounds of challenge: The lands are located in Thervoy kandigai village about 65 kilometres from Chennai and has proximity to Ennore Port and also Gummidipoondi Industrial Estate. The proposed lands are classified as Meikkal Poramboke. 15. In Thervoy kandigai village, details of grazing ground poramboke are : S.No. Extent in (Hect) &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; ---------- Total 554.19.0 Hectares &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd all the development will improve the overall area of Thervoy Kandigai village in respect of connectivity, transport facility and job opportunity. As per development plan prepared by ITCOT Consultancy and Services Ltd., the project will have socio-economic benefits and it would generate direct employment to around 5000 persons besides indirect employment generation to more than 25000 persons. According to the 7th Respondent, available man power would get opportunities to acquire advanced skills which would help them to get higher wages and technology trained persons such as ITI holders would get exposure in the advanced technology machines. 17. Transfer of land to SIPCOT and the proposed industrial estate is sought to be challenged on the ground of:- (i) Adverse impact to the eco-system to water bodies, forest and pollution were not considered; (ii) Failure to obtain environment clearance certificate would vitiate development of industrial estate; (iii) There was no public hearing and violation of principles of natural justice; (iv) Impact of industrial estate on depletion of forest area and greenery was not considered; (v) Change of user from Meikkal poramboke ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts. But judicial review should not be allowed to run riot. The practice of delving through documents and conversations and extracting a few sentences which enable a skilled advocate to produce doubt and confusion where none exists should not be repeated." It was further held in Para (25) as under:- "........ One has to bear in mind the caution administered by Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire Country Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment [(1986) 1 All ER 199] that "'Judicial review' is a great weapon in the hands of the Judges; but the Judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficial power" ....." 20. There could be no two opinion that unreasonable decisions are susceptible to be interfered with and corrected in the judicial review proceedings. In the given facts and circumstances, it is for the Court to decide whether the action complained of is unreasonable. 21. Point falling for consideration is whether arbitrary exercise of power warranting interference in the judicial review. It is well settled that power of judicial review is not concerned with the merits or correctness of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The "Precautionary Principle" makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environment degradation. We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes." 29. In a catena of cases, Supreme Court has reiterated right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right. Re-stating the 'Sustainable Development', in 2004 (9) SCC 362 [N.D.Jayal and another v. Union of Indian and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "24. The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited as a misnomer to simple construction activities. The right to development encompasses much more than economic well-being, and includes within its definition the guarantee of fundamental human rights. The "development" is not related only to the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;means: (i) Environmental measures by the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 12. "The Polluter Pays Principle" has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India. The Court observed: ".... we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country". The Court ruled that: "..... once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. On the other hand, right to development is also one. Here the right to "sustainable development" cannot be singled out. Therefore, the concept of "sustainable development" is to be treated as an integral part of "life" under Article 21. Weighty concepts like intergenerational equity [State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products (1995) 6 SCC 363, public trust doctrine [M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 and precautionary principle [Vellore Citizens case (1996) 5 SCC 647], which we declared as inseparable ingredients of our environmental jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring sustainable development." 33. In 2006 (3) SCC 549 [Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and others], the Supreme Court once again reiterated the Constitutional mandate as enshrined under Articles 48-A and 51-A, wherein the State is mandatorily bound to protect and improve the national environment including forests, lakes, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid emphasis that these Articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it should be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n integral part of human rights. Of course, construction of a dam or a mega project is definitely an attempt to achieve the goal of wholesome development. Such works could very well be treated as integral component for development. 25. Therefore, the adherence to sustainable development principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development. Right to environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand, right to development is also one. Here the right to "sustainable development" cannot be singled out. Therefore, the concept of "sustainable development" is to be treated as an integral part of "life" under Article 21. Weighty concepts like intergenerational equity (State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 SCC 363), public trust doctine (M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) and precautionary principle (Vellore Citizens), which we declared as inseparable ingredients of our environmental jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring sustainable development." 36. Observing that doctrine of "Sustainable Development" is not an empty slogan and required to be implemented taking pragmatic view and no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 67. A nation's progress largely depends on development, therefore, the development cannot be stopped, but we need to control it rationally. No Government can cope with the problem of environmental repair by itself alone; people's voluntary participation in environmental management is a must for sustainable development. There is a need to create environmental awareness which may be propagated through formal and informal education. We must scientifically assess the ecological impact of various developmental schemes. To meet the challenge of current environmental issues, the entire globe should be considered the proper arena for environmental adjustment. Unity of mankind is not just a dream of the enlightenment but a biophysical fact. 68. In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1991) 1 SCC 598 : AIR 1991 SC 420], this Court has given directions that under Article 21 of the Constitution, pollution free water and air are the fundamental rights of the people. 69. In A.P.Pollution Control Board (II) v. Prof. M.V.Nayudu [(2001) 2 SCC 62, this Court observed that the right to have access to drinking water is fundamental to life and it is the duty of the State under Article 21 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. (iii) The Courts when confronted with a situation where violation of such public trust doctrine is put against the State, the Courts while scrutinising such actions of the State, have to make a distinction between the State's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special obligation which is entrusted with it as a trustee of such public resources. (iv) The three types of restrictions on Governmental authority as stated by Prof. Sax assumes significance which are as follows: (a) The property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; (b) The property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent; (c) The property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources. (v)The Court has to strike a balance between sustainable development and environment protection. Keeping in view the above principles laid down in a catena of decisions, we proceed to consider various contentions and facts involved in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trial units. Contention of arbitrariness urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner challenging the notification, in our considered view does not carry any weight. The real question is whether the decision measures up to the legal standard of reasonableness. Keeping in view and applying the well settled principle of 'Sustainable Development', we do not find any unreasonableness in the notification transferring the land S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 to SIPCOT. 43. Meikkal poramboke lands being vested with the Government, right to transfer the same is always available with the Government. Exercise of such right cannot be said to be arbitrary. However, for ensuring the right of livestock and for safeguarding the livestock, provision is made in the notification directing the SIPCOT to make available alternate land. Even though, land cost need not be paid, as per the conditions, SIPCOT to make available the same extent of land within a period of three years. We find no force in the contention that Meikkal poramboke lands were parted with without land price. 44. We would shortly deal with the arguments advanced as to the relaxation of the condition in transfer of Meikkal porambo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t heard at all. 47. Countering the arguments, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to the notice dated 11.1.2007 calling for objections and also statement recorded from the public in response to the said notice. In the said notice dated 11.1.2007, Government called for objection for transfer of Meikkal poramboke to SIPCOT for development of industrial park. The said notice dated 11.1.2007 reads as under:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 48. The said notice has been duly published in the village Thervoy Kandigai and the village public have also signed acknowledging the publication. Number of village public have also participated in the enquiry. They have also given statement stating that formation of industrial estate by SIPCOT in Thervoy kandigai village would generate employment opportunities for graduates, ITI holders and others and that they have no objection for formation of industrial estate by SIPCOT. Having regard to the materials, we do not find any merit in the contention that there was no public notice and that there was violation of principles of natural justice. 49. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of India and others], learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the word "forest" has to be understood according to its dictionary meaning and this description would cover all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise. He has further submitted that 'forest' means a large uncultivated track of land covered with trees and rude pasture. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that protection and conservation of forest has been engaging the attention of Supreme Court of India and conversion of grazing ground into industrial area would mean felling of trees. It was therefore, contended that in order to protect and conserve the forest in the land in question, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his plea that the land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 shall be deemed to be forest, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon Memo of Understanding [MOU] of Forest department with Thervoy kandigai village panchayat for implementation of Tamil Nadu afforestation programme during 2008-2009. For implementation of Tamil Nadu Afforestation Programme during 2008-2009, Forest department sel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ec.2(ii) of Forest and Conservation Act, 1980 and without getting prior approval of the Central Government, Respondents are not entitled to proceed with any construction in the land. The present case before us is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the revenue records the lands S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are classified as Meikkal poramboke and while so, it cannot be contended that statutory prescriptions contained in the provisions of Forest and Conservation Act are to be followed. 55. Admittedly, there are number of trees in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2. In M.P.Nos.1 to 3/2009, interim stay was granted restraining SIPCOT by felling the trees. Alleging that in violation of the order, there is large scale felling of trees, Contempt Petition in C.P.No.802/2009 has also been filed. By the order dated 25.8.2009, we have directed the Forest department to identify the trees located in the land. Forest department has identified about 844 trees. As and when SIPCOT applies for environmental clearance while considering the environmental impact, it is for the authorities to take note of the existing trees to consider the relevant questions. In so far as, the existing trees, it is for the competent author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 11.12.2001, grazing land cannot be transferred without providing alternate land for the same extent. It was further submitted that in Thervoy kandigai population is about 5000 out of which 90% belong to SC/ST category and village people are dependent upon the grazing land for catering to their cattle and the act of the Government in transferring the land to SIPCOT has resulted in depletion of grazing land which seriously affects the rights of the residents of Thervoy Kandigai and their livestock. 60. Countering the arguments, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that admittedly, the village has 90% literacy rate and while literacy rate is higher, villagers are not highly dependent upon the cattle, goats and cattle breeding for their survival. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Though, the villagers are educated, villagers might still be dependent on their livestock to supplement their income. 61. In so far as the objection as to change of user, in our considered view, Government is the best person to decide change of land user. In (2005) 12 SCC 369 [National Centre for Human Settlements & Environment v. Union of India and others], notification was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lternate land of same extent is developed as grazing land in the same District. Apart from identifying alternate land, development charge at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre or Rs. 15,000/- per hectare should be deposited in the local fund account. The relevant clauses in G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 reads as under:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED In its Policy Note No.6 for 2004-05, Government referred fodder development activities and increasing fodder production. In its Policy Note, Government expressed its concern over decreasing area of permanent pastures and other grazing grounds. Government noted that over-exploitation of available grazing land has led to its depletion of grazing land and Government ordered not to transfer grazing land for other purposes unless alternate land of the same extent is developed as grazing land in the same District. Reiterating G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001, Policy Note for 2004-05 also states that for the above purpose, development charges at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre or Rs. 15,000/- per hectare should be deposited in the local fund account. 65.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t charges are to be deposited if alternate land is not given/identified by SIPCOT. 69. Relaxation of restriction that SIPCOT to find alternate land of the same extent cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is not as if no other grazing land is available in Thervoy Kandigai village and surrounding villages. Apart from S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 alienated to SIPCOT, there are other Meikkal Porambokes in Thervoy Kandigai village in S.No.33/1 measuring an extent of 6.50.0 hectares and S.No.239 measuring an extent of 91.42.0 hectares [totalling 97.92.0 hectares (or) 241.86 acres]. That apart to benefit the cattle of Thervoy Kandigai village, out of the land transferred SIPCOT will be developing about 100 acres of land for fodder development. Having regard to the extent of other grazing land i.e. 241.86 acres available, Petitioner is not right in contending that Government did not address the issue at all. In our considered view, Government did keep in view the interest of the cattle. 70. Much arguments were advanced contending that relaxation of restriction to find alternate land and if not able to secure the alternate land, SIPCOT to pay money. It was contended that such relaxation would am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts it will not be prudent to invalidate its decision unless there is material to show that it will have irreversible adverse effect on the wildlife and the environment." 74. Observing that proper course to be adopted is to permit restricted and controlled exploitation of mineral wealth of that area, Supreme Court has further held as under:- "7. ...... There is no other possibility of industrial development in that area, though it contains rich mineral deposits. Therefore, if an attempt is made by the State Legislature and the State Government to balance the need of the environment and the need of economic development it would not be proper to apply the principle of prohibition in such a case. The reports of the three Committees only point out the ecological importance of the area and express an apprehension, that any major mining operation within the notified area and large-scale industrialization near about the sanctuary as originally notified, may adversely affect the ecological balance and biodiversity of that area. It would, therefore, be proper and safer to apply the "principle of protection" and the "principle of polluter pays" keeping in mind the "principle of sustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate General has produced recommendations of Department of Forage Crops Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University for the requirement of fodder area. As per the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University recommendation, one acre of fodder will be sufficient to take care of 8 adult milch animals viz., cows/buffaloes and one acre of forage will be sufficient to provide feedstuff to 40 sheep/goats. 78. As we have pointed out earlier, total number of cows and buffaloes available in Thervoy Kandigai village is 1295 out of which 752 are cows and 543 are buffaloes which require 161.88 acres. Similarly, available sheep are 138 and goats are 999, totally 1137 Nos. As per the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University letter dated 07.9.2009, one acre of land is required for feeding the 40 sheeps/goats. Accordingly, 1137 Nos. of sheep/goats would need 28.42 acres of land for fodder development. Thus, the total land required for the available livestocks in Thervoy Kandigai village works out to 190.30 acres. 79. As we have pointed out earlier in Para 15, the total extent of grazing ground in the village is 554.19.0 hectares or 1368.85 acres. Out of which 1127.00 acres has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the disposal of Animal Husbandry Department for development as grazing lands. 84. Re.contention violation of Sec.134 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994:- As per Sec.134(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act the following porambokes viz, grazing grounds, thrashing floors, burning and burial-grounds, cattle-stands, cart-stands and topes shall vest in the Village Panchayat, and the Village Panchayat shall have power, subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed to regulate the use of such porambokes, provided the porambokes are at the disposal of the Government. But as per Sec.134(1) of the Act, the provision of Sec.134 shall apply only in Ryotwari tracts. 85. Contending that as per Sec.134(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act grazing grounds shall vest with the Village Panchayat, learned counsel for the Petitioner urged to read Sec.134 as analogous to Sec.125 vesting of public roads in the Village Panchayat. It was submitted that as per Sec.134 which is analogous to Sec.125 of the Act, Meikkal poramboke shall vest with the Village Panchayat and Village Panchayat has got every right to regulate such poramboke. It was therefore contended that when the Village P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the Village President and Village People mainly for implementation of Afforestation Programme for involving participation of the village people. Entering into MOU with the villagers, in our considered view such MOU would not lead to the conclusion that panchayat was regulating the user of Meikkal poramboke. 90. As per Rule 3 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Restriction and Control to Regulate the use of Porambokes in Ryotwari Tracts) Rules, 2000 No poramboke at the disposal of the Government, the use of which is regulated by the Village Panchayat, shall be used for any purpose other than that for which it was originally intended except with the prior approval of the Collector and such use shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Collector. 91. As per Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Restriction and Control to Regulate the use of Porambokes in Ryotwari Tracts) Rules, 2000 The Village Panchayat shall maintain a list of porambokes (with details of survey numbers, boundaries, extent, the purpose for which each poramboke is used and the trees thereon the use of which is regulated by it under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 134 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will be maintained as it is and the rain water collected will also be drained to the water bodies through the storm water drains and as such, the water bodies will be preserved as it is. Further, the allotted unit will be supplied water from the desalination plant at Minjur or Poondi reservoir." SIPCOT has clearly averred that no water bodies will be touched or altered and maintain "as is where is condition" in the entire stretch. SIPCOT also proposed to construct storm water drain which will drain the water from the industrial estate to the local Reservoir/Eri without any hindrance. Having regard to the averments in the counter-affidavit of 7th Respondent, apprehensions raised by the Petitioner as to destruction of anicut and damages caused to the water bodies are unfounded. 97. Environment clearance as per Notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 14.09.2006:- Next submission raised before us is about the failure to obtain prior environment clearance as per notification, prior to clearing of bushes and shrubs for development of industrial estate. The main plank argument advanced was that the project will have adverse impact of environment due to:- Fell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and man made resources. All projects or activities included as category 'A' in the schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). 101. All the projects or activities included as category 'B' in the schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities as specified in sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2, or change in product mix as specified in sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2, but excluding those which fulfill the General Conditions (GC) stipulated in the schedule, will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union Territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). 102. Environmental clearance process comprises of (i) Screening; (ii) Scoping; (iii) Public Consultation; and (iv) Appraisal Committees. In the process, there is also public consultation of affected persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity. Para (8) de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat apart it is also expected that the industrial park would also attract about Rs. 25000 crores of investment in various industries. Some of the industries so proposed would certainly be in the category 'A' which requires prior environment clearance. In our considered view that as per notification, environment clearance has to be obtained before any further development. Even though, industrial estate is less than 500 hectares even for development of industrial estate, environmental clearance has to be obtained. 106. By passing of G.O.Ms.No.650 Revenue Department dated 13.11.2008, land is transferred to SIPCOT. Mere transfer of land will not amount to sanction to proceed with the projects. In Para (18) of Writ Petition, it is stated that 70% of the shrubs and trees have been removed At the time when the Writ Petition was admitted, interim injunction was granted on 12.5.2009 [P.J.M.,J & T.S.S.,J] from cutting and removing the trees. The same was modified by the order dated 27.5.2009 [V.D.P.,J & M.M.S.,J] restricting interim injunction only in respect of felling of trees. By the order dated 25.8.2009 [F.M.I.K.,J & R.B.I.,J], we have directed the Forest department to count ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said villagers/encroachers who have put up shed/huts are to be provided with an alternate place in the nearby vicinity for putting up their residence. In the alternate place so provided to the above 15 persons, Respondents 3,6 and 7 are directed to put up sheds with galvanised sheets under any of the available Government scheme. Respondents 3,6 and 7 are directed to put up sheds in those alternate place within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such alternate arrangement is made , those encroachments shall not be disturbed. 112. Contempt Petition No.802 of 2009:- In M.P.No.1/2009, on 12.5.2009 [P.J.M.,J & T.S.S.,J] interim injunction was granted restraining SIPCOT from felling trees and cutting shrubs and clearing the forest land in S.No.32/2 and 33/2. SIPCOT filed M.P.Nos.2 and 3/2009 to vacate and suspend the order of injunction granted in M.P.No.1/2009. By the order dated 27.5.2009, Court [V.D.P.,J & M.M.S.,J] has modified the injunction order dated 12.5.2009 which reads as under:- "...... the interim order of injunction granted by this Court on 12.5.2009 restraining the 7th respondent from felling trees and cutting shrubs and clearing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 13.11.2008. Upholding the G.O.Ms.No.650 Revenue Department dated 13.11.2008, the Writ Petition is disposed with the following directions:- (i) To secure the land, 7th Respondent-SIPCOT is at liberty to fence the land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 subject to compliance of the directions contained in Columns (ix) (x) and (xi) of this Order. (ii) 7th Respondent-SIPCOT is directed to approach the Competent Authority/Ministry of Environment and Forests to get environmental clearance as per Notification dated 14.9.2006 before proceeding further with development activities. (iii) Felling of trees identified in the report of the Forest Department dated 29.8.2009 shall be subject to the out come of the environmental clearance by the competent authorities. (iv) Respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 are further directed to develop 241.86 acres [S.Nos.33/1 and 239] and 100 acres from out of transferred land as grazing land by developing intensified fodder cultivation and formulate a scheme by which the cattle belonging to Thervoy Kandigai villagers are benefitted by such cultivation. (v) Respondents 3, 6 and 7 are directed to secure and make available the maximum extent of poramboke lands [s....