TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mil 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 estate would cause depletion of forest area. Further case of the Petitioner is that conditions imposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 contentions:- Without obtaining environmental clearance as per Notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi dated 14.09.2006, there cannot be development of ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 industrial park/estate by clearing bushes and shrubs, no environmental clearance is required as per the Notification dated 14.9.2006. Before transfer of land to SIPCOT on 11.1.2007 there was public notice in the village and statement of public was also recorded. After due hearing, G.O.Ms.No.650 Revenue Department dated 13.11.2008 transferring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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) 32/2 348.97.0 33/2 107.30.0 33/1 6.50.0 239 91.42.0 ---------- Total 554.19.0 Hectares (or) 1368.85 acres ---------- Out of said 1368.85 acres, S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2, an extent of 1127 acres has been transferred to SIPCOT for establishment of industrial complex. Necessary entries are made in the 'A' Register and Adangal of Thervoy kandigai village evidencing transfer of S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 to an extent of 348.97.0 and 107.30.0 hectares respectively. 16. The main occupation of the area is agriculture and allied activities. The land is located in industrially backward area and the educated youth are stated to be plenty and unemployed. According to the Government, to provide job opportunities besides developing the industrially backward area of Gummidipoondi, Government have proposed to set up new industrial park and identified the above lands. The alienated land infavour of SIPCO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty to act fairly but it is equally well settled in judicial review, the court is not concerned with the merits or correctness of the decision, but with the manner in which the decision is taken or the order is made. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the authority deciding the matter. The distinction between appellate power and a judicial review is well known but needs reiteration. By way of judicial review, the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. If the contract has been entered into without ignoring the procedure which can be said to be basic in nature and after an objective consideration of different options available taking into account the interest of the State and the public, then the court cannot act as an appellate court by substituting its opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such contract. But at the same time the courts can certainly examine whether 'decision making process' was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14." Further, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Thus anything that endangers or impairs the quality of life or living of the people, will attract the provision of Article 21 of Constitution of India. 24. In the context of human rights, right to life and liberty, pollution free Air and Water is guaranteed by our Constitution by Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A (g). 25. Article 21 reads as under:- "21. Protection of life and personal liberty.- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 26. Article 48-A reads as under:- "48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.- The State shall, endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." 27. Apart from the above we may also refer to Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution which makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". This duty can be enforced by the Court [See Animal and Envi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inable Development" is an acceptable principle in the present day context. The emergence of the concept of "Sustainable Development" as pronounced in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the later decision of giving a definite shape to the said concept in the year 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its report called "Our Common Future", under the behest of the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms.G.H.Brundtland, has been referred to in the decision in detail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear in paragraph 10 of its decision that "Sustainable Development" as a balancing concept between ecology and development has now been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features were yet to be finalised by the international law jurists. 31. In paragraph 11 and 12 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has elucidated the vital principles which reads as under:- "11. Some of the salient principles of "Sustainable Development", as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to state that by virtue of constitutional protection provided under Article 21 contained in Chapter III as well as Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A (g) falling under Chapter IV viz., Directive Principles of State policy, the principles drawn from the "Sustainable Development" concept have become the Law of the land. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring in detail to the various provisions contained in the Environment Acts, issued 11 directions for the protection of the environment and ultimately entrusted the task of monitoring the environmental issues arising in the State of Tamil Nadu by requesting the Chief Justice of this Court to constitute a Special Bench viz., "Green Bench" to deal with the cases dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all other environmental matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also made it clear that it will be open to this Bench to pass any appropriate orders or order keeping in view the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 32. Environment clearance for Tehri Dam Project came to be challenged on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court liberally dealt with the doctrine of 'Public Trust" in the context of protection of natural resources such as lakes, forests etc., and held that such doctrine has now become part of Indian Jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment and therefore as a trustee, the State is under a legal obligation to protect such resources. 35. In (2004) 9 SCC 362 [N.D.Jayal v. Union of India], the Supreme Court held as follows:- "23. In a catena of cases we have reiterated that right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right. May be, in a different context, the right to development is also declared as a component of Article 21 in cases like Samatha v. State of A.P. [(1997) 8 SCC 191] and in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 5 SCC 125]. 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 fundame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ironmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations. Brundtland Report defines 'sustainable development' as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs." 22. Treating the principle of sustainable development as a fundamental concept of Indian law, it was opined: "The development of the doctrine of sustainable development indeed is a welcome feature but while emphasising the need of ecological impact, a delicate balance between it and the necessity for development must be struck. Whereas it is not possible to ignore intergenerational interest, it is also not possible to ignore the dire need which the society urgently requires." 37. Tracing development of "Sustainable Development" and referring to various case laws, in 2006 (6) SCC 371 [Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ...." 72. In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 137] this Court gave a number of directions to reduce the pollution created by vehicles. 73. The need of the hour is inculcating a sense of urgency in implementing the rules relating to environmental protection which are not strictly followed. Its result would be disastrous for the health and welfare of the people. 74. The concept of sustainable development whose importance was the resolution of environmental problems is profound and undisputed." 38. Development and construction activities in Mundiyambakkam lake in Villupuram District was challenged before the First Bench of this Court in 2008-4-LW-220 [K.Balamurugan & 7 others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai and others]. In the said case, contention raised was that State failed to apply precautionary principles for protecting the water body in its attempt to convert the same for a different purpose. It was also urged that the project would result to depletion of ground water storage and was categorised under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forwarding the report of the District Collector, in his report, Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration has expressed the views that an amount of ₹ 62,97,90,920/- could be collected from SIPCOT for approval of the lands. 40. Even though, land cost was ordered to be collected from SIPCOT for effecting transfer in the impugned order, Government ordered transfer of lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 to SIPCOT without sale price subject to the conditions that SIPCOT has to make available the equal extent of land transferred to Animal Husbandry department within three years. In case such alternate land is not made available within three years to pay land cost along with interest and development charges. The relevant portion of the G.O. reads as under:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 41. Taking us through the notification, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that valuation of the land is arbitrary and absolutely, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the 3rd Respondent deviated from the recommendation of the District Collector and the Special Commissioner for Land Administration. It was further argued that Meikkal poramboke land had been transferred w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooing the foreign and local investments to Tamil Nadu. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that SIPCOT has been playing a key role in the industrialization of the State by establishing industrial complexes in the strategic locations. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per the industrial policy of Government of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu has intended for development of more industries to generate employment opportunities to the unemployed youth. For promoting industries and thereby to generate employment opportunities in Gummidipoondi Block, the Government is said to have taken decision transferring Meikkal poramboke land. In our considered view, Court must resist temptation to draw bounds tightly and according to its own opinion. As held by the Supreme Court in (2006) 3 SCC 549 [Intellectuals Forum v. State of AP] what was emphasised was higher degree of judicial scrutiny. Doctrine of 'Sustainable Development' although is not an empty slogan, it is required to be implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the Court. 46. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:- Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re for Convening and Conducting of Meetings] Rules, 1998, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. P.Wilson submitted that neither rules were complied with nor there was quorum nor agenda was prepared and therefore, no reliance could be placed upon the said resolution allegedly passed by the Grama Sabha. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the said Grama Sabha meeting was held on 15.8.2009 which is a public holiday in contravention of Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha [Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings] Rules, 1998. 50. On 30.1.2007, resolution was passed by Thervoy Kandigai panchayat to the effect that villagers have 'no objection' for formation of industrial estate in Thervoy Kandigai. Learned counsel for the Petitioner laid emphasis upon the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha on 12.3.2007 where the Grama Sabha passed resolution recording objection for formation of industrial estate. Learned counsel for the Petitioner laid emphasis upon the subsequent resolution passed by the Grama Sabha of Thervoy Panchayat [12.3.2007] wherein also the Village Panchayat President has signed. 51. Since there are number of resolutions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Programme. 53. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, MOU with villagers was only to have participation of the villagers in the afforestation programme wherein the rights and responsibilities of the villagers vis-a-vis Forest department have been brought out. MOU is executable only when afforestation work is taken up. Entering into MOU with villagers would not lead to an inference that the land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are to be deemed as forest land. 54. Placing reliance upon an unreported decision in W.P.No.20918/2008 [S.Chakravarthi v. District Collector, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District and others], learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Respondents are bound to follow the statutory prescription contained in Sec.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 lands. In the said case for construction of house under Periyar Memorial Samathuvapuram Scheme there were felling of trees. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, notification under Sec.6 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1881 came to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed activities and most of the farmers are marginal farmers holding small extents of land and their income is augmented by raising cattle. It was further submitted that the entire Meikkal poramboke lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are being used as grazing land and conversion of grazing land to industrial use will have disastrous consequences and the village communities would loose the grazing land and their livelihood. 57. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per RSO-15 (ix), grazing ground poramboke shall not be assigned. RSO-15 (ix) reads as under:- "RSO-15 (ix) Grazing ground porambokes:- Grazing ground porambokes shall not be assigned unless there is sufficient grazing ground available to serve the needs of cattle. These lands can be assigned or utilised for other purposes only with the sanction of the Government. Before sending proposals to the Government through the Commissioner of Land Administration, the Collector/District Revenue Officer should jointly inspect the land with the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry in the District concerned and obtain Joint Director's remarks. It should be sent with the report." 58. It was further argued that any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." Upholding the notification, Supreme Court made it clear that construction of a building for the Defence Research and Development Organisation is equally an important task as a green pasture for the citizens. 62. In their counter-affidavit, SIPCOT has averred that sanction of 1127 acres of dry lands and unusable land with thorny bushes was classified as Government grazing poramboke. Having regard to the location of the land in industrially backward area where educated are plenty or unemployed, to provide job opportunity to the educated youth, Government proposed to set up industrial park and identified the lands in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2. Having regard to the circumstances, in the instant case, we do not find any infraction in the decision of the Government in such change of land user. 63. In (2004) 2 SCC 392 [Essar Oil Limited v. Halar Utkarsh Samit], the Supreme Court held as follows:- "27. This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population toget....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears and also developmental charges at the rate of ₹ 6000/- per acre. Onbehalf of the Petitioner, much arguments were advanced contending that clause 5 (ix) is totally opposed to the Policy of the Government and G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 which would vitiate the impugned notification. 67. Much emphasis was laid upon G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 11.12.2001 wherein Government ordered that grazing land are not to be transferred for other purpose unless alternate land of same extent is developed as grazing land in the same District. As per the impugned notification G.O.Ms.No.650 Revenue Department dated 13.11.2008, alternate land of the same extent is to be identified either in the same District or in the adjacent District. In the impugned G.O., it is further stipulated that if SIPCOT is not able to develop alternate land, it has to pay the land cost along with interest and also developmental charges. By so saying restriction on transfer of grazing land has been relaxed. Onbehalf of the Petitioner, it was mainly contended that relaxation of G.O.Ms.No.186 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment Order. 72. It is not as if Government had arbitrarily taken a decision. While the Government keep in view the interest of the villagers and also the cattle, in a welfare state duty of the Government is to proceed with the work of development also and take steps for the growth of Industries without affecting the environment. State Government to balance the need of environment, interest of villagers livestock and the need of economic development. 73. In (2000) 2 SCC 599 [Consumer Education & research Society v. Union of India and others], State of Gujarat faced challenges from the Petitioner society to its attempt to cut down the total area of the "Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary", which had been declared and notified under Sec.18(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972. State Government was convinced that reduction was necessary in order to economically develop the backward area of Kutch by exploiting the mineral health. Observing that where power to reduce the notified area is vested in the State Legislature, it would not be appropriate for Courts to question the decision unless there were compelling and substantial reasons for intervening, Supreme Court held as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional language which was the Policy decision of the Government came to be challenged. Observing that there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative for such Policy decision, Supreme Court held as follows:- "8. It is well settled that judicial review, in order to enforce a fundamental right, is permissible of administrative, legislative and governmental action or non-action, and that the rights of the citizens of this country are to be judged by the judiciary and judicial forums and not by the administrators or executives. But it is equally true that citizens of India are not to be governed by the judges or judiciary. If the governance is illegal or violative of rights and obligations, other questions may arise but whether, as mentioned hereinbefore, it has to be a policy decision by the government or the authority and thereafter enforcement of that policy, the court should not be, and we hope would not be an appropriate forum for decision." 76. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to the cattle census pertaining to Gummidipoondi taluk including Thervoy Kandigai village. As per cattle census [in the year 2005] the entire livestock of Thervoy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recommendation of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, the total land required, available live stocks in Thervoy Kandigai village would be around 190.30 acres. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and that SIPCOT has come forward to develop 100 acres of land for use as grazing land available land of 341.86 acres of land would be more than sufficient to cater all the requirements of livestocks available. 80. That apart, so far cattle were feeding themselves with the natural vegetation grown in 1368.85 acres. In our considered view, by intensifying fodder development in 341.86 acres, loss of larger extent can be offset/compensated by such intensified development fodder. Cattle would also be benefitted with such intensified fodder development. 81. However, we are of the view that relaxation of clause in providing for alternate land of same extent might amount to depletion of grazing land. 82. So far as relaxation to find lands within three years either in the same District or in the adjacent Districts, we feel that it would be desirable that if SIPCOT would find alternate grazing land in the same District particularly around Thervoy Kandigai village. S.No.33/1 an extent of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Village Panchayat was not taken and when Government ignored the concept of Panchayatraj, transfer of land to SIPCOT is liable to be quashed. In the said case, 'Vandipathai poramboke' [cart-track] within the meaning of public road defined u/s.2(28) of the Act was sought to be reclassified as 'Natham poramboke'. As per Sec.125(1) of the Act public road vested with Village Panchayat. In view of Sec.125(1), public road in question vested with Panchayat, Division Bench of this Court has held that the power conferred on the Government under Sec.125(2) is not absolute and independent, but the same is subject to the power conferred under Sec.125(1) of the Act protecting vested right of the Village Panchayat which is endowed with such power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government as provided under Article 243(G) of Constitution of India. There could be no factual comparison of above decision pertaining to public road with the case on hand. 88. Under Sec.134 of the Act, Village Panchayat is to regulate use of certain porambokes in Ryotwari tracts. Exercising power under Sec.134(2), Government have framed the Rules Tam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ambokes maintained by Thervoy Village Panchayat nor any document produced to show that Village Panchayat has levied any fees on the use of those poramboke lands. Absolutely, there is no iota of material to show that poramboke land in S.Nos.32/2 and 33/2 are in Ryotwari tracts or that Thervoy village panchayat regulated its use at any point of time. In the absence of any such materials, grievance of the Petitioner as to violation of Sec.134 of the Act does not merit acceptance. 94. Environmental Impact [Water catchment area and Anicut]:- Next ground of challenge is in respect of water bodies. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that anicut is being constructed to store surplus water from Thervoy Peria Eri and huge expenditure was incurred by the public exchequer if the catchment area for Thervoy Peria Eri is itself destroyed by conversion into industrial park. It was argued that there could be no justification for rendering anicut useless by destroying water catchment area. It was further argued that anicut was constructed to store surplus water from Thervoy Peria Eri and it would become useless if the catchment area, feeding Eri is disturbed. It was further argued that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14.09.2006, EIA clearance is considered not necessary even as per the guidelines of Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI. Of course, ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited which considered the proposed SIPCOT industrial park, examined various aspects of development plan viz., (i) field inspection; (ii) geology and hydrogeology status; (iii) water availability; (iv) cost of project and means of finance and (v) socio-economic benefits. But opinion and report of private consultancy ITCOT would not meet the requirement of obtaining environmental clearance as per Notification dated 14.9.2006. 99. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, GoI issued notification dated 14.09.2006 imposing certain restrictions and prohibitions of new projects or activities or on the expansion of modernization of existing projects or activities based on their potential environmental impacts as indicated in the schedule to the notification being undertaken in any part of India. 100. As per notification, prior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which reads as under:- Project or Activity Category with threshold limit A B Conditions if any Mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation (for a specified production capacity) 7(c) Industrial estates/parks/complexes/areas, export processing Zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Biotech Parks, Leather Complexes. If at least one industry in the proposed industrial estate falls under the Category A, entire industrial area shall be treated as Category A, irrespective of the area. Industrial estates with area greater than 500 ha. and housing at least one Category B industry. Industrial estates housing at least one Category B industry and area <500 ha. Industrial estates of area > 500 ha. and not housing any industry belonging to Category A or B. Special condition shall apply. Note: Industrial Estate of area below 500 ha. and not housing any industry of category A or B does not require clearance. It is evident that prior environmental clearance certificate is necessary for the proposed industrial estate housing at least one industry under the category 'A'. 105. 7th Respondent - SIPCOT is now offing in the development stage. Now it cannot say t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for environmental clearance. 108. In fact, 7th Respondent SIPCOT has filed an affidavit to the effect that when SIPCOT identifies suitable investors/entrepreneurs, SIPCOT would comply with the environment norms as per the GoI notification No.S.O.1533 dated 14.9.2006 and also obtain environmental clearance in accordance to law. Developing the area by removing trees and thereafter approaching the authority for obtaining environmental clearance may not serve any useful purpose. In our considered view, even for development of industrial estate, before felling trees and developing area, SIPCOT has to obtain environmental clearance. 109. Encroachment and Directions:- Encroachment in the lands are two categories; one encroachment is as indicated in the notification, encroachment by way of cultivation, raising trees i.e. (i) Anbazhagan 2.00.0 hectares; (ii) Nagappan 0.80.0 hectares; (iii) Muralikrishnan 1.20.0 hectares and (iv) Arunachalam 1.20.0 hectares. Respondents 3 and 6 are at liberty to remove the above said encroachers. Encroachments are to be removed in accordance with law. 110. The next category of encroachment is by putting thatched huts and villagers are residing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CP and Porcelain and that trees are being cut, Petitioner Sangam has filed the Contempt Petition. 114. Contending that there was no disobedience of interim order, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Contempt Petition was filed as a counter-blast to the Criminal complaint in Crime No.176/2009 registered against the villagers. It was submitted that SIPCOT has kept the Boards to the effect that the land belongs to SIPCOT. Those Boards were removed, regarding which one Sakthivel, the Project Officer has filed the complaint on 29.5.2009. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered in Crime No.176/2009 under Sec.379 IPC. Again alleging the prevention of work being carried on in the area, the Project Officer Sakthivel lodged another complaint before Pathirivedu Police Station which was registered as CSR No.129/2009. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in connection with enquiry, some of the villagers were taken to Police custody and thereafter as counter-blast Contempt Petition has been filed. 116. As we have pointed out earlier, in Para (18) of the Writ Petition, Petitioner averred that 70% of the trees and shrubs were already removed. Evidentl....