Remanded

Sarvanababu Ethirajalu vs

NGT16 Mar 2026Original Application No. 133/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant filed O.A. 133/2026 on public grievances portal alleging illegal mining, environmental pollution, and suppression of facts by authorities in Tamil Nadu. Tribunal noted non-appearance, extended time, and transferred matter to Southern Zone Bench, Chennai, due to territorial jurisdiction over the cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Grant of adjournment for appearance; Transfer of hearing to Southern Zone Bench, Chennai.

Sarvanababu Ethirajalu vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 133/2026

¶5

Sarvanababu Ethirajalu Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents

¶8

Date of hearing: 16.03.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

A pplicant: None for the Applicant.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mr. Sarvanababu Ethirajalu has made the present complaint on public grievances portal of this Tribunal on 29.09.2025, which has been treated and registered as Original Application (O.A.) No. 133/2026 for exercise of suo moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Hon’ble

¶13

Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401.

¶14

The relevant part of the O.A. enumerating grievances of the applicant is reproduced as follows:-

¶15

“Subject: Illegal conversion of public/common pathway into quarry approach road; suppression of survey numbers; unlawful NOCs; EC/TNPCB- non-compliance- ACE Mining & Co., Villangadu (S.F. 67/1 & 67/2) Immediate enforcement & prosecution requested.

¶16

Introduction:

¶17

This complaint is being submitted with reference to the RTI reply issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Public

¶18

¶19

Information Officer / Assistant Director, Department of Geology & Mining, Chengalpattu, vide Ref. No. Na.Ka.No.159/Kanimu/2025, dated 09.09.2025. The said reply, which is based on earlier RTI applications dated 03.04.2023 and 04.09.2025 (Ref. No.6348/ΜΜ.1/2025), has brought to light the following serious issue:

¶20

As per the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madhurantakam's letter dated 31.01.2024, it has been officially confirmed that quarry vehicles are operating through Survey No.102/4 (classified as grazing land) and Survey No.68 (classified as Government "malai poramboke" land) and also thru Panchayat Controlled roads. These lands have been misrepresented as an "approach road" and are being unlawfully used by ACE Mining Quarry to access the landlocked quarry site in Survey Nos. 67/1 and 67/2.

¶21

The RTI reply further records that the path in use is in fact an existing public mud road/public pathway, which has been fabricated and projected as a lawful quarry access route and diverted for exclusive quarry transport without obtaining any lawful approvals or NOCs from the Panchayat, Revenue Department, Animal Husbandry Department, or any other competent authority.

¶22

It is further noted with grave concern that the RDO, Madhurantakam, while processing the quarry application, had incorrectly and illegally treated this route as a rightful quarry access, without verifying the necessity of mandatory NOCS from other departments, and that other concerned departments failed to fact-check, verify, or object to this misrepresentation, thereby enabling ACE Mining Quarry to unlawfully exploit public/common lands for its private commercial benefit.

¶23

A) What the official papers say (and how the record was "built")

¶24

1. RTI Reply (ΡΙΟGeology and Mining, chengalpattu), Na.Ka.No.159/.../2025, dated 09-09-2025 Q.7 & Q.8 record that the public cart-track/common pathway/ ooratchi salai), Grazing lands and malai poramboke lands are shown/treated as the approach road to the landlocked quarry, citing S.F. 102/4 (grazing land) and S.F. 68 (malai poramboke). It relies on RDO- Madurantakamr proceedings dated 31-01-2024.

¶25

2. RDO/Forwarding Reference, Na.Ka. No.6348/.../2025, dated 0409-2025- forms the basis for the above reply, but does not disclose the full survey-wise haul route or the required consents. In short: The file was "built" to make it appear that a pre-existing public pathway is a lawful quarry approach road.

¶26

B) Ground reality the papers hide

¶27

1. Landlocked lease: Quarry site- S.F. 67/1 & 67/2, Villangadu- has no direct access to State Highway-117.

¶28

¶29

2. Only two practical ways to reach SH-117 (on ground):

¶30

Via Porur Panchayat: trucks must first traverse Villangadu Panchayat roads for around 2.5 km, then proceed through Porur Panchayat roads for another 2.5 km, before finally reaching State Highway-117.

¶31

Via Neerpair Panchayat: trucks must first traverse Villangadu Panchayat roads for around 2.5 km, then continue through Porur Panchayat roads for around 1 km, and thereafter Neerpair Panchayat roads for about 2.5 km to finally reach State Highway-117.

¶32

Key fact concealed: The Mining Plan key-map (p. 66) submitted by ACE Mining shows only the Neerpair route as the official approach. However, in practice, lorries are also using the Porur Panchayat route, which was never disclosed or approved in the plan. This amounts to misrepresentation and concealment in the approval process.

¶33

Suppression of Transport Route Survey Numbers

¶34

RDO and Geology Dept. mentioned only two survey numbers (102/4 & 68), but quarry transport in reality passes through at least 10 more survey numbers:

¶35

66, 68, 102, 104, 113, 110, 111, 112, 94, 95-including temple land, burial ground, eri, grazing, and malai poramboke.

¶36

This suppression is deliberate and amounts to misrepresentation in official records.

¶37

Suppressed surveys on the haul path: include 66, 68, 102, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 94, 95

¶38

o Land classifications: grazing/meichchal, malai/kundru/kallanguthu, anadheenam, sudukadu, temple (HR&CE), eri/eri-bund (neerpidipu/ulvai/vandipathai), Panchayat cart-tracks.

¶39

Illegal Quarry Water Pumping

¶40

Quarry water is being discharged into bordering Government lands: S.F. 48 (Anadheenam), 49 (Kallanguthu), 50 (Kundru), 64 (Grazing land), 65 (Kallanguthu), 66 (Grazing/Kallanguthu).

¶41

This causes pollution of lakes, grazing fields, and agricultural land, violating TNPCB Consent Conditions and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

¶42

NOCs from Neighbouring Panchayats without Villangadu Consent

¶43

ACE Mining has obtained NOCs from Porur and Neerpair Panchayats to pass lorries, while the quarry is located in Villangadu Panchayat jurisdiction.

¶44

¶45

No consent was obtained from Villangadu Panchayat, Gram Sabha, or the affected public, nor was any intimation given to the Collector, RDO, or BDO.

¶46

Such NOCs are legally invalid, and any transport based on them is illegal.

¶47

Public Safety & Environmental Hazards

¶48

Overspeeding quarry lorries threaten school children, TNSTC buses, villagers, and cattle.

¶49

Heavy dust affects agriculture and health.

¶50

Quarry lorries operate without safety nets, causing stone spillage.

¶51

Roads have been laid or relaid on Panchayat/common lands without approvals from BDO Chithamur, Villangadu Panchayat, or Collector Chengalpattu.

¶52

3. How they "tricked" the file: The ooratchi salai/common cart-track + poramboke was shown as the approach in mining/lease papers without:

¶53

Gram Panchayat Resolution/NOC from Villangadu, and

¶54

Collector orders under Poramboke Rules permitting alternate use of grazing/eri-bund/malai lands.

¶55

4. Further illegality: "NOCs" were obtained from Neerpair and Porur Panchayats for downstream segments without any consent from Villangadu Panchayat/Gram Sabha or mandatory approvals- an ultra vires, void process that bypasses the Panchayat where the quarry is situated.

¶56

Legal Provisions Violated:

¶57

Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Secs. 110, 112, 134): Panchayat consent mandatory.

¶58

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905: Poramboke/grazing/eri lands cannot be converted without G.O.

¶59

Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (Rule 36): No lease for landlocked quarry without lawful access.

¶60

MoEF & CC Notification S.O. 1533 (2006): Environmental Clearance requires route verification and local consent.

¶61

IPC 268, 283, 336: Public nuisance, obstruction of public way, danger to human life.

¶62

C) Where each authority went wrong 1. Revenue (Collector/RDO/Tahsildar/RI/VAO)

¶63

¶64

Suppression/misstatement: Reduced the route to "S.F. 102/4 & 68" while omitting other transport-critical surveys.

¶65

No conversion order: No G.O./Collector order under Poramboke Rules for grazing/eri/malai usage.

¶66

Encroachment ignored: No action under Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for mud roads.

¶67

BSOs violated: No reclassification under BSO 26 & 30.

¶68

2. Geology & Mining (AD-Chengalpattu)

¶69

Failed to verify lawful access before recommending lease.

¶70

Wrongly claimed "patta alone is enough", contradicting TNMMC Rules, 1959 - Rule 36, 36(5)(h), 36-A; Rules 19 & 41.

¶71

3. SEIAA-TN

¶72

Granted EC in Jan 2024 without verifying Panchayat resolutions/Collector orders.

¶73

Accepted "route map" as easement contrary to EIA-2006/EC conditions.

¶74

4. TNPCB (DEE - Chengalpattu)

¶75

Issued Consent without checking haul-route consents.

¶76

Ignored discharge of pit water into Periya Eri (S.F. 94/95/110) - offence under Water Act, 1974.

¶77

5. Panchayats (Neerpair & Porur)

¶78

Issued ultra vires NOCs without Gram Sabha resolutions and without Villangadu's consent.

¶79

D) Why Collector cannot legalise this

¶80

Sec.125 Panchayats Act: Village roads vest in Panchayat; heavy commercial use/change needs Panchayat NOC.

¶81

Poramboke Rules: Collector can only permit alternate use after public notice/enquiry none done.

¶82

TNMMC Rule 36/36-A: Lease is subject to all other laws; no right of way is created.

¶83

SC precedents: Jagpal Singh (2011), Hinch Lal Tiwari (2001) - commons/water bodies cannot be diverted for private quarry haulage.

¶84

Therefore, even Collector proceedings dated 31-01-2024 cannot legitimise haulage over ooratchi salai, grazing, malai, or eribund lands.

¶85

E) Violations by ACE Mining & Co.

¶86

1. Haulage over commons (Panchayat, grazing, malai, eri, temple) without NOC/Collector orders.

¶87

2. Suppression of full survey-wise route.

¶88

3. Environmental breaches- uncovered lorries, dust/noise, pit water discharged to Periya Eri.

¶89

¶90

4. Reliance on illegal NOCs from Neerpair/Porur without Villangadu consent.

¶91

F) Prayers for Action / Relief Requested

¶92

1. Immediate suspension of quarry transport through Surveynumber. 102/4, 68, and all other illegal survey numbers.

¶93

2. Cancellation of quarry license granted to ACE Mining & Co. due to suppression, pollution, and illegal road usage.

¶94

3. Enquiry against officials (RDO, Tahsildar, RI, VAO, and others) for collusion and suppression of facts in RTI replies.

¶95

4. Stop all quarrying and transport activities until valid permissions and lawful access are proven.

¶96

5. Issue a Nil Certificate if no NOCs/permissions exist from Villangadu Panchayat or Collector

¶97

6. Stop-use order: Restrain ACE Mining from using Panchayat/govt/common lands until valid NOCs/Collector orders exist.

¶98

7. Encroachment proceedings: Initiate under Land Encroachment Act, 1905; barricade & restore commons.

¶99

8. EC/TNPCB enforcement: Suspend for misrepresentation and haulroute violations.

¶100

9. Cancel illegal NOCs issued by Neerpair/Porur.

¶101

10.DVAC enquiry into suppression/fabrication by RDO, AD Mining, RI/VAO, Tahsildar, BDO.

¶102

11.FIRs under IPC Section 420, 468, 471, 268, 283, 336; MMDR Act; Water Act.

¶103

12. Future compliance: Mandate survey-wise verification, Gram Sabha resolutions, axle limits, dust suppression, and school-hour restrictions before permit renewals.

¶104

G)Public Note of Thanks & Concern:

¶105

I have submitted several complaints regarding the illegal operations of ACE Mining Quarry, Villangadu through both online channels and India Post.

¶106

I sincerely thank the Member Secretary, SEIAA, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Maraimalai Nagar), and the Inspector General of Police -South Zone for their prompt and effective actions. Their interventions have shown real commitment to protecting public lands and community safety.

¶107

However, it is highly concerning that, despite multiple directives from SEIAA, the District Collector, Chengalpattu, and the Tahsildar, Cheyyur, have taken no action. This inaction, along with failures by the RDO, Madhurantakam, the Chithamur and Melmaruvathur Police Stations, and the VAO, Villangadu, has only emboldened the quarry to continue unlawful activities.

¶108

Shockingly, the Tahsildar, Cheyyur, instead of discharging his statutory duties, has acted as a helping hand to the quarry operators, enabling their grave violations.

¶109

I once again thank the departments that have acted responsibly and urge higher authorities and the public to demand accountability from those who have failed in their duty.

¶110

H) Enclosures (Annexures):

¶111

¶112

1)RTI reply (09-09-2025), 2) Mining Plan map (p. 66), 3) Villangadu Village Map 4) Survey numbers of villanagdu village 4) Transport used by Ace mining quarry - Porur and neerpair panchayat road to reach state highways - 117.

¶113

If no action is initiated within 20 days from the date of receipt of this complaint, or within the legally stipulated period under the applicable laws and rules in force, I/we shall be constrained to seek appropriate legal remedies before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, including writ proceedings.

¶114

Further, this matter will also be escalated to vigilance and investigative authorities for a detailed probe, including:

¶115

Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Tamil Nadu

¶116

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

¶117

for investigation into the suspected illegal grant of NOC, misuse of Panchayat powers, corruption, and environmental violations. The officials and Panchayat members responsible shall be held personally and criminally liable under:

¶118

Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (Sec. 205 & 206)

¶119

Indian Penal Code (IPC 420, 468, 471, 1208, 268, 290)

¶120

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

¶121

Environment Protection Act, 1986 (Sec. 15)

¶122

Revenue Recovery Act

¶123

All costs for road damage, public health hazards, and environmental degradation will also be recovered personally from the erring Panchayat members and officials.

¶124

This quarry has already created grave risk to villagers, agriculture, water bodies, and public safety. Therefore, I demand urgent intervention and cancellation of the quarry license.”

¶125

The Applicant has not appeared before this Tribunal today physically or through V.C. However, instead of dismissing the application in default, we grant an adjournment for appearance of the Applicant before this Tribunal physically or through V.C.

¶126

Even though the present case has been listed before this Bench by registering original application on the basis of complaint made by the Applicant with approval and under order of Hon’ble the Chairperson, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the place of accrual of cause of action lies within jurisdiction of the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai, we are of the considered

¶127

¶128

view that it will be appropriate if the case is heard by the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai.

¶129

Accordingly, the Registry is directed to list the matter before the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai on 30.03.2026 after obtaining orders from Hon’ble the Chairperson for transfer of the case, if so required.

¶130

The Registry is directed to inform the Applicant about the date of hearing fixed and to ask him to join the proceedings physically or through V.C. and to produce the material available with him in support of the averments made in the O.A. on the date fixed before the Southern Zone Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai.

¶131

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶132

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶133

March 16^th , 2026 Original Application No. 133/2026 AB

¶134

Sarvanababu Ethirajalu vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvanababu Ethirajalu vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

News Item Titled "Radioactive Contamination Affects Habitations in Punjab Parliamentary Panel Urges Urgent Action" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 14.08.2025. vs

Vishesh Rathor vs Anand Veer Singh (the Then Police Station in-Charge Inspector Jagdishpura)

Harish Solanki vs Union of India

Gopalbhai Khodabhai Sanariya vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Devendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Smt Anupama Awasthi vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sagar Kantilal Devre vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Kumar Girdharilal Jaiswal vs State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Neeraj Chaudhary vs

Arvind Dube vs

Vijendra Singh Chiranjeev vs

Bittu vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Pt Girdhari Lal vs

K Basavaraju vs