1

Item No.15

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

O.A.No.203 of 2015 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Karivetty, Katthalai, Mummudicholagan, Sathappadi

U. Ahanoor, Valayamadevi Mel, Valayamadevi Keel

Villagers Land, House and Plot Owners Assn. rep.

By its President R. K. Kaliamoorthy, Kathazhai. .. Applicant

Vs.

1.The Government of ,

Rep. by its Secretary,

MoEF, New Delhi.

2. The State of ,

Rep. by its Secretary

Public Works Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

3. The Secretary to the Government,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Environment & Forest Dept,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

4. The District Collector,

Cuddalore District.

5. M/s. Lignite Corporation,

Rep. by its Chairman,

Kilpauk, Chennai 10.

6. M/s. M.C.V. & Co.,

2

Rep. by its Proprietor C.N. Vadivel

Neyveli. ... Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 21.1.2020

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER

For applicant : Nil

For Respondent(s) : . Mrs. M. Sumathi for R1

Mr. M. Mani Gopi for R2

Mr. Parthasarathy for R3 & R4

ORDER

There is no representation for the petitioner. The prayer in this petition is as follows:

“restraining respondents from altering or diverting or changing the existing old Paravanru river course in , Mumudicholagan Villages in Vridhachlam Taluk and Kathalai, Karivetti villages in Taluk, District, Tamil Nadu. ii) restraining respondents from excavating or forming a new Paravanaru river course in Sathappadi, U.Adhanur villages in Vridhachalam Taluk and Valayamadevi West (Mel) and Valayamadevi East (Keel) Villages in Chidambaram taluk, , Tamil Nadu.”

2. The allegation was that land acquisition proceedings were made and without paying compensation, respondents are proceeding with conversion of land for their project purpose and in the process they are trying to deviate the course of Paravanaru river.

3. It is seen from the counter statement filed by official respondents that acquisition proceedings were completed and compensation has been paid to land owners. There were certain encroachers and at the request of the project proponent, proceedings have

3 been initiated. Further, it is seen from the counter statement that it is not known as to whether the present petitioners are the real owners of the property, having any right over the land in which the proposed project is likely to come up. Further, it is seen from the statement filed by the official respondents that objections regarding diversion of river was considered earlier in a public meeting and thereafter at the request of the occupants of some of the lands, the same has been shifted to some other place, in order to avoid more impact on the persons having agricultural operations by the side of the river. Further, necessary permission has been given by the authorities under the respective legislation for conversion and it is only on the basis of the permission granted the diversion was done by the respondents.

4. So, under these circumstances, since the matter is of the year 2015 and though an opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear today as per the order dated

11.12.2019 and there is no representation, we feel that the petitioner is not interested in proceeding with the matter.

As a result, the petition is dismissed for non prosecution.

...... J.M.

(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)

...... E.M.

kkr (Saibal Dasgupta)