NEW KATTALAI CANAL AND AERIE PASANA VIVASAYIGAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION K SATHANOOR REP BY ITS PRESIDENT PALANISAMY TRICHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.1. The government of India has undertaken the project of providing a Bye pass to Trichy with a view to improve the infrastructure for agricultural, industrial, educational, health and socio-economic advancement in and around Trichy. The project of Tiruchirappalli ? Karaikudi Section of NH-210 from Km.10/000 to Km.94/000 including Trichy Bye pass on NH-67 from Km.110/016 to Km.135/930 was designed and restructured as two-lane with paved shoulders. 1.2. For the above said purpose, an alignment is required for Trichy Bye pass which starts near Thuvakudi village at Km.110/016 of NH-67 and intersects at Panchapur village at Km.135/930 at NH-45B. The said Bye pass road passes through Thuvakudi, Palanganakudi, Ilandaipatti, Kandalur, Sooriyur and Kumbakudi ? Velayuthangudi, Olaiyur, K.Sathanur South and K. Sathanur North villages of Tiruchirappalli District. The alignment also passes through Mathur, Signathakurichi and Kumaramangalam villages of Pudukottai District. Apart from the same, the alignment also passes through the Periyakulam and Kanakkankulam tanks of Sathanur village. 1.3. The Bye pass road after completion would facilitate to connect the following important National Highways roads: 1. Thanjavur? Trichy NH-67. 2. Trichy? Madurai NH-45B. 3. Trichy? Karur NH-67. 4. Trichy? Karaikudi; Karaikudi ? Ramanathapuram NH-210. 5. Trichy? Dindigul NH-45. 1.4. The respondent No.7, who is the authority to complete the project, has obtained an expert opinion from one R.Sivasamy, who is a former Chief Engineer and Administrator, who retired from the services of the Union Ministry of Surface Transport. This opinion has been obtained for the alignment at Kanakkankulam Tank. Similarly, insofar as Sathanur Periyakulam Tank is concerned, another opinion has been obtained from the said person. Apart from the said opinion, the 7th respondent has obtained one another opinion from Dr.P.Kasinatha Pandian, who has done his Doctorate degree in water resources. 1.5. The report submitted by Shri.R.Sivasamy is as follows: "The proposed alignment across the tank on the southern end of the tank is in the shallow region. The outflow from the tank is through three sluices are on western side of tank. Hence the alignment does not prevent the flow of water to the ayacut. The surplus water is let out at the southern side by the surplus weir. With a view to facilitate free flow of surplus water from northern side to southern side balancing culverts are required. The site plan of the tank sluices inlet flow and outlet flow of tank are enclosed. Further, to take case of the rain water from catchment area, the vent way of the culvert should be designed. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide 3 Nos. of Box Culvert, with a vent way of 3m width and depth of 2m above Full Tank (or) Balancing Bridge of 1 x 9 span with clear vent way. It is worth to mention that the water from the New Kattalai Canal is let into the tank for four months in a year for irrigation purpose. The tank was dry during remaining 8 months. However, the NHAI is requested to improve the surplus weir so as to have free flow of water to avoid the breach of tank. The formation of road reduces the storage capacity of tank by 10,000 cubic meter as per Cross Section, the NHAI should deepen the tank in such a way that the full storage capacity is restored. ... The K. Sathanur tank was dry when I visited the site. The Trichy Bye pass alignment passes across the tank on the north eastern part of the tank. The inflow of the tank is in the order of 55 cusecs and outflow in order of 780 cusecs. The inflow to the tank is from south-eastern side and three sluices are located on the western side and one on the northern side as shown in the sketch enclosed. The surplus water from the tank is let out by the surplus weir located on the north-east corner of the tank. There is no obstruction of flow of water to the three sluices located on the western side of the tank. With regard to the one sluice on northern side, free flow of water is ensured by proposing Balancing Bridges/Culverts. The reach from Ch:134+400 to Ch:134+600 is deeper hence Balancing Bridge of 1 x 20m of span shall be provided. The other reaches from Ch:133+800 to Ch:134+400 at every 200 m interval one Box Culvert of 3m width and 2m depth above the Full Tank Level (FTL) shall be provided." 1.6. The report submitted by Dr. P. Kasinatha Pandian, concerning the above mentioned Tank is as follows: "1. A minor bridge of at least 25 m span should be constructed in the chainage between 134.400 to 134.600m to maintain the free flow of water on both sides. 2.Box culverts with suitable size should be provided at every 200m in the remaining part of the road falls within the tank. 3. Deepening of tank in the shallower parts is a must to ensure the storage capacity to the original level. 4. Side slopes of the proposed bypass road should be provided with revetment with lining to control erosion and to avoid silting." 1.7. The respondent No. 7 has also obtained one another report from the Director, Centre for Water Resources, Anna University, Chennai for the formation of road in Kannakkankulam and Periyakulam Tanks of K. Sathanoor. 1.8. Since for the proposed alignments, lands were to be acquired, as they belong to private persons, a notification was published by the Central Government under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956. After considering the objections, which are two in numbers, that too regarding compensation, orders have been passed under Section 3-C (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. A declaration under Section 3 (D) was also passed on 12.5.2011. 1.9. At that stage, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents not to put up the ring road (NH-67) in the middle of K. Sathanoor Periakulam and Kannakkan Kulam, including the agricultural nanja lands and form an alternative alignment.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that by the proposed alignment, the small farmers, who are depending upon the agricultural operations would be affected and by laying roads over the two tanks, the water source would be very much affected. When the developmental activities are pitted against the consideration of natural resources, the latter will have to be given primacy. THE petitioner has also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Hon?ble Court in Selvakumarv. Union of India, 2011 (1) CWC 23 : LNIND 2010 Bmm 1480 : (2011) 2 MLJ 341 and Krishnan, L. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (4) CTC 1 : LNIND 2005 Mad 844 : (2005) 3 MLJ 363 in support of its case.

(3.) REPORTS of the Experts: Considering the issues involved, particularly with regards to the possible impact on the water sources, namely K. Sathanoor Periakulam and Kannakkan Kulam tanks, this Court by order dated 8.8.2011, directed the Chief Engineer of Public Works Department, Water Resources Organisation, Trichy to appear before this Court on 16.8.2011. On his appearance, the said authority was directed to file a report. A report was filed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department on 25.8.2011. The said report is extracted hereunder: