BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 18/08/2006
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice K. VENKATARAMAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.11711 of 2005
and
WP.M.P.Nos.12460 and 12461 of 2005
A.Karuppiah ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary for Revenue
(Land Development),
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Road,
Chennai-32.
3. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
4. The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
5. The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram.
6. Dhanush Laven Ltd,
rep. by its Director
Dr.Bhavani Lekshmisaran,
Bharathi Nagar,
Ramanathapuram. ..... Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of certioraried mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent
in his proceeding No.DEE/TNPCB/VNR/F OM-8/W/R md/05 dated 17.6.05 and quash the
same and further direct the 3rd and 4th respondents from permitting the 6th
respondent in any manner in setting up a salt farm or any industry within the
kanmai in Kallari village, Thirupullani Sub Division, Ramanathpuram Division in
Survey Nos.317, 321 to 325 and 326/1 and 3 and pass further orders.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan
^For R1, R3, R4 & R5 ... Mr.M.Rajarajan,
Govt.Advocate.
For Respondent-2 ... Mrs. Rita Chandrasekaran
For Respondent-6 ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
:ORDER
K. VENKATARAMAN, J.
The petitioner, who is the resident of Annaikudi village, Ramanathapuram
District, has come forward with the above writ petition as Public Interest
Litigation for issuance of a writ of certioraried mandamus to call for the
records of the second respondent in his proceeding No.DEE/TNPCB/VNR/F OM-8/W/R
md/05 dated 17.6.05 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd and 4th
respondents from permitting the 6th respondent in any manner in setting up a
salt farm or any industry within the kanmai in Kallari village, Thirupullani Sub
Division, Ramanathpuram Division in Survey Nos.317, 321 to 325 and 326/1 and 3
and for other appropriate orders.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there is a water storage source
which is also classified as a tank kanmai for the village of the petitioner and
that of the adjacent villages. According to him, the water in the tank is used
for agricultural purpose and also few wells are situated within the tank, which
are used for drinking purpose especially during summer for the village in Kalari
Group 42, which comprise Anaikudi, Morkkulam, Palkarai and Kodikkulam. Further,
it has been stated by the writ petitioner that the 6th respondent, who is a
resident of Nagercoil, is said to have purchased lands within the Kalari Group
42, classified as kanmai in the revenue records comprising in Survey Nos.317,
321 to 325 and 326/1 and 3 and taking steps to set up a salt farm in the above
mentioned area. On 12.4.2005, a representation has been given to the 3rd
respondent to take action and prevent the 6th respondent in any manner using the
water source. The Kallari Panchayat within whose territory the kanmai falls has
also passed a resolution on 21.5.2005 to the effect that there are wells within
the Kanmai which are used by the villagers for drinking purpose and also for
agricultural purpose and hence, setting up of a salt farm should be prohibited.
It is further alleged that in spite of the representation and the resolution
referred to above, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have not taken any action to
prevent the 6th respondent from taking any steps in establishing the salt farm.
3. It is also further averred that the 2nd respondent has given permission
for establishing the salt farm in the above referred lands to the 6th respondent
without verifying the status of the lands with the 3rd respondent. The
petitioner further averred that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
have been violated.
4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter stating that the 6th respondent has
been granted permission to run the salt farm in the survey numbers referred to
above in his proceedings dated 17.6.2005 after observing all formalities.
5. The 6th respondent has filed a counter stating that the unit was
issued with clearance certificate by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for
setting up iodized salt unit at Kalary village. Further, the Deputy Salt
Commissioner, Chennai by his order dated 19.4.2005 granted permission for the
establishment of salt manufacturing plant in the survey numbers referred to
above in Kalary village, Ramanathapuram Taluk. It has been further averred in
the counter that the entire formalities required for the establishment of
iodization plant by the company were completed as early as June 2005. The most
important aspect of the counter is that the iodization salt plant is set up in
the patta lands in the survey numbers referred to above and the said lands have
been purchased by the 6th respondent by registered sale deeds in February, 2005.
6. Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
has reiterated the averments made in the affidavit. His specific case is that
the land in Survey Nos.317, 321 to 325 and 326/1 and 3 within Kalari Group 42 is
classified as kanmai in the revenue records. Further, the water in the kanmai
is used for agricultural and drinking purposes by the villagers. The counsel
for the petitioner mainly and solely relied on the certificate issued by the
Village Administrative Officer dated 31.7.2005 to support his contention that
Survey No.317 and the Survey Numbers surrounding to it are within the irrigation
lake at 42 Kalari Group, Ramanathapuram Taluk. Basing upon the said
certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, the learned counsel
for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 6th respondent is setting up
the unit within the irrigation lake which cannot be permitted.
7. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent,
produced the ‘Adangal Extract’ concerning the said survey numbers which would
clearly show that the said survey numbers are patta lands and not irrigation
lake or kanmai as pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner. While the counsel
for the 6th respondent could establish the fact that the survey numbers referred
to above in which the 6th respondent is trying to establish the salt unit are
patta lands by production of valid ‘Adangal Extract’, it is too much for the
writ petitioner to allege that those survey numbers are not patta lands but
kanmai basing the same on the certificate issued by the Village Administrative
Officer. It is pertinent to point out that Mr.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel
appearing for the 6th respondent, has filed additional typed-set of papers
wherein the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluk has been
enclosed. It will clearly prove that the survey numbers referred to above are
patta lands and that they are not kanmai as alleged by the writ petitioner. We
cannot place any reliance on the certificate issued by the Village
Administrative Officer to show that the survey numbers referred to above are not
patta lands, especially when the counsel for the 6th respondent could establish
the fact that they are patta lands by producing the certificate issued by the
Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram/5th respondent herein dated 18.5.2005 and ‘Adangal
Extract’ which will amply prove that the said survey numbers are patta lands.
Hence, we are constrained to come to the irresistable conclusion that the 6th
respondent is setting up the salt unit only in the patta lands which belonged to
him.
8. In this connection, it is useful to reproduce paragraphs 3 to 5 of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It reads thus:-
“2. At the outset, I deny all the allegations contained in the affidavit
except those that are specifically admitted herein and the petitioners are put
to strict proof of the same.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the unit M/s.Dhanush Laven Ltd at
R.S.No.317, 321 to 325 and 326/1 and 3, Kalari village, Ramnad Taluk and
District applied for consent of the Board to manufacture iodized free flow salt
of 1400 T/M from common salt. The unit proposed to generate 20 KLD of trade
effluent from washing operation which is proposed to be completely reused on the
process itself.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the site proposed by the unit is
located at a distance of 1000m from the Annaikudi village Kanmoi. The Director
of Town and Country Planning, Sivagangai in its letter dated 16.5.2005 has
reported that the unit falls in unclassified area.
5. It is respectfully submitted that this type of projects does not
attract EIA Notification and hence the conduct of public hearing does not
arise.”
9. The above referred averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the 2nd respondent will clearly establish that the 2nd respondent has given
consent to the 6th respondent for setting up the salt unit after observing all
formalities and after verifying the entire facts.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, though tried his best to
convince us that the 6th respondent is trying to set up its salt unit in kanmai,
is unable to place any reliance by producing convincing documents to establish
the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, we are fully satisfied, basing
upon the counter affidavits of 2nd respondent and the 6th respondent and also
basing upon the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluk dated
18.5.2005 and the ‘Adangal Extract’, that the 6th respondent is setting up its
salt unit only in the patta lands which have been purchased by it and the 2nd
respondent, after verifying the entire facts, has given consent to the 6th
respondent for starting the salt unit in the survey numbers referred to above.
11. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we are unable to accept the plea of
the petitioner and in the result, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected WP.M.Ps. stand dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary for Revenue
(Land Development),
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Road,
Chennai-32.
3. The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
4. The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
5. The Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram.