IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11.01.2010 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23353 of 2009 N.Lingamurthy ... Petitioner Versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Member Secretary, Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payments of Compensation) Authority, St.Peters Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 086. 3.The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in Petition No. 148 of 2009 dated 17.03.2009, quash the same and further direct the second respondent to grant the interest to the compensation awarded in award dated 8.12.2008 from the date of disbursement of such compensation as in the case of other beneficiaries till the date of realisation. For Petitioner .. Mr.V.Prakash, S.C. for Mr.S.Dhiraviyaraj. For Respondents .. Mr.G.Desingu, Spl.G.P. for R1 and R3 Mr.N.Sankaravadivel for R2. O R D E R (Order of the court was made by Elipe Dharma Rao, J) The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing T.S.No.6/1 to an extent of 2.59.0 hectare, T.S.No.6/3 to an extent of 0.09.0 hectare, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ T.S.No.6/5 to an extent of 0.11.0 hectare and in all total extent of 2.68.0 hectare, with a well situated in the said survey number, to irrigate the above stated lands, in Block-2, Ward-B, Tharvazhi Village, Ambur Town, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.914 of 1991 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for the protection of thousands of innocent lives, suffering from serious air and water pollution being caused by enormous discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries into agricultural fields road sides, waterways and open lands in North Arcot District (Vellore), Tamil Nadu and pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 28.08.1996, the Central Government constituted a body namely, Loss of Ecology Authority, the second Respondent to implement the precautionary principle and the Polluter pays Principle and to assess the loss to the ecology/Environment in the affected areas and to identify the individuals/families who have suffered by the pollution to assess the damages caused to the individuals/families and to collect the compensation from the tanneries and to distribute the same to the individuals/families. The award of compensation covers for the period from 12th August, 1991 to 31st December, 1998 and the rate of compensation are determined as under:- TDS in well water used for Compensation payable Irrigation mg/1. in Rs. Per Hectare/Year. 1000+to 2100 Rs. 1,000/- 2100+to 3500 Rs. 2,000/- 3500+to 4900 Rs. 6,500/- 4900 & above. Rs. 14,000/- 3. It is further stated that since the total dissolved solid in the petitioner's well water used for irrigation was above 4900 mg/1 and the authority to fix Rs.14,000/- per hectare per year as compensation, the second Respondent is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,77,648/- as on 31.12.1998 (R.14,000/- x 2.68 x 7.4 years = Rs.2,77,648/- from 12th August, 1991 to 31st December, 1998) together with interest till date. 4. It is further stated that the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2006 of 2004 for a direction to the second Respondent to examine the claim of compensation of Rs.2,77,648/- with interest and this Court vide order dated 10.09.2004 directed the second Respondent to consider the representation within a period of two months. Thereafter, the second Respondent vide letter dated 01.10.2004, considered the claim of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is eligible for compensation and that the actual amount of compensation would be known to the petitioner while disposing of all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other individual claim petitions before the second Respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner on 22.02.2005 represented in person to the second Respondent authority to enquire about the actual amount of compensation to be paid to him and it was informed by the Secretary to the second Respondent authority that his claim petition have been taken as additional beneficiaries and that the compensation amount could be disbursed to him on the basis of latest water sample of the well water which was taken very recently and as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, award of compensation covers for the period of August, 1991 to 31st December 1998 and that during interregnum period the well water and cultivable lands were very much affected due to the effluent water discharge from tanning industries and there was no prosperous agriculture from the year 1991 onwards and the petitioner incurred heavy loss and that if the second Respondent could decide the compensation as per the latest TDS results, it will be disproportionate and would result in injustice as the neighbours of the petitioner's lands were being paid compensation as per the TDS above 4900 mg/l obtained then and that the new TDS results will show some improvement in the TDS level due to the closure of the tanning Industries and existing industries have been treating the effluent water under the modern technology. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8604 of 2005 for a direction to the second Respondent authority to calculate the compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis of TDS adopted in 1991 and as then obtained in the adjacent lands of the petitioner equally affected as in the case of the petitioner, namely of 4900 TDS above as of the year 1991 and to direct the payment of such compensation together with interest and this Court taken note of the reports of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the Agricultural Research Station, Virijipuram and by its order dated 4.08.2008 denoted that the original assessment to be reconsidered in the light of the reports of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Further stated that based on the reports submitted, the second Respondent Authority on 8.12.2008 passed the second award by enhancing the compensation payable to the petitioner but not awarded any interest payable to the above petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Petition No.148 of 2009 before the second Respondent authority for the payment of interest to the compensation awarded for the loss suffered and the said authority by its proceedings dated 17.03.2009 rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason thereto. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the second Respondent it is contended that in fact the prayer in W.P.No.8603 of 2005 is that they should be given the same quantum of compensation by the second Respondent as given to the adjacent land owners and this Court by its order dated 4.8.2008 directed the second Respondent to consider the report of Agricultural Research Station, Vrinjipuram giving the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ presence of total dissolved solids (TDS) taken at an earlier point of time and to revise the quantum of compensation fixed earlier. Though the petitioners prayed for compensation with interest, this Court had directed the second Respondent to revise the quantum alone on the basis of report furnished by the petitioners. Further stated that none of the land owners who had been granted compensation for the period between 12.8.1991 and 31.12.1998 under the Award dated 7.3.2001 had been given interest on the quantum of compensation granted. Even in the Award passed by the second Respondent dated 24.8.2009 as directed by order of this Court made in W.P.No.23291 of 2006 relating to left out cases, interest had not been given on the quantum of compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 26.8.1996 made in W.P.No.914 of 1991 issued a direction to the effect that: "The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement the "precautionary principle" and the "Polluter Pays" principle. The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/environment in the affected areas and shall also identify the individual/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families". 7. Further contended that under the original award passed by the Respondent dated 07.03.2001, the apportionment of the amount to be recovered by the respective polluting industry is also mentioned in the Annexure-II appended to the said Award. If any enhancement of compensation has to be paid as per the direction of this Court, the same has to be paid from the Environment Protection Fund. Some polluting industries against whom Award had been passed closed their business and their whereabouts are not traceable by the third Respondent (Collector of this District) who is the recovery officer and the amount to be collected from such polluters who closed their business have become irrecoverable arrears of compensation. In such contingencies it is obligatory on the part of Respondents 2 and 3 to pay the quantified compensation to all the affected individuals only from the accrued interest. In subsequent Award dated 24.08.2009 alone, the total compensation granted as per orders of this Court in W.P.No.23291 of 2006 is Rs.2,91,01,278/- and the total number of fresh beneficiaries is 1377. Many other affected individuals had filed about 10 writ petitions such as W.P.No. 12370 of 2004, W.P.No.30852 of 2004 etc. before this Court which directed the second Respondent to consider fresh claims and compensation to them had also been awarded. If everyone demands interest on the quantum of compensation, there is no source for the same. Further contended that if interest is to be paid on quantum of compensation fixed, the same has to be collected from the polluting industries and the contribution from them has to be directed to be increased by this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court. Therefore, second Respondent prays for consideration by this Court whether the polluting industries have to be impleaded as necessary Respondents. 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 9. From the reading of the counter affidavit filed by the second Respondent, the reasons stated by the second Respondent is that that none of the land owners who had been granted compensation for the period between 12.8.1991 and 31.12.1998 under the Award dated 7.3.2001 had been given interest on the quantum of compensation granted. Even in the Award passed by the second Respondent dated 24.8.2009 as directed by order of this Court made in W.P.No.23291 of 2006 relating to left out cases, interest had not been given on the quantum of compensation. Further stated that if any enhancement of compensation has to be paid as per the direction of this Court, the same has to be paid from the Environment Protection Fund. Some polluting industries against whom Award had been passed closed their business and their whereabouts are not traceable by the third Respondent (Collector of this District) who is the recovery officer and the amount to be collected from such polluters who closed their business have become irrecoverable arrears of compensation. In such contingencies it is obligatory on the part of Respondents 2 and 3 to pay the quantified compensation to all the affected individuals only from the accrued interest. However, according to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act that amount of Rs.95,91,096/- lying with the third Respondent under the head Vellore Collector Environment Protection Fund, which includes the interest. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest and that as per the information obtained by the petitioner dated 18.05.2009, that accrued interest amount alone is Rs.11,55,670/-, lying in the Sub-Collector Office at Thirupattur, which comes under the third Respondent, apart from the balance amount of Rs.8,64,307/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the interest. 10. We are unable to appreciate the reason given by the second Respondent that they are unable to recover compensation amount payable by the polluting industries which are closed and whereabouts are not traceable by the Respondent. If the amount is not deposited by any polluting industry, the second Respondent can take action under Revenue Recovery Act to recover the amount of compensation payable by the polluting industry. In a decision reported in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR1996 (5) SC 2715, it has been held as follows:- " We impose pollution fine of Rs 10,000 each on all the tanneries in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R. The fine https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shall be paid before October 31, 1996 in the office of the Collector/District Magistrate concerned. We direct the Collectors/District Magistrates of these districts to recover the fines from the tanneries. The money shall be deposited, along with the compensation amount recovered from the polluters, under a separate head called “Environment Protection Fund” and shall be utilised for compensating the affected persons as identified by the authorities and also for restoring the damaged environment. The pollution fine is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The tanneries which fail to deposit the amount by October 31, 1996 shall be closed forthwith and shall also be liable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. " 11. We are unable to appreciate the yet another reason that none of the land owners who had been granted compensation for the period between 12.8.1991 and 31.12.1998 under the Award dated 7.3.2001 had been given interest on the quantum of compensation granted. When the petitioners came to know about the compensation payable by the polluting industry and the persons who are aware of the same have approached the court and got compensation that is not the ground for denying the interest on the compensation payable to the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 3 of the Interest Act 1978 under which the Court has discretionary power to allow existing current rate of interest. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner is an agriculturist and by virtue of the polluted industries, his agricultural lands were affected, we consider it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount payable to the petitioner for the period between 12.8.1991 and 13.12.1998. As quoted by the Father of our Nation Mahamatma Gandhi "Agriculture is the backbone of Indian Economy" and because of the development of Information and Technology Industries, agriculturists are losing their income. There shall be a direction to the second Respondent to determine the interest payable to the petitioner and make arrangements to pay the interest on the compensation amount payable to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. gr. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Member Secretary,Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payments of Compensation) Authority, St.Peters Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 086. 3. The Collector,Vellore District, Vellore. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Dhiraviyaraj, Advocate SR. 2014 + 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.2319. W.P.No.23353 of 2009 BK(CO) EU 4.02.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/