#நீர் நிலைகள், நிலங்கள் மீது நிகழும் யுத்தம்….
#நீர்நிலைகள் பதுகாக்க எனது இன்றைய உயர்நீதிமன்றவழக்கு….
Madras HC , WP No 131313/2023 Filed on 09-10-2023 (K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU) water storage lakes,tanks etc
—————————————
இந்திய மாநிலங்களில் அதிகம் நீர் பற்றாக்குறை மாநிலம் என்று கருதப்பட்டதுதான் தமிழகம். அதனால்தான் அதிகம் தொழில்துறைகளுக்கான அனுமதிகள் காமராஜர் காலத்தில் கோரப்பட்டது.
ஆனால் உண்மையில் நடந்து முடித்திருப்பது என்னவென்று பார்க்க வேண்டியது இக்காலத்தின் அவசியமாகி இருக்கிறது. நாடு சுதந்திரம் பெற்ற 1947 இல் தமிழகத்தின் கிராமம் சிற்றூர் பேரூர் சார்ந்த விவசாயநிலப் பகுதிகளில் ஏறத்தாழ 60 ஆயிரத்திற்கு மேலான ஏரி குளம் குட்டை பாசனங்கள் நிரம்பி வாடைக்கும் கோடைக்கும் வளம் சேர்த்ததை
இங்கே நாம் ஞாபகப்படுத்த வேண்டியிருக்கிறது.
இரண்டு பருவ கால காற்று மழைகளின் போதும் இவை அனைத்தும் நிரம்பி மறுகால் சென்று வெள்ளிக்கெண்டைகளும் அயிரைகளும் பெருகி வயலில் துள்ளியதாக வரலாறு சொல்லுகிறது.
கிராமப்புற மக்கள் விவசாயத்திற்கு மட்டும் அன்றி குடிநீருக்காகவும் வீட்டு தேவைகளுக்காகவும் இந்த குளம் குட்டைகள், கோவில் தெப்பங்கள் இருந்தே நீர் எடுத்துக் கொண்டு வாழ்ந்து வந்தார்கள்.
இத்தகைய நீர் ஆதார பகுதிகளில் குடியிருப்புகளை கட்டுவதற்கோ வேறு நோக்கத்தோடு அதை பயன்படுத்துவதற்கோ ஆங்கிலேயர் காலத்திலேயே குறிப்பான கிராமப்புற பொது மராமரத்து, ஆயக்காட்டு உரிமை சட்டங்கள் இருந்தன.
குளத்தையோ குட்டையையோ ஏரிகளையோ தனியார்கள் எந்த வகையிலும் பயன்படுத்த கூடாது என்று ஒப்பந்த அடிப்படையில் அவற்றைப் பொதுவில் வைத்து அந்த பகுதியில் விவசாய தேவைகளுக்கும் அதையே நீர் பிடிப்பு பகுதியாய் வைத்து அதன்மூலம் அக்கம் பக்கம் கிணறுகளில் நீர் பெருகி வறட்சிகாலத்தில் பயன்படுத்திக் கொள்ளவும் வழி செய்யப்பட்டிருந்தது. பிறகு ஏரிகள் வாய்க்கால்கள் சிறு அணைகள் என்று நீர் மேலாண்மையானது கிராமப்புற விவசாய நிலங்களை மட்டுமே சார்ந்து இருந்தததாகப் புள்ளி விவரங்கள் தெரிவிக்கின்றன.
அதையே முறையாக ஏற்றுக் கொண்டு இன்றைய தமிழகக் கட்சிகள் ஆட்சிக் கட்டிலுக்கு வந்த 75 வருடங்களுக்கு பிறகு 60,000 ஏரி நீர் குளம் குட்டைகள் இருந்த இடத்தில் இன்று வெறும் 30,000 த்திற்கும் குறைவான குளம் குட்டைகளை மிஞ்சி இருக்கின்றன.மற்ற அனைத்தும் அருகி மாயமாய் மறைந்தே போய்விட்டன.
நகர விரிவாக்கம் கிராம விரிவாக்கம் என்கிற பெயரில் இந்த குளம்குட்டைகளை மண்ணடித்து மனையடிகள் ஆக்கி புறம்போக்கு என்கிற பெயரில் ஆட்டையைப் போட்டவர்கள் யார்?
இவர்கள் எத்தனை பேர் மந்திரிகள் எம்எல்ஏக்கள் எம்பிக்கள் கந்துவட்டி லேவா தேவிக்காரர்கள் நில புரோக்கர்கள் ஏக்கர் கணக்கில் நிலங்களை வாங்கி மனையடி செய்து விற்பவர்கள்.இன்று ஒவ்வொருவரி
டமும் ஆயிரக்கணக்கான ஏக்கர் நிலங்கள் இருக்கின்றன. ஏரிகளில் அணைகளில் குளங்களில் இவர்களின் நிலங்களுக்கான நீர் ரகசியமாக திறக்கப்படுகிறது.
இப்படியான இவர்களால் மண்மூடி மேவி நிலங்கள் ஆகிவிட்ட குளம் குட்டைகள் தான் எத்தனை ஆயிரங்கள்?அதனால் நிலவிய பயிர் பெருக்கமும் சிற்றுயிர் பல்லுயிர் சுழற்சிகளும் எவ்வளவு வேதனையான முறையில் முடிந்து போயிருக்கும் என்பதை மனிதர்களாகிய நாம் எண்ணிப் பார்க்க வேண்டும். இன்று வெறும் கழிவுகளும் குப்பைகளும் சேர்ந்து பயிர் நிலங்களில் மாசுகளை உண்டாக்கி அதிலிருந்து அநேகம் நுண்ணுயிர் கிருமிகள் பரவி உடல் நலக் கோளாறுகளும் நமக்கு ஏற்பட்டுவருகின்றன.
உலகின் பல நாடுகளில் நீர் ஆதாரங்களைப் பாதுகாக்கிறார்கள் அந்தப் பகுதிகளை அத்துமீறி யாரேனும் அபகரித்தாலும் ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்தாலோ கடும் தண்டனைகளும் சட்டங்களும் அங்கே இருக்கின்றன.
இங்கே தடியெடுத்தவன் எல்லாம்
தண்டல்காரன். ஏறக்குறைய எல்லா குளம் குட்டைகளும் நீர் வழி போக்குவரத்துகளும் தடுக்கப்பட்டு இங்கு வானுயர்ந்த கட்டிடங்கள் எழும்பி கொண்டிருக்கின்றன. ..இதை கேட்பதற்கு எவரும் இல்லாத இந்த கொடுங்காலத்தில் இத்தகைய போக்கிற்கு எதிராக ஏற்கனவே உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் ஒரு முறையும் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் இரண்டாம் முறையும் தொடர்ந்து வழக்குகளை தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளேன். மூன்றாவது முறையாக ஆங்கிலய சட்டங்களின் ஆயக்காட்டு தீர்வைகளுக்கான உரிமைகள் கிராமப்புற பொது மராமத்து முறைகளை மறுபடியும் மீட்டுருவாக்கம் செய்ய இப்போது ம நான் இன்று சென்னை உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் மீண்டும் ஒரு பொதுநல வழக்கை தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளேன்! குறிப்பாக மீந்திருக்கும் இந்த குளம் குட்டைகளையாவது காப்பாற்ற வேண்டி இந்தவழக்கை நான் தொடுத்திருக்கிறேன். அதன் சரத்துகளில் ஒன்றாக ஆங்காங்கே உள்ள கிராமப்புறத்தில் வாழும் விவசாய மக்களிடையே ஒருங்கிணைப்புக் குழுக்களை தேர்ந்தெடுத்து அவர்கள் கையில் இந்த குளம் குட்டைகளை ஒப்படைத்து அவற்றை ஆயக்காரர் தீர்வைகளுக்கான பொது மராமத்து உரிமைகளைப் பெற்றுத்தந்து அவற்றைப் பாதுகாத்தும் செப்பனிட்டும் இந்த நீராதாரங்களை எதிர்காலத்தில் காப்பாற்ற வேண்டும் என்பதையும் இணைத்துள்ளேன்.
இது ஒரு விழிப்புணர்வு இயக்கமாக மாற வேண்டும் இல்லையெனில் வெறும் பிளாட்டுகளும் அதை விற்று கொழுக்கும் தனிநபர்களின் கூடாரமாக தமிழ் நாடு மாறிவிடும்.
பேராசை பிடித்த மனிதர்களின் சுயலாபங்களுக்காக அதன் மக்கள் ஏன் வறட்சியை சந்திக்க வேண்டும்.
இந்த நிலையில், நீர்நிலைகள் பதுகாக்க எனது வழக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் இன்று தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது. Madras HC WP/131313/2023 Filed on 09-10-2023 (K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU)
#நீர்நிலைகள்_நிலங்கள்_மீது_நிகழும்_யுத்தம்
#நீர்நிலைகள்_பதுகாக்க_எனது_இன்றையஉயர்நீதிமன்றவழக்கு….
#கேஎஸ்ஆர்போஸ்ட்
#ksrpost
12-10-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
W.P. No. 131313 / 2023
K.S. Radhakrishnan
No.4/359, Sri Chaitanya Avenue,
Anna Salai, Palavakkam,
Chennai – 600 041
…Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue and Disaster Management,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009
3.The Secretary to Government/Additional Chief Secretary
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
4.The Secretary to Government
Water Source Department
Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009
…Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF K.S.RADHAKRISHAN
I, K.S.Radhakrishnan, S/o. K.V.Seenivasan, Indian, aged 67 years, residing at No.4/359, Sri Chaitayna Avenue Anna Salai, Palavakkam, Chennai- 600 041 do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state as follows:
2.I am the Petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to depose therein below.
3. I humbly submit that I am an advocate, and I have been pursuing my career as a writer, columnist, publisher, and social activist. I have edited more than 15 books on Human rights, Environment, Politics, History etc., I concern with the preservation of water and other natural resources and pass them safely to the forthcoming generation who can live on this land with all the natural resources.
4. I state that I am a practicing Advocate, and have a prominent practice in the Courts at Chennai, as such my annual income is Rs. 5,00,000/-. I state that my Aadhar Card No. is 4504 1343 9749, PAN No is AAZPR6883M. I state that I have no personal interests, individual gain, private motive or oblique reasons in filing this Writ Petition. It is not guided for gain of any other individual person, institution or body. There is no motive other that the larger public interest.
5. I humbly submit that I have filed several public interest litigations before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and before this Hon’ble High Court. I further state that I filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P (Civil) No.668 of 2002 seeking for nationalization of rivers and linking the rivers Ganges-Cauvery- Vaigai-Tamirabarani and Neyyaru in Kanyakumari District. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue various directions to the Union Government and further directed the Union Government to form the committee to be called as “Special Committee for inter-linking of Rivers”.
6. I submit that as stated above, I am interested in the well being of the society at large and I am filing this present public interest litigation as a follow up action of my earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 30397/2018 which was disposed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.01.2022.
7. I submit that the state of Tamil Nadu is the 10th largest state in India having 1,30,060 Sq.km of land and her 79% of land area is capable for cultivation. Tamil Nadu falls in semi-arid to dry sub humid climate. There are no perineal river flows into the state of Tamil Nadu and is one of the water starved states. The spread of cultivable land in the state of Tamil Nadu is 6.1 million hectare (61,55,731 hectares as per 20-21). However, it is sad to mention that out of the total land area available in Tamil Nadu, only ¼ has water in safe level and the balance areas are falling in critical, semi critical, over exploited and saline.
8. I submit that as stated above, the need for conservation of water requires immediate attention of the Respondents. Out of the total 1,166 revenue firkas in the state of Tamil Nadu, only 427 revenue firkas are categorized as safe for water. Water is over exploited in 427 revenue firkas, 79 firkas are declared as critical , 163 revenue frikas are identified as semi critical and 35 revenue firkas fit for nothing due to salinity in the ground water.
9. I submit that the 3rd Respondent, the Public Works Department of the state is considered to be the third oldest department established in colonial India by British. In the year 1820, the East India Company set up Public Work Department(“PWD”) in Madras state.
10. I submit that the 3rd Respondent PWD has been in existence for more than 2 centuries. However, the conservation of water resources have not been adequately implemented by the 3rd Respondent. There are more than 39,000 tanks available in the state of Tamil Nadu and whereas the 3rd Respondent takes care of only 10,000/- out of the same. Hence the ¾ of the tank water resources are left out by the 3rd Respondent without any attention.
11. I humbly submit that the ancient Tamil kings had formulated a very good formula for preservation of water bodies. The Cheras, Cholas and pandiyas (the Trio), the Tamil kings planned and executed the water management system with public participation. The Grand Anaicut( kallanai at Tiruchirappalli) Dam was built by Karikala chola before 2000 years and it still quenches the thirsty over 14.48 lakh hectare of land Cauvery Delta Zone(“CDZ”). The water from the said Grand Anaicut is distributed in one main canal and 327 branch canals spanning to a total length of 1232 k.m .The Chola kings managed the water distribution by engaging local community called “Kudimaramathu”in which the locals were made responsible for desilting, maintenance of water body etc., and it was introduced in Thanjavur area by Cholas. Further, the chola king Rajathya chola( 907-953 CE) developed a big lake in Cuddalore District known as “Veeranam” which has the length of 11 k.m and width of 4 k.m. It supplies water to Chennai city as well. The unified Kancheepuram District is known for water bodies as it has several largest lakes such as mudurantham lake (2400 acres), sembarambakkam (2552 acres), mamandur and Dusi lakes (the 5th largest lake of the state). The Tamil Nadu’s second larger lake known as Kaveripakkam lake(3968 acres) was built in 8th century by Pallavas.
12. I humbly submit that in addition to the above, there are 39,000 tanks and more than 55,000 other types of resources(puddles, lakes, etc.) available in the state of Tamil Nadu to fulfill the drinking and irrigation needs of the people in the state. However, the said resources such as lakes, tanks, puddles and rivers are in detrimental condition due to encroachment, improper maintenance by the respondents, silting etc., The old Tamil kings and rulers engaged the local people or user in the management of water bodies. It was successful for the maintenance of water bodies and the users ensured that the water bodies were not subject to encroachment in their respective villages/area.
13. I humbly submit that as stated above, the minor tanks and puddles play a major role in Tamil Nadu to the conservation of drinking and irrigation water and out of the 39,000 tanks, only 10,000 are being taken care by the 3rd Respondent. The olden system deployed the local people and the said community management system of tanks were protecting the water bodies. The collapse of community management of tanks led to the destruction of tanks and others water bodies. The Ayacutdaras were held responsible for maintenance of the tanks, lakes and water bodies since they were the beneficiaries of the said water resources. The Village leaders( nattamaikars) and natives of the villages were looking after the safety and management of the water bodies which is known as Kudimaramathu( maintenance by local natives). The day to day management of water bodies entrusted with the specially knowledgeable functionary Kavai maniyam ( canal grants). They were paid by the Ayacutdars either kind or cash.
14. I humbly submit that as stated above, there were well organized procedures for maintenance of water bodies before independence. The contribution and man power supply was expected from the beneficiary of the tank ie Ayacutdars. The said Ayacutdars were engaged in clearing inlet channels etc, when PWD fails to do it. The neerkattis(Water catchment areas) are well maintained.
15. I humbly submit that post independence and specialty for the past 3 decades, the destruction of water bodies has been taking place in alarming condition and without any active control. The water bodies are being encroached on by the local anti-social elements, people with muscle power, real estate mafia with the connivance of a few perverted government officers. Though the 10,000 tanks are within the control of the 3rd respondent and balance 29,000 tanks are left without any active control or no control by the government, there is an emergency arose to take care them by an independence agency to monitor, control and protect the same.
16. I humbly state that as the indigenous community maintenance system of water bodies such as Ayacutdars, kudimaramthu etc., faded away, we expect the Respondents to protect the same. The 3rd Respondent has short of hands and could not maintain the tanks and lakes properly and protect them from vanishing at the hands of encroachers and miscreants. Due to the inaction of the 3rd Respondent, the uncontrolled flood have ruined the crops and residents of the people during monsoon season. This also results in drought and destruction of crop during the summer.
17. I submit that as long as the water bodies were controlled by the locals, they were protected and regulated well. After the intervention of the government, the system was not implemented well to protect the water bodies for the next generation. The Madras Water Board Act 1930 took over the management of water body from public and the system of Aayacutdars, kudimaramthu etc, were faded out and the same is at the hands of the 3rds respondent who failed miserably to take care of water bodies.
18. I humbly submit that there are more than 10,00,000 water bodies which includes tanks, lakes, Puddles (tiny water storage), ponds, river and dams etc. and there are several wings of the 1st and 2nd Respondents are holding the control over the same. Due to the involvement of multiple department in the management of water bodies, no uniform process is adopted and no common rules are applied to protect the water bodies. The said authorities give least priority or no priority to preserve water body as their priority goes with the execution of their regular department functions and schemes of the State Government . I submit that unless there is an independent and impartial agency which entail the participation of local people to take care of the water bodies, the one can stop the encroachment and protect the water for next generation. Currently, the following are the wings of the state government owns or maintains the water bodies:
S. NO
NAME OF THE BODY
No.WATER BODIES UNDER CONTROL
1.
Greater Chennai corporation
210
2.
Municipal Administration Department
585
3.
Directorate of Town Panchayat(DTP)
2,186
4.
Public Work Department (PWD)
14,341
5.
Rural Development Department (DRD)
70,367
6.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR&CE)
2,359
Total
90,048
19.I state that it is a recognised principle that tanks, rivers and water-bodies are all communal properties belonging to the public at large, environmental management is not the concern of the Government alone and it is the responsibility of the people as well. Unfortunately, in the eagerness to acquire more and more property, even rivers, water bodies and lakes are not left free. Cases of encroachment on water bodies are really alarming. Water bodies are potential source for drinking water for human and cattle. Only with a view to protect the same and to help the environment and develop ecology, the Government has enacted the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007). The very object of the Act is to find the exact boundary of each Tank in Tamil Nadu and also to detect encroachments for eviction as per the procedure laid down in the said Act. However, there are instances where the public raised fingers against the Government also when it has forgotten the laws meant for preserving water bodies and attempted to fill up those natural streams under the guise of development. Occupation of the water bodies by way of encroachment will deprive water to the public in larger interest ignoring the Public Trust Doctrine.
20.It is clear from the above information that the authorities who owns/maintains the water bodies does not have adequate power to protect them or they need to rely on some other agencies to enforce it rights the law against the encroachment. In fact, there are several enactments to protect the water bodies such as Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 which deals with encroachment in the public lands including water bodies. Similarly, another enactment called Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 to protect the water bodies. However, these enactments remain only on paper and the enforcement of the same is in question. The authorities under the said Acts are not empowered to deal with the illegalities in the manner required to stop them.
21.I humbly submit that I have approached the Respondents to 2 and 3 herein vide my representation dated 31.07.2018 and other subsequent dates with the request to set up District Level Ombudsman with quasi-judicial authority for protecting the water bodies and to constitute State Level Ombudsman to deal with the grievance if any arise out of District Level Ombudsman. Further, I requested the Respondents that the said Ombudsman shall have the power to act on the petitions/complaint by the general public against the misuse of water bodies. Since there is no response from the said Respondents, I have approached this Hon’ble Court in the year 2018 and filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.30397/2018 praying this Hon’ble Court to direct them to dispose my representation dated 31.07.2018 regarding appointment of District Level Ombudsman for protecting each water bodies and State Level Appellate Ombudsman regarding water bodies and redress the same with quasi judicial authority by which save each and every water bodies to protect the water.
22.I submit the during the hearing of the above W.P.No.30397/2018, the State Government has submitted that Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 on 21.02.2022 deals the protection of water bodies controlled by the 3rd Respondent herein namely, Public Works Department. Another enactment Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,1905 protects the water bodies maintained other than 3rd Respondent. Further, it was submitted by the State Government that G.O.Ms. 540 , Revenue (LD6(2) ) Department dated 04.12.2014 has created redress mechanism that a aggrieved person can approach authorities under taluk level and Division at District Level.
23.I submit that while disposing the above W.P.No30397/2018 on 27.01.2022, this Hon’ble Court held the state is reportedly contemplating to re-enact an umbrella enactment for prevention and removal of encroachment in government lands with reduced time line and further held that the petitioner is at the liberty to make any suggestion to the concern authorities regarding the creation of the ombudsman and appellate authority in the propose enactment.
24.I submit that as (i) above mentioned Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and G.O.Ms. 540 , Revenue (LD6(2) ) Department dated 04.12.2014 which imposed duty on tahsildar to take care of the encroachment with the assistance of police and the District Level committee consists of District Revenue Officer, Superintendent of Police and Assistant Director of Surveyor did not yield any result (ii) the State Government is in the process of formulating the enactment as contemplated in the order in W.P.No. 30397/2018 dated 27.01.2022 and (iii) on the basis of the order of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P No.30397/2018 dated 27.01.2022, I have submitted a detail representation dated 17.03.2022 to the Respondents herein.
25. I submit that vide the above representation dated 17.03.2021, I have suggested the Respondents to create an Ombudsman at District Level and an Appellate Authority for the State with quasi- judicial power. Further, I have also suggested that the Ombudsman at the District Level shall be vested with the following powers:
(i) To visit old records, identify water bodies and to restore the same
(ii) The has to identify the tanks and water bodies for which pattas are give private individual and restore the same
(iii) A proper mechanism should be in place in every district for preservation of water bodies, de silting and maintain the same once in five years
(iv) Tanks bunds, sluice, shutter of the lakes and tanks shall be properly maintained by engaged the local community
(v) To provide a mechanism that the sediments in the water bodies shall be removed by the local villagers for the purpose of agriculture while de silting.
(vi) Local bodies shall be empowered for fishing and the local villagers shall be given the fishing rights in their respective villager water bodies
The respondents herein have received my representation which was made in pursuance of order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P No.30397/2018 dated 27.01.2022. However, there is no any response on the same.
26. I humbly submit that in pursuance to the order dated 27.01.2022, I had sent a representation dated 17.03.2022 to the Respondents to curb the misuse, encroachments and destruction of water resources and to constitute an ombudsman at every district level to save tanks and water bodies. Much to my consternation, the Respondents have neither taken any action nor served a reply to the same.
Under the above circumstance, being left with no other alternative effective remedy, I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redressal of their grievances for the following among others;
GROUNDS
A. The Respondents have miserably failed to protect most of the water bodies available in the State of Tamil Nadu
B. There are 6 more organs of the state government owns/controls more than 90,000 water bodies without any adequate legislation/ agency to protect the water bodies
C. There is a need for impartial and independent quasi- judicial authority/ body to protect the water resources as the respondents are failed to monitor and implement the laws to protect the water bodies.
D. When the government is contemplating for the re-enactment of laws for the protection of water bodies, the respondents ought to have considered the representation dated 17.3.2021 made by the petitioner
E. Unless there is an independent and impartial agency is constituted, the protection of water bodies is difficult at the hand of anti-social elements, encroachers and land mafias.
F. The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the statutory norms.
G. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 420] had held that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The dicta laid in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 420] unequivocally enunciates that the access to pollution-free drinking water is a right that is bestowed upon every citizen of India and inaccessibility of the same shall result in the infringement of the most important fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
H. In India till date the right to clean drinking water has been protected by the courts only as a negative right – i.e., the right not to have water sources polluted. Such protection has stemmed from the articulation of a fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution by the Supreme Court. The concept of right to “healthy environment” has been developed as part of the right to life under Article 21 of our Constitution. This concept was first articulated in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and then continued and expanded.
I. The Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664 observed that water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life.
J. The Apex Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 observed that the constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person’s right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment.
K. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath the Apex court declared that the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. In view of the same, it is the duty of the Respondents to conserve what is in their control by virtue of the Constitution. Moreover, Article 39 (b) mandates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good.
L. It is pivotal to note that the Indian Easement Act 1882 enshrines a right of a riparian owner (someone who owns the land adjoining a river or water stream) to unpolluted waters. A riparian owner has a right to use the water of the stream which flows past his land equally with other riparian owners, and to have the water come to him undiminished in flow, quantity and quality and to go beyond his land without obstruction. This right shall be read with Article 39 (b) of the Constitution and the public trust doctrine which mandates the state to formulate policies to secure, preserve and conserve natural resources which are in total control of the state.
M. Article 51A, inter alia, provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The Hon’ble Courts of India being the guardians of the Constitution shall ensure that the fundamental rights of every citizen are protected. Therefore, the intervention of this Hon’ble Court is required in issuing a direction to the Respondents to constitute an ombudsman for the preservation and conservation of water resources.
N. The Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 prohibits encroachment of water bodies. Under Section 4, a Survey Officer can be appointed for surveying the tanks and under Section 6, such Survey Officer after completion of survey of tanks is required to prepare a chart and register pointing out the boundaries of the tanks and other necessary information. Under Section 6(2), the chart and the register prepared is to be handed over to the Officer of the Public works Department. Under Section 6(3), such Officer is required to issue a notice pointing out the boundaries of the tank. Under Section 7(1), such officer shall issue notice for removal of the encroachment if he is of the opinion that the encroachment should be evicted. Under Section 7(2), if encroachment is not removed, such Officer is empowered to remove the encroachment. Under Section 7(3) any crop raised on the land within the boundaries of the tank shall be liable to forfeiture and similarly any building or other construction if not removed by the encroacher after notice under Section 7(1), shall be liable to forfeiture. Despite various laws, there is a gross violation of the provisions resulting in encroachment of various water bodies.
O. In Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in view of the same even those Water Bodies which are not covered under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, (Tank Act), if encroached, are liable to be removed. It is further submitted that Section 11 of the Tank Act states that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (Encroachment Act) and the provisions of the Revenue Standing Orders (RSO), could be invoked for removal of encroachments in water bodies not covered under the provisions of the Tank Act.
P. The Madras High Court has said that the state government must immediately start its efforts of evicting the encroachers and restoring the water bodies. The Madras High Court has also warned that once the encroachments after the water bodies are cleared, the onus of keeping them safe and free of encroachments in the future should be on the officials concerned. In the event of any more encroachments cropping up again, those officials responsible for the region would be subjected to disciplinary actions.
Q. In Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamal Devi reported in (2001) 6 SCC 496, it was held that the endeavour of the State should be to protect the material resources like Forests, Tanks, Ponds etc., in order to maintain ecological balance, which would pave the way to provide a healthy environment and enable the people to enjoy a quality life, which is essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that in the State of Tamil Nadu having regard to the precarious water situation prevailing in the major part of the year, it is imperative that such noted water storage resources, such as tanks, odai, oornis, canals etc are not obliterated by encroachers. Reference was also made to Article 48A of the Constitution.
R. In L.Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 (4) CTC 1 it was held that land recorded as pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of house or any allied purpose and a similar direction was passed in the said case also. Ultimately, a direction was given to all State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the grama sabha/grama panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored for the common use of the villagers of village.
S. The Division Bench in L.Krishnan (Supra), did not limit its direction to water bodies under the control of the Public Works Department. In fact, it has issued directions for all natural water resources in the different parts of the State of Tamil Nadu and wherever illegal encroachments are found to take steps for removal of the encroachments in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The State Government thought fit to enact the Tank Act and though the object of the enactment was couched on a border principle, the Act was restricted to the encroachments in tanks which are under the control and management of the Public Works Department.
Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an Interim order or direction directing the Respondents to submit the status report on the re-enactment on the removal of encroachment and to protect the water bodies as reported by the Government as per order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P No.30397 of 2018 dated 27.01.2022 and thus render justice.
Under the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the Respondents to constitute an independent and impartial authority with the quasi-judicial power in the form of Ombudsman at every district level to entertain the compliant from public and to protect the water bodies and also to constitute an Appellate Authority at the state level for grievance redressal and further direct the Respondents that the said independent and impartial authority shall have the power to involve local people in implementing the water protection mechanism at every village in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner on 17.03.2022 or and pass such further or any orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai
on this August 2023 and
signed his name in my presence
Before Me
Advocate, Chennai
No comments:
Post a Comment