SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ajay Prakash Misra and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Interlocutory Appln. (C) Nos. 2 and 17 in Writ Petn. (C) No. 1056 of 1990. D/d. 25.4.2000.

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and others - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - Environment Protection - Pollution - Pollution due to industrial effluents-Supreme Court directed the District Judge to report about the area affected by the said industrial effluents and determine compensation for the dry land and wet land - District Judge, directed the State Government to deposit and to disburse the compensation as per rate fixed by him within four weeks with liberty to recover the same from the concerned polluting industries - The said industries were expected to voluntarily deposit the amount.

[Paras 6 and 7]

ORDER

It has been pointed out to us that in the Order, decided on 11th April, 2000 at internal Page No. 5 it has been recorded "We notice from the report of the State Pollution Control Board that no provision yet has been made for the confiscation of tankers which are illegally transporting the industrial effluents under the E.P. Act." We are informed that there is already such notification on 5th July, 1999. To that extent the said order stands modified.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Today we took up the report of the District Judge, Medak, decided on 25th October, 1999 in pursuance to our earlier order for considering the payment of compensation to the persons, affected villagers as recorded therein.

4. At the outset an objection has been raised by some of the polluting industries who could not get the earlier report of the District Judge, decided on 7th January, 1998/and even the present report they have received recently, hence could not file objections. Their further objection is that this report increases the area more than five times than what was recorded in the last report. Hence the amount of the excess area should not be reimbursed now. They have also raised objection to the increase of the quantum of amount payable to the villagers and the rate which is increased from the flat rate of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,300/- for the dry land and Rs. 1,700/- for the wet land. Others have also raised certain objections with some minor discrepancy in the District Judge's report. It would be appropriate to take up this matter for final disposal after objections if any, are filed to this report. But we do feel to pass orders on this report today as an interim measure so that the over delayed payment is received by the affected villagers. The parties, if so desire, may file their objections to this report within a period of six weeks from today. The office may supply copies of both the reports of the District Judge, decided on 25th October, 1999 and earlier report, decided on 7th January, 1998 to the parties desiring to have it.

5. We heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. In order to avoid the controversy regarding excess area having covered by District Judge's report, at this stage, we record that parties have no objection in case the compensation is distributed to the persons of the affected village covered by an area referred in Annexure-D to the State Government's counter affidavit, decided on 11th. July, 1996. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the compensation, which is being assessed, only pertains to the loss of crop only, while the affected villagers are entitled to other compensations viz. loss of the life of their family, livestock etc. For the present we are only considering compensation as recommended by the District Judge's report, D/ - 25th October, 1999. After considering the matter we direct the District Judge to disburse the compensation as per his report, as per rate fixed by him i.e. Rs. 1,300/- for the dry land and Rs. 1,700/- for wet land only to the extent of area covered by the aforesaid Annexure-D with the help of the Revenue Officer. Such payment made shall be re-corded in detail the amount paid and to the persons paid and submit a report of having made the said payment by or before 18th of July, 2000 to this Court. As amount to pay would only be available within four weeks as per our order till hereunder that time a report may be got prepared by him as to whom the payments are to be made.

7. The amount quantified by the District Judge in his report shall be deposited by the State Government for the disbursement to the affected persons within four weeks from today. However, it is open to the State Government to recover this amount from the concerned polluting industries. We also observe that the polluting industries whose name figure in this report will voluntarily deposit with the State Government the amount according to their assessment within two weeks from today.

8. Office to send copy of this order to the District Judge, Madak aforesaid and to the Revenue Officer of that area within two days.

9. List this matter on the next date fixed.

Order accordingly.