This order by the NGT Southern Zone dismissed an original application challenging land acquisition for an industrial park. The bench held that the High Court of Madras had already addressed the issues and the project proponent had initiated the Environmental Clearance process, finding no merit for intervention at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No.04:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 8th day of July, 2026.
(Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)
Original Application No.37 of 2026 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:-
K. Palanivel,
Aged 45 years, Son of Karuppannan, Residing at No.2/275F,
Arakaraathottam, Valaiyapatti PO, Mohanur Taluk, Namakkal District.
… Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC),
The Secretary,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu,
No.327, Metros 9th floor, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 035.
3. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) Rep. by the Chairperson,
76, Mount Salar, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Rep. by the Secretary,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5. Department of Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce,
Rep. by the Secretary, 9th floor, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
6. Tamil Nadu SIPCOT,
State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Head Office, Rep. by the Managing Director,
19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Page 1 of 4
7. District Collector, Namakkal
8. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), SPICOT Industrial Park Project (Mohanur Unit), 1st Floor, District Collectorate Master Plan Complex, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal – 637 003.
…Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): M/s. V. Srimathi, Avinash Wadhwani. For Respondent(s): Mr. J. Vinoth a/w. Mr. U. Gokulakrishnan for State of Tamil Nadu. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for SEIAA – TN, TNPCB. Mr. Abhishek Murthy for SIPCOT.
CORAM :
HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
1. The present Original Application has been instituted by the Applicant against the proposed acquisition of land admeasuring 483 acres for setting up SIPCOT across Valayapatti, N. Pudhupatti, Arur, and Parali Panchayats in Mohanur Taluk for the establishment of an Industrial Park.
2. The applicant alleged that the proposed acquisition includes water bodies such as Thaimaan Lake, Kinathadipallam Lake, Valayapatti Govindapillai Lake, Mel Yeri, Keel Yeri, Arur Yeri, and agricultural land.
3. The applicant alleges that the respondent have initiated land acquisition without conducting a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
4. The applicant has sought the following prayers:
Page 2 of 4
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent/TNPCB submitted that the very same issue has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 9576 of 2025, K. Balasubramanian Vivasaya Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. by order dated 06.11.2025 , wherein it was observed as follows:
“4… … on account of the acquisition proposal made by the SIPCOT for establishment of industrial park, since the detailed counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the proposed acquisition of lands are only dry lands ad measuring 195.27.15 Hectares (482.51 acres) which do not includes any temple land or any water bodies in the Government lands involved in this project and as regards the Grazing grounds lands ad measuring 27.93.50 Hectares in all the three villages, the Government will work out alternate remedies to in among the Government poromboke lands in the nearby area for grazing purpose, no indulgence needs to be provided to the petitioner in the present case.”
6. It is also pertinent to note that the learned counsel appearing for the 6th Respondent–SIPCOT made a submission that an application for Environmental Clearance has been submitted and the Terms of Reference (ToR) have already been issued. The application is presently at the stage of conducting the public hearing. Accordingly, the process for obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC), including the conduct of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), has already been initiated.
7. Since the issues raised by the applicant have already been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the 6th Respondent has also initiated the process of obtaining Environmental Clearance which mandates EIA, we find no merit in the case at this stage. However, it is open to the Applicant to
Page 3 of 4
challenge the EC or violation of any environmental norms by the Project Proponent before this Tribunal.
8. It is also relevant to note that another Original Application No. 303 of 2024(SZ), involving similar allegations, was also withdrawn by the applicant therein.
9. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras in the Writ Petition referred above, the Original Application [O.A. No.37 of 2026(SZ)] stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
O.A. No.37/2026(SZ)
8 th July, 2026. AD.
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Original Application for restraint on industrial park establishment and mandate for EIA should be allowed when the High Court has already addressed similar issues.
Whether the proposed land acquisition procedure merits further intervention by the National Green Tribunal given the ongoing Environmental Clearance process.
If the Applicant is free to challenge Environmental Clearance or environmental norm violations separately before the Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Balasubramanian Vivasaya Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.Distinguished¶48
W.P. No. 9576 of 2025, K. Balasubramanian Vivasaya Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. by order dated 06.11.2025
K. Palanivel
Union of India
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB)
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries
Department of Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Prashant Gargava
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
