BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, .

APPLICATION No. 227 of 2014 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

A. Paramasivan S/o. Ayyavoo Pakkam Village Thirupalaivanam Post Taluk Thiruvallur District – 601 205. ... Applicant

Versus

1. Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Chairman No.76, Mount Salai , Chennai – 600 032.

2. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 77 A, South Avenue Road Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058

3. The District Collector Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur

4. The Tahsildar Thiruvallur

5. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Thiruvallur

6. The District Forest Officer Thiruvallur

7. Mr. Chandran Amman Koil Street , Chennai.

8. Mr. Sadhasivam Amman Koil Street Vadapalani, Chennai.

9. Mr. Thomas Thomas Iral Pannai Pakkam Village Thirupalaivanam Post Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District – 601 205

10. Mr. Somasundaram Thathammanju Village Kattur Post Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District – 601 203

11. Mr. Nagaraj Thathammanju Village Kattur Post Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District – 601 203

12. Mr. Govindaraj Kattur Post Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District – 601 203

13. Mr. Magimairaj Madha Koil Street Pakkam Village Thirupalaivanam Post Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District – 601 205

14. The Assistant Engineer, (Distribution)

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Pazhaverkadu Thiruvallur ... Respondents

Counsel Appearing for Applicant: M/s. S. Kolandsamy and C.S. Saravanan.

Counsel Appearing for Respondents: Smt. Rita Chandrasekar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2; M/s. M.K. Subramaniam and M.R. Gokul Krishnan for Respondent No.3, 4 and 6; Mr. Chandran for Respondent No.7; M/s. Abdul Saleem and Vidyalakshmi for Respondent No.5; M/s. R. Panneerselvam, G.Sureshbabu and K. Dillibabu for Respondent Nos. 9 to 13; and Mr. P. Gnanasekaran for Respondent No.14.

ORDER

PRESENT:

1. Hon’ble Justice M. Chockalingam Judicial Member

2. Hon’ble Shri P.S.Rao Expert Member

Dated, 10th December, 2015.

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet. Yes / No 2. Whether the judgment is to be published in the All NGT Reporter. Yes / No

This application is filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to close down the prawn culture farms situated at kaliporomboke in Survey Nos. 58 and

62 at No.8 Pakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District and also to direct the respondents 7 to 13 to restore the said land among other reliefs.

2) Particulars of the case as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant is an agriculturist having Patta land to an extent of approximately 80 acres wherein paddy is cultivated in the fringes of chitteri abutting (about 200 metres away) a vast stretch of kaliporomboke land comprised in Survey Nos. 58 and 62 at No.8

Pakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The word kali denotes the water that is drained from a vast stretch of agricultural land which is allowed to stagnate and percolate in order to strengthen the water table. Water is drained from about 20 villages and the kali forms part of chitteri which is a protected water body as it caters to the agricultural needs of the villagers and is a drinking source for the city of Chennai and its suburbs. Chitteri, the kaliporamboke and

Pakkam Village form part of the Palaverkadu Bird Sanctuary declared so under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 ( ‘Wildlife Act,1972’).

3) The 7th and 8th respondents have jointly encroached upon the kaliporamboke to an extent of about 10 acres and have been farming prawns and converted the kaliporamboke into an aqua farm without any consent or permission from the concerned authorities. The 4th respondent is duty bound to protect the land classified as kaliporamboke and to ensure that it is not encroached upon or put to different use. The 5th respondent is duty bound to protect the water body while the 6th respondent is the authorized person under the Wildlife Act, 1972 to protect an area declared as a bird sanctuary.

4) The applicant has made a complaint vide letter dated 12.10.2013 to the 1st respondent, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, District Environmental Engineer(DEE), who has got authority to close down the unit, in turn merely forwarded the same to the 4th respondent, Tahsildar. The applicant approached the 4th respondent by a letter dated 08.07.2014 to take action based on the letter from the 2nd respondent but no action has been taken by the 4th respondent till date. Before these communications, the applicant’s mother in whose name the patta land exists had sent a letter dated 10.10.2013 to the 4th respondent and also to the District

Revenue Officer for initiating action. The District Revenue Officer by a letter dated 19.03.2014, had sent a communication to the 4th respondent about the receipt of the letter from the 2nd respondent and requested the 4th respondent to enquire and submit a report. The Revenue Divisional Officer, upon an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 informed the applicant by a letter dated 04.04.2014 that the 4th respondent has not sent any report though requested to do so.

5) Bolstered by the inaction of the authorities, i.e., respondents 1-6, the 9th respondent has encroached about 1 acre of the kaliporamboke while respondents

10-12 jointly encroached 15 acres and the 13th respondent has encroached about

30 acres for prawn culture. The 14th respondent, Electricity Board has given service connection to the respondents 9-12, except the 13th respondent who has

made provisions for the connection, without insisting on any consent from the

1st respondent.

6) The respondents 7-13 by encroaching the kaliporamboke blocked the water drained from agricultural fields, leading to damaging the paddy crops due to stagnation of water. They have sunk bore well to a considerable depth to pump salt water for rearing of prawns and have also immersed salt in the aqua farms to increase salinity during the rainy season thereby affecting the purity of water in the area. Due to the usage of chemicals in rearing the prawns and draining the treated water to the chitteri, they are destroying a variety of aquatic organisms, leading to emanation of odour and spreading of diseases. This as well as the rotating of huge fans using electric and diesel motors is threatening the migratory pattern of the birds in the sanctuary.

7) The 1st and 2nd respondents in their common reply have stated that the said location was inspected by an official of the Board on 08.01.2014 and noticed that the 7th and 8th respondents have occupied kaliporamboke land comprised in

Survey No.58 and 62 of Pakkam Village and converted it into prawn culture farms. During inspection, it was also noticed that, there was no electricity supply to the prawn culture farm. In this regard, the Tahsildar, Ponneri has been addressed vide a letter dated 31.01.2014 with a copy marked to the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Ponneri to take action against the encroachers who occupied the Government kaliporamboke. The complainant was also informed about these details vide a letter dated 31.12.2014. Subsequently, another complaint dated 23.05.2014 was received from the applicant stating that the respondents 7-

12 have occupied the said land and converted it into prawn farms. The complainant was instructed by a letter dated 23.06.2014 to approach the

Tahsildar, Ponneri and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri to take action against them. The applicant vide a letter dated 08.07.2014 has complained that the Tahsildar has not initiated any action and requested to take action against them. The Tahsildar and RDO were again requested to take action by a letter dated 31.07.2014. The Ministry of agriculture (Department of Animal

Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), New Delhi has issued a notification dated

27.12.2005, wherein the Coastal Aquaculture Authority has been established for

District and State Levels for granting registration for Coastal Aquaculture farms. It is also emphasized in the guidelines for regulating coastal aquaculture that, the Effluent Treatment System (ETS) is mandatory for farms above 5 hectares. The District Collector, Thiruvallur, vide a letter dated 23.07.2014 has formed the District Level Committee as per the notification to inspect and approve the registration for aqua farms. Finally, the respondent Board stated that, as these farms are unauthorized and since they are located in Government poramboke lands and the lands are encroached by them, the revenue authorities have to take necessary action to evict them.

8) The Tribunal by an order dated 04.03.2015 has directed the Board to file a common and a separate reply with regard to allegations made against the 7th and

8th respondents after making an inspection. Based on the Tribunal’s direction, the 7th and 8th respondents’ prawn culture ponds were inspected by the officials of the Board on 06.03.2015 and during inspection, the following points were noticed:

i) The respondent No.7 (Chandran) & Respondent No.8 (Sadhasivam)’s prawn culture ponds in the affidavit were empty and in dry condition. There was no activity carried out in the premises. There were no persons present at the site and it was found that no permanent structures built in the land. There was some abundant electrical cables lying in the site. ii) All the above aqua farms are having extent of area about 1 to 1.5 Acres (Approximately). iii) There is a channel for flow of surplus water located nearby the aqua farms which are situated on both sides. The complainant said that the change over water from the prawn culture pond is let out in this channel and it may pollute this water course. The above channel reaches the Pulicat Lake which is located at about 5 km distance. This Pulicat Lake finally joins the Bay of Bengal. iv) Source of water for the pond for aqua culture is mostly from Borewell dig in the site itself. v) The above aqua farms are located in the Government Poramboke land in small scales. The action shall be taken by the Revenue authorities to evict the above aqua culture farms from the above land so as to restrain them from doing the above activities. For that the letter dated 23.06.2014 & 31.07.2014 has already been sent by this office to Tahsildar, Ponneri and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri to take necessary action against the above aqua farms. It is also reported by the complainant that the above prawn culture activities are seasonal one and at any time they may restart the prawn culture activities.

After perusing the above report, a direction was issued by the Tribunal on

10.03.2015 to the 2nd respondent, to monitor and ensure that no further activities are carried out by the respondents 7-13 in the site.

9) In his reply, the 4th respondent has stated that the kaliporamboke was encroached by the 7th and 8th respondents and they established prawn farming without any permission from the authorities concerned during the year 2013.

Based on the representations of the applicant, a show cause notice dated

12.12.2014 was issued to the 7th and 8th respondents and they replied that they are not carrying on any business of prawn culture and the same was confirmed during inspection. Consequently, the revenue officials demolished the mud bund to prevent future farming by using excavator, on the same day of issue of show cause notice i.e., dated 12.12.2014 and the said survey numbers are vacant now. From 12.12.2014, the 7th and 8th respondents are not carrying on any prawn culture activity in the said area. The 4th respondent, Tahsildar, further stated that the applicant had sent representations against the 7th and 8th respondents only, but he has impleaded other persons also in the present application filed before this Tribunal. The Revenue Department is contemplating to initiate action against the encroachers who have not taken any permission from the authorities. An inspection was made on 16.03.2015 and it was observed as follows:

(a) The inspected plots, one situated at Survey No.58 with an extent of about 31.32.0 Hectare and the other situated at Survey No.62 with an extent of about 1.01.5 Hectare was classified as ‘kaliporamboke’as per the records available are lying vacant as the respondents 7 and 8 have stopped their prawn culture activity as early as 28.11.2013. (b) The prawn farm which belongs to 9th respondent is being operated by a person named Mr. Balaji, presently the prawn culture is being carried out in this farm with / without permission from the authorities. (c) The Prawn Farm of the 10th respondent is being carried on and in operation with / without permission from the authorities. (d) It was observed during inspection that the prawn farms of 11th, 12th and 13th respondents remain closed and vacant. (e) It was informed by the 7th respondent that the prawn farm was poisoned by the applicant which caused the death of the breeding prawns. A complaint has been lodged subsequently by the 7th respondent against the applicant herein for his malicious intention and the same is pending. (f) Villagers gathered during inspection and informed that the respondents 7 and 8 are elder brothers of the applicant and in order to settle personal disputes against the 7th respondent, the applicant has filed this application.

10) Subsequently, a Miscellaneous Application No.171 of 2015 (SZ) was filed by the applicant to restrain the respondents 7 to 13 from carrying on any prawn culture activities in their respective ponds and this Tribunal upon the perusal of the aforesaid report of the 4th respondent, observes that there cannot be any order of injunction against the respondents 11, 12 and 13 and accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application was dismissed. However, an order of interim injunction was issued against the respondents 9 and 10 from carrying on any prawn culture activities in the above said survey numbers as prawn

culture activities by laying bunds leads to inherent effect of increasing the salinity of water and also the soil in the area, with the result that free flow of water for the use of agricultural operations in the area will be affected and therefore, in favour of protecting the ecology and environment of the area especially for protecting the free flow of water , the interim order was granted.

11) The 5th respondent, filed a reply stating that the lands in Survey No.58 and 62 of No.8 Pakkam Village are classified as ‘Uppu Kall’ in the revenue records which are usually used as drain out channels and they are not maintained by the Public Works Department (PWD) but are under the control of the Revenue Department. The PWD has no authority if the land is declared as a bird sanctuary under the Wildlife Act, 1972. Moreover, both the Survey numbers are not under the Ayacut of Pakkam chitteri which is purely ‘Uppu

Kall’ as could be seen from the revenue records. The allegation that the PWD is encouraging the encroachment is out rightly denied by the 5th respondent as the land itself is not under its control.

12) Respondents 9-13 have jointly stated in their reply that there are personal tussles between the applicant and the 7th and 8th respondents who are siblings, over maternal property and the applicant is an accused in a criminal case which is pending investigation and this fact has been suppressed by the applicant.

They further aver that they are not carrying on any prawn culture activities in

the said lands as alleged by the applicant. They allege that the 5th respondent is unnecessarily impleaded as the land is vested with the Revenue Department and it is classified as Uppu Kall and it is not fit for any agricultural activities.

Moreover the chitteri is not connected with the Survey Nos. 58 and 62.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

13) As seen above, the pleaded case of the applicant in short, is that he is a native of Pakkam village, Ponneri Taluk and his agricultural filed is situated near a lake called chitteri. An area of approximately 80 acres classified as kaliporamboke comprised in S.No.58 & 62 of Pakkam village is situated nearby the said eri. The 7th and 8th respondents have illegally encroached upon the kaliporamboke to an extent of 10 acres and have been farming prawns without any consent or permission from any authority and the said place is a protected water body and bird sanctuary too. Equally, the 9th respondent has encroached about 1 acre of land while respondents 10-12 jointly encroached 15 acres and have been engaged in prawn culture.

14) The 4th respondent, Tahsildar has a duty to protect the land since it is classified as kaliporamboke while the 5th respondent also owes the duty to protect the said area as it is a water body. The 6th respondent who is the

authorized person under Wildlife Act, 1972 should have taken steps to protect the area from encroachment since it is reported to be a part of Palaverkadu Bird

Sanctuary declared so under the Wildlife Act, 1972. It is pertinent to point out that water from the body is being used for agriculture and drinking purposes by a number of villages around. It is surprising to note that, the 14th respondent,

Electricity Board has given service connection to supply electricity to all those respondents. Number of complaints by way of communications was addressed to the District Revenue Officials and also to other authorities. Since no action was initiated the applicant was constrained to approach this Tribunal by filing this application.

15) The respondents 7-13 against whom allegations of encroachment of the kaliporamboke and causing pollution by engaging in prawn culture, have flatly denied the same by stating that the applicant is the own brother of the 7th respondent and due to personal enmity within the family, he has not only destroyed the prawn culture activities carried on by the 7th respondent, prior to

August 2014, by putting poison in his prawn farm which resulted in registering of a criminal case against him on a complaint given by the 7th respondent but also filed this application with false allegations even after all the activities of prawn culture were stopped by the respondents.

16) The counsel for the PWD would submit that the S.No.58 & 62 of Pakkam

Village which is classified as ‘Uppu kall’ in revenue records is not maintained by the PWD. From the submissions made by the counsel for the revenue officials namely, the District Collector and the Tahsildar shown as the 3rd and

4th respondents, it is evident that the 7th and 8th respondents made encroachments on the kaliporamboke and established prawn culture without any permission from the authorities concerned during the year, 2013 and on the representation of the applicant, a show cause notice dated 12.12.2014 was served on the 7th and 8th respondents and they replied that they were not carrying on any activities of prawn culture. Following the same, the revenue officials made an inspection and confirmed that the 7th and 8th respondents were not carrying on the activities and have also demolished the mud bund to prevent future farming and the said survey numbers are vacant from then onwards. It is pertinent to point out that the 4th respondent, Tahsildar has filed an affidavit incorporating all the above. Hence, it can be safely recorded that the 7th and 8th respondents though originally encroached upon the kaliporamboke lands stopped the prawn culture activities thereafter i.e., from 28.11.2013 which are shown as lying vacant in the revenue records. It is specifically admitted by the

7th respondent in his reply that though he originally carried on the prawn culture activities as alleged by the applicant, he subsequently stopped the activities even before the application was filed before this Tribunal in August, 2014. It is also contended by the 7th respondent that the applicant has destroyed the entire

prawn culture by mixing poison in the prawn farm which resulted in the registration of a criminal case in Crime No.13/2014 dated 19.01.2014 by E2,

Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Thiruvallur District on the complaint made by the 7th respondent. It is also further urged that, the applicant who is the own brother of the 7th respondent has filed this instant application due to personal enmity. This contention does not require any consideration since the pendency of the criminal proceedings is outside the scope and jurisdiction of this

Tribunal.

17) Apart from that, for the purpose of this application, it would suffice to record that the 7th and 8th respondents have stopped the activities of prawn culture as stated by them which is also evident from the statements put forth by the Revenue Department. Pending the application, a direction was issued to the

2nd respondent, DEE concerned to make an inspection in respect of the alleged activities of prawn culture by the respondents 7-13. Pursuant to the said direction, an inspection was made by the officials of the 1st respondent on

06.03.2015 on S.No.58 & 62 of Pakkam village during which the following were noticed:

a) The Respondent No.7 (Chandran), Respondent No.8 (Sadhasivam), Respondent No.10 (Somasundaram), Respondent No.11 (Nagaraj), Respondent No.12 (Govindaraj), Respondent No.13 (Magimairaj)’s prawn culture ponds in the affidavit were empty and in dry condition. There was no activity carried out in the premises. There were no persons

present at the site and it was found that no permanent structures built in the land. There was some abundant electrical cables lying in the site. b) The prawn culture pond belonging to respondent No.9 (M/s. Thomas Iral Pannai) was only found under operation and the pond is filled with water.

18) From the above, it is quite clear that respondents 7, 8 and 10-13 were not carrying on any prawn culture activities and the prawn culture ponds were found empty lying in dry condition and there are no permanent structures built in the land but while the others have stopped the pond of the 9th respondent M/s

Thomas iral pannai was found under operation. It is an indisputable fact that all the 7-13 respondents were carrying on the prawn culture activities by encroaching upon the land classified as ‘kaliporamboke’ which was under the control and maintenance of the Revenue Department and that too without the consent from the concerned authorities. However, after inspection and show cause notice by the authorities, respondents 7, 8 and 10-13 have abandoned their activities. But, despite the same, the 9th respondent has been carrying on the prawn culture activities unlawfully which has got to be restrained by the authorities. Hence, it becomes necessary to issue a direction to both the officials of the Board and also the Revenue officials to stop the unauthorized prawn culture activities of the 9th respondent forthwith taking necessary action both by disconnection of electric service and removal of encroachment.

19) In view of all the above, the applicant cannot further pursue his application for any relief against respondents 7, 8 and 10-13 on the complaint of any unauthorized prawn culture activities. The respondents 1 - 4 are also directed to monitor the respondents against whom allegations of unauthorized prawn culture are made, and shall not allow any such activities in future.

20) With the above direction to the respondents 1 - 4, the application is allowed by granting an injunction as against the 9th respondent only. No costs.

(Justice M. Chockalingam) Judicial Member

(Shri P.S. Rao) Expert Member Chennai. Dated, 10th December, 2015.