Dismissed

Narasimha Devadiga v. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Chief Secretary

NGT7 Aug 2024Original Application No. 186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Southern Zone disposed of an application objecting to the construction of a salt water barrier dam with a bridge across River Sita in Udupi. The court dismissed the application, holding that the structure is a permitted measure for preventing salinity ingress under CRZ Notifications and valid clearance had been granted by MoEF&CC.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is dismissed. The applicant may challenge violations of the CZMA clearance conditions in the manner known to law.

Narasimha Devadiga vs the State of Karnataka Represented… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 12

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Wednesday the 7^th day of August, 2024.

¶4

Original Application No. 186 of 2024 (SZ) (Through Video Conference)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF

¶6

Narasimha Devadiga,

¶7

S/o Govinda Devadiga, Aged about 60 years, Residing at 3-150/1, Karkada Nellibettu, Karda Post, Udupi, Karnataka-576225.

¶8

...Applicant(s) Versus

¶9

1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru- 560001.

¶10

2. Minor Irrigation and Groundwater Development Department, Represented by its Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.

¶11

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Rajatadri, Manipal, Udupi- 576101.

¶12

4. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation and Groundwater Development Dept, P.M. Rao Road, Mangalore- 575001.

¶13

5. Department of Fisheries, Represented by its Director, Directorate of Fisheries, 3rd Floor, Podium Block, Visvesvaraya Centre, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru- 560001.

¶14

6. Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, Karnataka, Represented by Additional Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Room No. 448, 4th Floor, Gate No.2, M.S. Building, Bengaluru- 560001.

¶15

¶16

7. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, 4th Floor, Aranya Bhavan, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru- 560003.

¶17

8. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapura Sub Division, Ferry Road, Kundapura- 576201.

¶18

9. The Deputy Director, Fisheries Department, District Panchayat Complex, 3rd Floor, Bannanje, Udupi- 576101.

¶19

10. The Chairman, Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority, 4th Floor, M.S. Building, Bangalore- Karnataka State.

¶20

11. The APCCF, Regional Office, Ministry of Enivornment and Forests (SZ), Kendria Sadan, 4th Floor, E&F Wings, 17th Main Road, Koramangala II Block, Bangalore- 560001.

¶21

The Member Secretary,
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
7th Floor, 4th Gate, M.S. Building,
Bangalore- 560001.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. Pawan for Mr. Akash B Shetty.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for State of Karnataka.
Mr. H.K. Vasanth for Karnataka CZMA.

¶22

Date of hearing: 7^th August, 2024.

¶23

CORAM :

¶24

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶27

The applicant is a resident of Karkada Nellibettu of Udupi District in Karnataka. Objecting to the project of construction of salt water barrier dam with a bridge across Sita River between Handady-

¶28

¶29

Kumbrugodu, Barkur-Bennekudru and Pandeshwara-Moodahadu and Barkur Bennekudru in Brahmavara taluk, Udupi District.

¶30

It is stated by the applicant that the coastal belt of Karnataka consists of three districts, namely, Uttara Kannada, Udupi and Dakshina Kannda which are famous for mangrove forests and they are located in the backwater of various rivers that flows from the Western Ghats and joins Arabian Sea. The objection of the applicant is that if the proposed dam is allowed to be constructed, it will hamper the mangrove forest which is situated at the backwater area of River Sita.

¶31

He has made various objections for the construction of the dam on the ground that the mangroves are natural coastal defense and they are rich in biodiversity. The construction of the dam would destroy the mangroves. According to him if the dam is built the inflow of salt water will stop and the mangroves which need a mixture of 50% salt water and 50% fresh water will face mass destruction. Therefore, originally the applicant had filed for a prayer to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to terminate or stop the construction of the dam or bridge and remove all the construction that is been put across the River Sita.

¶32

As the said prayer could not be entertained, he filed an amendment even without an application for the same. The amended prayer was seeking a direction to respondent nos. 1 to 4 to stop the construction of the dam and remove all the construction that is been put across the River as it is in violation of the CRZ Notification dated 20.02.1991.

¶33

In support of his case he relied on the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 dated 19.02.1991. According to him Clause 2

¶34

¶35

enumerates the prohibited activities. Clause 2(viii) was particularly emphasized by him which is as follows:

¶36

“(viii) land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar obstructions, except those required for control of coastal erosion and maintenance or cleasing of waterways, channels and ports and for prevention of sandbars and also except for tidal regulators, storm water drains and structures for prevention of salinity ingress and for sweet water recharge ;”

¶37

It was pointed out to the Learned Counsel that he is relying on the 1991 CRZ Notification whereas the same was superseded by CRZ Notification, 2011 dated 06.01.2011 in S.O.19(E). The said notification was issued in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, number S.O.114(E), dated the 19^th February, 1991 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby declares the following areas as CRZ and imposes with effect from the date of the notification.

¶38

To be noted is that clause 2(viii) of 1991 CRZ Notification permits construction of tidal regulators and structures for prevention of salinity ingress. Even in the 2011 Notification, Clause 3(iv)(d) provides for “measures to prevent sand bars, installation of tidal regulators, laying of storm water drains or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and freshwater recharge based on carried out by any agency to be specified by MoEF”. The CRZ Notification, 1991 as well as the CRZ Notification, 2011 specifically provide for measures for structures for salinity ingress and fresh water recharge.

¶39

While so, in the State of Karnataka CRZ Notification, 2019 is already approved which superseded CRZ Notification, 2011. Clause 5.1.2 relates to CRZ-I B-the inter tidal areas. Clause 5.1.2(i)(f) provides for measures to prevent sand bars, installation of tidal regulators, laying

¶40

¶41

of storm water drains or for structure for prevention of salinity ingress and freshwater recharge.

¶42

From the above, it is evident that the CRZ Notifications have provided for measures to prevent the salinity ingress. In this case, the project of construction of the salt water barrier dam with a bridge across the River Sita between Handady-Kumbrugodu, Barkur-Bennekudru and Pandeshwara-Moodahadu and Barkur Bennekudru in Brahmavara taluk, Udupi District. The applicant seems to have obtained the information from the contractor, who had already started the work at the site and has rushed here to stop the same.

¶43

During the hearing, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA), Karnataka brought to our notice that as early as on 23.01.2024 the MoEF&CC (CRZ) had granted the CZMA clearance with the specific and general conditions mentioned therein. It is pointed out that as per the approved CZMP of Karnataka along the alignment of the proposed site for salt water exclusion dam near Handay- Kumbrugodu to bennekudru in Brahmavara Taluk, Udupi District does not include mangroves. Further, as per the approved CZMP of Karnataka along with the alignment of the proposed site for constructing bridge from gated barrage between MoodhaduPandeshwara to Bennekudru across Sita River in Brahamavara Taluk, Udupi District does not include mangroves Based on the recommendations of the Karnataka CZMA and considering the submission made by the project proponent, the MoEF&CC in acceptance of the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee had accorded the clearance for the project in question.

¶44

¶45

The CRZ Clearance was granted as early as on 23.01.2024 which is an appealable one. The applicant, instead of challenging the CRZ clearance granted already within the prescribed time limits, has filed above Original Application to stop the construction when the construction of structures for prevention of salinity ingress is not a prohibited activity.

¶46

Therefore, we find no merit in the case of the applicant and the same
is liable to be dismissed. If there are any violations of the conditions
imposed in the CZMA clearance, it is open to the applicant to challenge
the same in the manner known to law.
13. In view of the above observations, the Original Application is
dismissed.
............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
O.A. No.186/2024(SZ)
7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶47

Narasimha Devadiga v. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasimha Devadiga v. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aravalli Bachao Citizens Movement vs Union of India

Amit Kishore and Ors. vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

Sudesh Gupta vs Samandar Patel Colonizer

E.V. Sampath vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Member Secretary

Vivek vs the President

All India Anti Corruption Organization vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

M Padmavathi vs the Honble Appellate Authority

J.Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu Seiaa Tn

Akula Satish vs State of Telangana

V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary

Jerome vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board