K.G. Mohanaraman vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board And Ors

1.This application has been filed by the applicant herein praying for restraining the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and their men and agents from laying high power transmission lines through the agricultural lands of the applicant and other agriculturists of Kayar village and Vembedu village destroying the ecological balance of the said villages. The brief facts of the case of the applicant can be stated as follows:

The applicant herein is an agriculturist owing agricultural lands in Kayar village and a resident of the said village. The 4th respondent herein formulated a scheme for laying Super High Tension Transmission (HTTL) from Pugalur to Ottiampakam village in Sholinganallur Taluk passing through the villages of Vembedu and Kayar. However, the people of the locality as well as the village Panchayat were never made aware about the said proposal of the laying of HTTL by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has proposed foundation pits to a depth of 20 m for supporting the massive structure and 4 40 ft x 34 ft pits for each tower in the above scheme. These pits are laid arbitrarily in private lands without any notice intimating about the said proposal and consequences arising thereof. An extent of 36 cents of land is dug up to a depth of 20" for installing the 4 towers put together which roughly covers an area of 126" x 124" leaving intermittent gaps and about 54, 000 cft concrete is laid to fill the excavated pits. Such a massive laying of concrete will severely obstruct or cause damage to the underground water streams which charge the shallow percolation wells which the farmers have developed and these steams will go completely or partially dry. The area does not have sufficient underground water and the wells in the lands are the only source for cultivation and blocking the wells will destroy the entire cultivation. Even if the activity is done for the larger public good, it has to be done in accordance with law. In the instant case, no notice was given to the farmers whose lands are being encroached for laying the foundation pillars for the tower base through which the HTPL will be connected with heavy duty cables and under the guise of laying poles, the 4th respondent is proposing to lay towering structures which will completely jeopardize the ecology of the total village and affect the life of agriculturists and small farmers of Kayar and Vembedu villages.

The 4th respondent is duty bound to study the environmental impact caused by the project and should take prompt steps to keep the impact at minimum with the coordination of the Environment Department and Agriculture Department. However, the 4th respondent in the instant case is not even bothered to conduct the study or survey about the impact of the project on the ecology, crops and the people.

The HTTL were laid upto Vembedu village mostly in Government lands and the 4th respondent's proposal from Vembedu village to Kayar village is aligned in the centre of the village where there are dense vegetation wherein the farmers have raised casuarinas/fruit bearing trees and other agricultural crops in their respective lands which normally grows to a height of 70 to 90 ft and the towers of the 4th respondent is of approximately the same height. The proposed route selected by the 4th respondent for the HPTL via Vembedu village and Kayar village is patently wrong and incorrect since an alternative route is readily available through poromboke and Government land along the periphery of the village thus avoiding the patta lands. While the villagers of Vembedu and Kayar villages are not against the public project and when an alternative and viable alignment is readily available through Government lands in the periphery of these villages, the authorities should not have taken a decision that will affect the ecology of the villages and the livelihood of about 1,000 agriculturists living in these villages.

When they came to know about the 4th respondent's project, the farmers objected to the same and also submitted their objections to the Chairman of the 4th respondent department and also to the District Collector. The Panchayats of Vembedu and Kayar villages as well as the Grama Sabha of these villages have passed resolutions to this effect and the 4th respondent did not even consider the objections raised by the farmers and their suggestion on about the availability of the alternative route. There is no practical problem in taking the alternative route as suggested by the farmers and the 4th respondent only with the sole intention to facilitate the contractor, did not consider the objections raised by the farmers and which would appease the vested interest of the contractor who would otherwise be burdened by taking more number of permissions from the local authorities in taking the alternative alignment suggested by the farmers.

In a similar issue GAIL India Ltd. (GAIL) a Government of India undertaking proposed to lay 'Kochi-Kootanad-Mangalore-Bangalore Pipe Line Project' for supplying natural gas, compressed natural gas and piped natural gas and on notice from GAIL, the concerned land owners whose lands were to be used for laying gas pipe line submitted their objections. Since a large number of objections were received from the farmers, the State Government directed the GAIL to lay pipelines along the National Highway without affecting the agricultural lands. The GAIL moved Hon'ble High Court against the State Government's direction and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is now seized of the matter and the granted interim order in favour of the agriculturists.

The proposal of the 4th respondent for laying HPTL via Vembedu and Kayar villages is against the national policy and principles of the State Government whose aim is to safeguard the poor farmers of the State and also to maintain the ecological balance by safeguarding agricultural lands. The soil depletion occurs when the components which contribute to fertility are removed and not replaced. Topsoil depletion occurs when the nutrient rich organic top soil which takes hundreds to thousands of years to form under natural conditions, is eroded or depleted of its original organic material. Such massive scale of digging and filling can alternatively replace or destroy the surface soil which is home to millions of micro nutrient and micro organisms formed over thousands of years which are essential for agriculture.

The Vembedu and Kayar villages are water starved and there is little groundwater for agriculture. The villages over the past 100 years have developed indigenous shallow percolation wells to support their complex agro system. When massive concrete in the order of 54,000 cft is poured into such small areas, it would completely obstruct/block the sensitive water streams and porous and will completely damage the wells in the area. The electromagnetic waves created along this transmission lines have a severe damaging effect on the health and reproduction of the poultry, sheep and cattle on which the farmers are dependent for their economic sustainability. The pollination activity of the fruit bearing trees/crops will be severely affected in view of the absence of insets and birds due to the heavy electromagnetic waves. The casuarinas and other tall growing trees are under high risk of fire even if they are grown at a distance from these cables since they are highly combustible and sway due to the wind. Most of the farmers and their families are workers themselves in their respective fields working even during nights and staying there in makeshift accommodations. Agricultural works will be at its peak during rainy season and the passage of the lines through the agriculture fields will cause high risk of electric shock to these farmers and their livestock besides causing other economic insurgency due to the laying of each structure under the guise of laying poles under the Telegraphic Act. Having no other efficacious remedy, the applicant herein has filed the application seeking the indulgence of the Tribunal.

Per contra, the first and second respondents, namely, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board) would state in reply that TANTRANSCO awarded the project of laying High Tension Transmission lines to transmit 440 KVA of electricity from Kalivanthapattu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kanchipuram District to Ottiyampakkam Village, Sholinganalur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The cost of the said project is Rs.300 Crores for laying about 88 High Tension Transmission Towers. The said site was inspected on 24.03.2014 by the Board officials and it was ascertained that one tower at Vembedu eri was under progress. The erection of tower from Kalivanthapattu Village to Vembedu eri has been completed. The work from Vembedu eri to Kayar village to Ottiyampakkam village is yet to be taken up due to the pendency of the application filed by the applicant herein before the Tribunal. The work of erection of tower from Kayar village to Ottiyampakkam village is under progress.

The erection of High Tension Transmission lines to transmit electricity does not come under the provision of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981(Air Act) and hence it does not require consent from the Board under the provisions of the said Acts. Hence, the Board seeks to pass appropriate orders on the applications.

The third respondent, namely, the District Collector Kanchipuram, would state in reply that the erection of 400 KVA double circuit line from Pugalur to Ottiyampakkam is a Tamil Nadu Government Scheme and it was widely published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 09.11.2011 and local newspaper by the 4th respondent under Section 28 (3) of Electricity Act, 1948. The application is not maintainable on the sole ground that the applicant seeks to challenge the Gazette notification dated 09.11.2011 after a delay of over two and half a years. The 4th respondent has exercised the powers under Section 42 of Electricity Supply Act and Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and no notice is required to be given the owners before laying the poles nor any consent is required from them, as empowered by the said Electricity Supply Act and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. So, the action of the 4th respondent is not illegal and the 4th respondent is exercising his powers under above said Acts in the larger interest of the people and development of the nation. The towers located in the paddy field will not be a hindrance for free flow of water as alleged by the applicant and the proposed route is approved by the Chief Engineer, TANTRANSCO and this 400 KV line is taken as per the approved route. There will not be any environmental impact or degradation by implementing this project but it will be beneficial to the general public. The procedure for the erection of 400 KV line followed by the 4th respondent for this project is similar to that is being adopted throughout India and there will not be any impact on ecology, people, crops etc. in this region. Moreover, the survey work for assessing transmission route of this route with reference to base line (BEE line) was entrusted to the Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University and the survey was been conducted for the above said 400 KV line. The 400 KV line has been surveyed and approve in Kayar village by the 4th respondent in such a way to avoid crossing of the line in reserve forest area around Kayar village. The alternative route suggested by the applicant goes through the reserve forest and hence it cannot be considered and the route proposed by the 4th respondent is the shortest possible route with minimum crossing on the cultivable land and trees. The 4th respondent has already erected transmission towers to bring in wind energy (green energy) and has installed 400 KV extra high tension line and the same will be energized end of March 2014 from their substation in Kayathar in Tirunelveli District to Sub Station at Ottiyambakkm in Kanchipuram Dstrict via 400 KV substation at Karaikudi, Pugalur in Karur District and Kalivanthapattu in Kanchipuram District for a total distance of 700 km. The work in the 6 km from Vembedu and Kayar villages are alone stalled due to the pendency of the instant application. The route proposed by the applicant consists of patta lands and also reserve forest area while the line proposed by the 4th respondent is the shortest possible route along the boundary of the village with minimum hindrance so as to avoid the residential area. The 4th respondent intends to cut around 98 palm trees, 12 neem trees in patta lands and poromboke lands, 11 acres of casuarinas trees (not fully grown) in privately owned - commercial crops only and not in hundreds of acre as alleged by the applicant. The farmers will be able to utilize the land beneath the tower line and under the tower area also. They can cultivate any kind of crops. It is false to state that the laying of HTTL will cripple small farmers on the usage of their lands and there will be fire hazards.

The entire project as proposed has been approved by the Government as the demand for electricity is far outstripping supply, and the State has announced this present project bridge the gap. If this project by the 4th respondent is completed, it will be able to provide uninterrupted power supply to the state of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the 3rd respondent seeks to pass further order on the application.

The 4th respondent, namely, the Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle-II, TANTRANSCO, Chennai would state in reply that there is a deficit of 509.50 MVA in the Chennai City and this deficit will be met through the following 230/110 KV Sub Stations (SS) which will be located at KITS Park 230/110/33-11 KV SS, Siruseri 230/110/KV SS and Taramani 230/110/33 KV SS in Sholinganallur area. In order to feed the above 230 KV SSs, it has become very essential to establish a 400 KV SS at Sholinganallur by extending 400 KV supply from Kalivanthapattu 400/230 KV SS. During the Joint study carried out by TNEB with Central Electricity Authority for the establishment of 400/230 KV Kanarpatty Wind Energy Sub Station, erection of 400 KV Double Circuit line by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) was suggested from the sanctioned Pugalur 400 KV SS to Kalivanthapattu 400 KV SS and in turn connecting Ottiyampakkam 400 KV SS (Sholinganallur). The proposal was discussed in the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Power System Planning of Southern region at Chennai on 22.01.2007 and the same was approved. The TNEB has approved the proposal for the establishment of 400/230-110 KV SS at Sholinganallur at an estimated cost of Rs. 14, 860 lakhs vide TNEB Proceedings. (FB) No. 76 dated 11.04.2007. By virtue of the provisions contained in Sub Section (2) (a) of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, TNEB being the transmission utility and licensee can exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which have already been conferred upon the TNEB under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Wide publicity was given through local news papers on 27.08.2011 under Section 28 (3) on the Electricity Act, 1948 about the proposed scheme for which route has been approved by TANTRANSCO vide proceedings dated 25.08.2011 and also it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 09.11.2011.

The erection of the 400 KV corridors by TNEB would facilitate evacuation of the wind power from Tirunelveli region through the Tirunelveli - Karaikudi - Pugalur 400 KV DC Corridor to the load centers around Chennai/Metro areas. By erection of the above line, the overloading of the Neyveli-Pondy-Sriperumbudur 400 KV Single Circuit line would also be avoided. The TNEB has approved the erection of 400 KV Double Circuit line for a Distance of 325 Km from Pugalur 400 KV SS to Kalivanthapattu 400 KV SS and Sholinganallur 400 KV SS (Ottiyampakkam SS) at an estimated cost of Rs. 878.41 crores vide (Per). B.P No. 137 dated 18.06.2007. The trees that are proposed to be cut are casuarina trees and that too they are commercial crops. Moreover, the long growing trees would be cut at beneath the line only to maintain necessary electrical clearance and the area of trees damaged would be very few acres only in Kayar village and not hundreds of acres as averred by the applicant. Further, necessary crop compensation will be paid to the affected farmers. The type of soil, nature of plantation, climate and ground water table will not be affected by providing this transmission line.

The earth work excavation for the 400 KV line depends on the type of towers. For example, the DA type tower will have a pit size of about 5 m x 5 m and DB, DC and DD will have 7 m x 7 m only and the concrete quantity for each tower per leg are about 20 m3 for DA towers and about 40 m3 for other type towers. DA type tower is a suspension tower, whose weight is lesser (19.60 MT) when compared with angle towers DB, DC and DD. Therefore, the earth work excavation differs according to type of towers. After the completion of foundation concrete work, the excavated pits will be back filled with the same soil and the tower leg portion will be exposed above the ground level (negligible volume in cross section) with meagre volume of land occupation. The towers located in the paddy field will not be a hindrance for flow of water and the farmers can carry on with the agriculture activity after the installation of the towers. Further the proposed route is approved by the Chief Engineer, Transmission of TANTRANSCO and this 400 KV line is taken in the approved route only. As such, the entire project has been proposed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the larger interest of citizens of Tamil Nadu and after a deep and deliberate discussion, the Government has approved the project. If it is stopped or delayed, it will cause enormous hardship and loss to the Government as well as to the general public. Moreover, if the project is allowed, 4th respondent will be able to provide uninterrupted power supply to the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, based on the above averments, the 4th respondent seeks to pass further orders on the applications.

The 5th respondent, namely, Gammon India Limited would state in reply that the contract for Package 5 from Veeramannur, Thiruvanamalai District to Ottiyampakkam, Kanchipuram District for a distance of 120 km for a cost of Rs. 345 crores was awarded to the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent on 20.07.2012 and the project is to be completed within a period of 18 months. About 200 persons were working on daily basis and work is not now being carried out due to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal on 07.02.2014. If the project is not completed before the scheduled date as per the contract terms, the 5th respondent reserves the right to claim 10% as liquidated damage. The route was already surveyed by the 4th respondent and there is no deviation on the part of the 5th respondent who has any power to deviate from the approved route. The 5th respondent is carrying out the installation activities as per approved specification and the construction works are monitored by the 4th respondent from time to time. Hence, the 5th respondent prays that the Tribunal may record the above facts and pass appropriate order. The entire proposal of laying the HTTL from Kayathar in Tirunelveli District to Ottiyambakkam,Chennai would cover a distance of 748 km at an estimated cost of Rs.2300 crore and the project is scheduled to be completed by the end of June, 2015. Out of 2058 towers proposed to be erected in the entire length of 748 km, erection of 2030 towers have been completed. The stringing of conductors for the length of about 710 km has also been completed out of which 588 km has been energized. As per the statement of the 4th respondent, the TANTRANSCO 22, tower foundations, 28 tower erections and line stringing for 38 km are yet to be made.

As seen above, this application is brought forth by the applicant, an agriculturist from Kayar village, Tiruporur Taluk to restrain the TRANTRANSCO, the 4th respondent and M/s. Gammon India Pvt. Ltd., the 5th respondent from laying a HTTL through the agricultural lands of the applicant and other agriculturists of the Kayar and Vembedu villages on the grounds set out in the application.

On the pleadings putforth by the parties, the following questions were formulated for decision by the Tribunal:

Whether the application is maintainable since it is barred by Limitation.

Whether the application is maintainable since it is outside the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant is entitled to get an order restraining 4th and 5th respondents for laying a HTTL as sought for by him.

To what relief the applicant is entitled to?

Elaborate deliberations were made by the learned Senior Advocate Shri Doraisamy, appearing for the applicant. The reply arguments were also advanced by the learned counsel for all the respondents. The Tribunal paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made and also looked into all the materials made available.

On a scrutiny of the materials made available, the following facts are noticed by the Tribunal:

In pursuance of a joint study carried out by the officials of the TNEB with the Central Electricity Authority for the establishment of 400/230 KV Kanarpatty Wind Energy SS, erection of 400 KV double circuit line by TNEB was suggested from the sanctioned Pugalur 400 KV SS to Kalivanthapattu 400 KV SS and in turn connecting Ottiyamabakkam 4oo KC SS (Sholignanallur). After a discussion in the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Power System Planning of Southern Region at Chennai on 22.01.2007, the proposal was approved. As seen from Annexure R-1, the TNEB approved the proposals vide Board's Proceedings dated 11.04.2007 for the establishment of 400/230-110 KV SS at Sholinganallur at an estimated cost of Rs. 14,860 lakh. The said proposal also indicated the provisions contained in sub section 2 (a) of the section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by which the TNEB is the Transmission Utility and Licensee to exercise the powers of the telegraph authority under the provisions of section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which was already conferred upon the TNEB under section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

The said scheme of 400 KV was proposed to be fed from Pugalur to the ongoing Kalivanthapattu 400 KV SS (Melakottaiyur) and to the proposed Ottiyambakkam (Sholinganallur) 400/230-110 KV SS. The route for the said proposed transmission line was approved by TANTRANSCO by its proceedings dated 25.08.2011 which was also published in the newspapers on 27.08.2011 as shown in Annexure R-2 and it was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 09.11.2011 as shown in Annexure R-3. The entire proposal of 400 KV SS from Kayathar in Tirunelveli District to Ottiyambakkam in Kanchipuram District would cover a distance of 748 km at an estimated cost of Rs. 2300 crore. As per the schedule, the project should be completed by the end of June, 2015. Out of 2058 towers proposed to be erected in the entire length of 748 km, erection of 2030 towers and foundation for 2036 towers are already completed. The stringing of conductors for a length of about 710 km was completed out of which 588 km has already been energized. As per the statement of the 4th respondent, TANTRANSCO, 22 tower foundations and 28 tower erection and line stringing for 38 km are yet to be made.

While the matter stood thus, the applicant has brought forth this application seeking to restrain the 4th respondent TANTRANSCO and the 5th respondent Gammon India (Pvt.) Ltd., who has entered into a contract for the execution of the project with the 4th respondent from laying the HTTL through the agricultural lands at Kayar and Vembedu villages alleging that the same would destroy the ecological balance of the said villages. It is also admitted that the dispute in respect of laying the HTTL through the said villages is only for a stretch of 6 km in which 14 towers were to be erected.

At the time of admission, it was submitted on the side of the applicant that the proposed scheme for laying super HTTL would be passing through the villages of Kayar and Vembedu, but the villagers were not given any notice and if permitted, the project would severely jeopardize not only the proprietary right of the land owners of the villages but also would cause damage to ecology and environment. Being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case, the Bench granted an interim order of stay of the project for laying super HTTL by the 4th respondent until further orders and the same continues to be in force. The respondents on appearance filed their respective replies and the applicant also filed the rejoinder.

Advancing the arguments on behalf of the 4th respondent, the learned counsel Shri. Abdul Saleem would submit that the application is liable to be dismissed since it is barred by limitation. Pointing to Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010 the counsel would submit that no application for adjudication under the section can be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose and even if the application is filed beyond the time, it can be entertained within a further period of sixty days provided sufficient cause is shown by the applicant. In the instant case, the respondent has caused paper publication in two local dailies on 27.08.2011 in which one is in the vernacular and other one is in English and subsequently a notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 09.11.2011 in respect of the route for the erection of transmission lines under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 now vested with the 4th respondent. It is also made clear in both the notification as well as the paper publication that any person might make representation in respect of the above project within one month from the date of issue of publication to the authority as per the Electricity Act, 2003. But, the applicant has filed this application on 04.02.2014 after a lapse of two and a half years from the date of cause of action and knowledge through paper publication and gazette notification. The said period of two and a half years is much beyond the period of limitation specified under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 and the delay is beyond condonation and hence the application is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision made by the NGT in Application No.414 of 2013 on 07.07.2014 in the matter of Coorg Wildlife Society through its Secretary vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

According to the counsel, the applicant cannot also maintain the application in view of lack of jurisdiction for the Tribunal to entertain the same. The dispute raised by the applicant does not fall within any one of the enactments referred to in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010. The applicant has filed this application under Section 18(1) r/w Section 14 of the NGT ACT, 2010. The Tribunal, under Section 14 can settle the disputes if there is a substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment is involved and such a question arises out of implementation of any of the Acts specified in Schedule I. Section 15 speaks about relief and compensation for the pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in Schedule I for restitution of damage to the property and also of the environment. The Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 has a list of seven enactments though the applicant has filed the application under sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010, the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 do not find place in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 and thus the application is not maintainable. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In order to substantiate the contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P. (c) 9337/2009; W.P. (c) 12719 /2009; W.P. (c) 13675/2009 reported in 2013 SCC Online Del 1471 dated 16.04.2013; Judgment of this Tribunal Application No. 414 of 2013 dated 07.07.2014 in the matter of Coorg Wildlife Society through its Secretary vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. in Paragraph 45; Judgment of the Principal bench of this Tribunal, New Delhi in M.A. No.894 of 2014 in O.A. No.26 of 2012 dated 13.01.2015 and thus on the above grounds the application is barred by limitation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application and the application has got to be dismissed.

Answering to the above contention, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Doraisamy, appearing for the applicant would submit that the present scheme was published in the Indian Express and Namadhu MGR on 27.08.2011 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 09.11.2011. The name of Vembedu village did not figure in the paper publication and in the Gazette Notification in both in Tamil and English version, the name of Kayar village was wrongly given. The villagers of Vembedu and Kayar have first come to know about the said project when the subordinates of the 5th respondent contractors entered the said villages in the 2nd week of January, 2014 for the purpose of survey. Upon coming to know the project, the villagers of both the villages raised protest and made representations to the 3rd and 4th respondents but to no avail. The applicant representing the villages has approached the Tribunal and obtained an order of interim stay on 07.02.2014. According to section 14 (3) of the NGT, Act, 2010 no application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. The damage to the lands of the villagers is a continuous one i.e., on day-to-day basis. Hence, the application is not barred by time. It is true that the provision of law has been wrongly typed as section 16 instead of section 14 in the application. The respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same and thus the application is well within the time.

Countering the contentions putforth by the respondents' side on the maintainability in view of lack of jurisdiction, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the application is well within the jurisdiction of the NGT Act, 2010 as per the provisions of the Act. As per section 2 (a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (E P Act, 1986), the 'environment' includes water, air, land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. Section 2 (e) defines 'hazardous substance' which would include electricity also. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in AIR 1998 Allahabad-page 1 in paragraphs 33 and 34 that electricity is a hazardous substance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 reported in 2013 SCC online Del 1471 as shown under Annexure 6 (page Nos. 25 to 28) that before a matter can be brought to Tribunal, it should fulfil two requirements and the first one is the substantial question arising out of implementation of one or more Acts specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010. If an applicant fulfils the first requirement, the Tribunal would gave also power to provide one or more reliefs as envisaged in section 15 of the NGT, Act, 2010. A combined reading of the above decisions would make it clear that the subject matter comes under the purview of the E P Act, 1986 which is one of the enactments listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010. Thus, the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain the application.

In view of rival contentions raised on both sides with regard to the questions relating to the (i) limitation and (ii) lack of jurisdiction, these questions are taken up first for discussion and for decision before going into the merits of the case to resolve the other questions formulated based on the pleadings.

Question Nos. 1 and 2:

After careful consideration of the submissions made and scrutiny of the documents made available by both sides, the Tribunal is of the considered view that neither the application is barred by time nor can it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the same. The applicant, an agriculturist from Kayar village, has filed this application in his capacity as ex-councillor and ex-president of the village Panchayat and has also represented the other agriculturists in both Kayar and Vembedu villages under section 18 (1) read with sections 14 and 15 of the NGT, Act, 2010. Speaking on the original jurisdiction of the NGT, section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows:

"14. Tribunal to settle disputes: - (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose.

Provided that the Tribunal may, if satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period of sixty days".

A reading of the above provision would make it clear that before an application is brought forth before the Tribunal, the application should fulfil the twin requirements of which firstly, it should involve a substantial question arising out of implementation of one or more of the Acts specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act, 2010. Even if the applicant is able to satisfy the above requisite, the Tribunal can adjudicate the dispute only if it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and the Tribunal for the sufficient cause can condone the delay for a period of not exceeding 60 days in making the application. Pointing the provisions, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents would contend that the application was made beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Contrarily, it is pleaded by the applicant that the application is well within the time.

It is true that the 4th respondent caused two paper publications regarding the project, one in vernacular and other in English on 27.08.2011. It is also true that the notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 09.11.2011 in respect of the route for the erection of transmission lines under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was also made clear that any representation in respect of the above project might be made to the authorities within one month therefrom. According to the respondents, in view of the publication made in the dailies and also the notification in the Government Gazette, there was a delay of two and half years since the application was filed on 04.02.2014. This contention cannot be countenanced as the applicant has not challenged the notifications issued in respect of the transmission lines. If done so, the period of limitation has to be reckoned therefrom. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant the name of Vembedu village did not figure in the newspaper publication dated 27.08.2011 and also in the Gazette notification. The people of the locality as well as the Panchayat were never made known about the said proposal of the transmission line by the 4th respondent and no notice was given about the project and when they came to know of the project, the villagers raised protest and approached the Tribunal. It is specifically pleaded by the applicant that the farmers of the villages will be put to untold hardships and agony in the event of implementation of the said project by cutting down the casuarina trees and other plantations and permanently preventing agriculture for raising crops in future and cause continuous sufferings of farmers and as such the application was will within limitation as per section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, the indication of section 16 in the application while filing the same, is only a typographical error instead of section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. Thus, in view of the above circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was any delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal after gaining the knowledge about the project.

Equally, the Tribunal has to necessarily disagree on the contention putforth by the respondents' side that the application cannot be maintained in view of lack of jurisdiction for the Tribunal to entertain this application. Speaking on the jurisdiction, section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows:

"14. Tribunal to settle disputes: - (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon".

Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows:

Relief, compensation and restitution: - The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,-

(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);

(b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.

(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public liability Insurance Act,1991 ( 6 of 1991).

(3) ***

(4)***

(5)***

From the very reading as pointed out earlier the applicant should fulfil twin requirements that it should involve a substantial question which should arise out of one or more of the Acts specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 which reads as follows:

Schedule I

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; and

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Under Section 15, the Tribunal has got wide powers to provide single or plural reliefs as envisaged under the provisions under the NGT Act, 2010.

What is contended by the contesting respondents is that under Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 the State Government has conferred upon the licensee, namely, TNEB a power of placing electrical lines/electrical plant for transmission of electricity. Under Section 40 of Electricity Act, 2003 the 4th respondent TANTRANSCO, being a transmission licensee is empowered to build, maintain and operate an efficient, co-ordinated and economical intra-state transmission system and thus the entire subject matter of the application falls within the ambit of Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But, both the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 do not find place in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 and hence the application is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Here again, it remains to be stated that the applicant has not challenged the notifications issued. The applicant has sought for the relief to restrain the 4th and 5th respondents from laying a HTTL through the agricultural lands of the said villagers destroying the ecological balance. He has specifically pleaded that the interest of poor farmers has to be safeguarded and also the ecological balance has to be maintained by safeguarding the agricultural lands. Specific averments were made in the application that if the project is allowed to be carried out it will have an adverse impact on the agricultural lands and plantations by loss of surface soil fertility, water depletion, loss of ecology, fire hazards, electric shock and safety and economic insurgency. As rightly pointed out by the applicant's side, the factual situation would attract the provisions of E P Act, 1986 which is an enactment that finds place in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010. Taking into consideration the specific averments made by the applicant and also reliefs sought for as stated above it has to be held that the application can be maintained before the Tribunal.

Question Nos. 3 and 4:

Advancing the arguments on the merits of the applicant's case seeking an order to restrain the 4th and 5th respondents from laying the HTTL through the agricultural lands of the both the villages, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant would submit that the proposed scheme in laying the super HTTL in the middle of both the villages was arbitrary and illegal. The 4th respondent has not taken into consideration the destruction of casuarina, coconut trees and other plantations raised in hundreds of acres due to the laying of HTTL would cause ecological imbalance and environmental degradation. The valid objections raised by the farmers who were fully depending on the agricultural lands were thoroughly ignored to suit to the convenience of the 5th respondent, contractor. Though alternative route was suggested by the farmers, the same was not considered by the 4th respondent and if the alternative alignment suggested by the farmers was taken into consideration it would have resulted in minimal damage. Referring to the Annexure 12 filed by the applicant in the typeset, the counsel pointed out that the proposal for establishment for 400/ 230-110 SS at Sholinganallur was only approved by TNEB under its proceedings dated 11.04.2007. From the paper publications and also the notification in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette relied on by the respondent it would be quite clear that the approval was not given by the appropriate Government. It is true that there is no proper approval from the appropriate Government. The Government order in G.O. Ms.No.16 dated 23.03.2012 is only an order conferring power under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The G.O. cannot be given retrospective effect to validate the TNEB's proceedings dated 11.04.2007.

In reply to the above contention, the counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. Ms.No.16 dated 23.03.2012 has approved and empowered TANTRANSCO and TANGEDCO to exercise such powers for placing electric supply lines for the transmission of electricity as a telegraph authority possesses under the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 under Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003.

In the considered opinion of the Tribunal, the above contention putforth by the applicants' side does not arise on the grounds that the applicant has not challenged any of the proceedings, Government order or notifications in respect of erecting the transmission lines and hence he cannot be allowed to question the validity of the same. It is also pertinent to note that the villagers have specifically averred that they are not against this public project. The relief sought for is based on two grounds that the proposed route selected by the 4th respondent for the project would not only cause damage to the agriculture but also destroy ecological balance of the said villages and apart from that, when an alternative route is available for laying the transmission lines, the 1st respondent should not take the lines through the villages destroying casuarina and other trees raised in 100 acres of land.

On 20.08.2014, it was submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that there was a fire accident in Kayar village. Hence, a report was called for from the 3rd respondent, District Collector in that regard. Following the direction of the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent, District Collector, made an inspection on 30.08.2014 along with the revenue and TNEB officials in the presence of the public. The District Collector submitted a report which reads as follows:

"a) A fire accident took place in a portion the casuarina tree plantation at SF No.1033 of Kayar village of Thiruporur Taluk of Kanchipuram District with total extent of 4.265 hectares on 06.04.2014. The patta stands in the name of Tmt.Jayalakshmi in Patta No.817. Only some casuarina crops were seen black in colour on the ground surface. One LT line is passing through the Casuarina plantations at the spot but there is no evidence to prove that the fire has occurred because of LT line. Because the casuarina crops are not burnt and the entire field has got mixed green crops and black crops. No fire accident occurred at any other place at Kayar village.

b) The fire service and rescue department log book has mentioned about the accident. It was a small fire accident and brought under control within 30 minutes.

c) So no investigation was conducted by any authorities and hence the identification of source of fire does not arise.

d) The photographs (3 Nos.) of the site inspection are enclosed herewith for the Hon'ble Green Tribunal for kind perusal".

Along with the above report, the 3rd respondent, District Collector made a report the present status of the erection of 400 KV Double Circuit line from Kalivanthapattu 400 KV SS to Ottiyambakkam 400 KV SS. He has pointed out that the tower foundation of 65 locations was completed out of 88 locations and the erection of tower has been completed in 30 locations and the remaining works were under progress. Line stringing work was completed for 7 km out of 26.981 km. The expenditure so far incurred for this project was Rs. 36 crore. The tower foundation for 14 locations could not be completed in Kayar and Vembedu villages due to the objection by the concerned villages and the interim stay granted by the Tribunal. Out of 14 locations, 11 fell in Kayar Village. A joint inspection was conducted by the TNEB and revenue officials to find out the exact locations, survey numbers and the present status of the lands in which the tower foundations were proposed to be located in Kayar village. The details in respect of survey numbers, classification of land, name of the patta holder, and crops cultivated in the lands covered by each tower were also attached to the report. It is pertinent to point out that out of the lands covered under 10 towers to be erected out of 11, they were classified as wetlands while 1 is shown as dry land. But, out of these lands 10 were noticed as fallow while casuarinas trees were found in 2 of those lands. The 3rd respondent has pointed out the most of the lands were lying fallow and further the HTTL towers proposed to be installed would be for a height of 60 ft from the ground level and hence any kind of cultivation could be carried out without any hindrance. After seeing the above report a query was made in respect of the survey numbers of the lands through which the proposed transmission line was to be taken. It was submitted by the respondents' side that in view of the protest by the villagers, the officials could not collect the data and necessary direction was required to be issued to the villagers in that regard. A direction was issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar concerned to conduct a proper survey and submit a report indicating the survey Nos. of the lands through which the transmission line was to be taken and a direction was issued to the villagers to extend their co-operation. After making the inspection, a joint inspection report was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar 26.09.2014. The joint inspection report contains the details of survey numbers of the lands, name of the land owner along with patta number Vembedu village in which the proposed 400 KV transmission line would pass through. All the pieces of land falling under

40 sub divisions of different survey Nos. though classified as wet, were all noticed vacant. Equally, the joint inspection report in respect of Kayar village contains the details of survey numbers of the lands, name of the land owner along with patta number of Kayar village in which the proposed 400 KV transmission line would pass through. In respect of Kayar village, all the pieces of land falling under 374 sub divisions of different survey numbers most of them though classified as wet remain vacant except a few where casuarinas trees have been planted. At the time of inspection, out 374 pieces of land 277 were seen vacant, 44 pieces of land were found with casuarina plantation, 41 pieces of land were with paddy and other crops and 13 pieces of land were with other utilities like road etc. It is pertinent to point out that the joint inspection was made in the last of week of September, 2014. As per the report the details of land owners in the 400 KV transmission line crossing the Vembedu and Kayar villages in Kanchipuram District as furnished by the RDO, Chengalpattu are as follows:

Vembedu Village

Sl.No

Survey No.

Classification

Patta

Name of the Pattadar

Crops

No.

cultivated

1

430/1B

Wet

420

Ramakrishnan

vacant

2

430/1C

Wet

1027

Ravi

vacant

3

430/2A

Wet

630

Panchacharan

vacant

4

430/2 B

Wet

434

Ramakrishnan

vacant

5

430/2C

Wet

305

Panchacharam

vacant

6

430/3

Wet

1027

M.Ravi

vacant

7

430/4

Wet

420

Ramakrishnan

vacant

8

430/5

Wet

988

Perema

vacant

9

431/1

Wet

352

Masilamani

vacant

10

431/2A

Wet

202

Subramanian

vacant

11

431/2B

Wet

815

Muniammal

vacant

12

431/2C

Wet

816

Ganeshnayakar

vacant

13

431/2D

Wet

815

Muniammal

vacant

14

431/2E

Wet

202

Subramanian

vacant

15

431/2F

Wet

815

Muniammal

vacant

16

432/1

Wet

102

Kaniappan

vacant

17

432/2

Wet

312

Natesan

vacant

18

432/3

Wet

509

Jaganathan

vacant

19

432/4

Wet

102

Kaniappan

vacant

20

432/5

Wet

102

Kaniappan

vacant

21

432/6

Wet

88

Kabali

vacant

22

432/7

Wet

103

Rani ammal

vacant

23

432/8A

Wet

103

Rani ammal

vacant

24

432/8B

Wet

509

Jaganathan

vacant

(TOWER

Loc.No:47/0)

25

432/9

Wet

102

Kaniappan

vacant

26

432/10

Wet

626

Sekar

vacant

27

432/11

Wet

509

Jaganthan

vacant

28

432/12

Wet

626

Sekar

vacant

29

435/1

Wet

104

Sekar

vacant

30

435/2

Wet

860

Sivalingam

vacant

31

435/3A

Wet

713

Mannadhan

vacant

32

435/3B

Wet

469

Veera raghavan

vacant

33

435/3C

Wet

469

Veera raghavan

vacant

34

435/3D

Wet

469

Veera Raghavan

vacant

35

435/3E

Wet

469

Veera Raghavan

vacant

36

436/1

Wet

104

Sekar

casuarina

37

436/2

Wet

104

Sekar

casuarina

38

436/3

Wet

723

Mannadhan

casuarina

(TOWER

Loc No:48/0)

39

436/4

Wet

636

Damodharan

vacant

40

436/5

Wet

217

Chandhirammal

vacant

Kayar Village

Sl.No

Survey No.

Classification

Patta

Name of the Pattadar

Crops

No.

cultivated

1

1071/1

Dry

41

Abdul Raup (Chennai)

casuarina

2

1071/2

Dry

1002

Amirthammal, W/oThagil

casuarina

Seshappa Naicker (1),

Ramalingam (2)

3

1092/2B

Dry

33

Ambika, W/O.

casuarina

Lakshmipathy

4

1092/2C

Dry

1278

Sitrarasu, S/o.

casuarina

(Tower)

Kothandaraman

5

1092/2D

Dry

737

Rameswari w/o

casuarina

Gnanamani

6

1093/1A

Dry

608

Mallika w/o Jayabal

casuarina

7

1093/1B

Dry

40

Alamelu w/o Ramadass

casuarina

8

1093/1C

Dry

40

Alamelu w/o Ramadass

casuarina

9

1093/2

Dry

120

Elumalai s/o Vanrasi

casuarina

Naicker

10

1093/3

Dry

120

Elumalai s/o Vanrasi

casuarina

Naicker

11

1070/1

Wet

120

Elumalai s/o Vanrasi

Casuarinas

Naicker

12

1070/2A

Wet

737

Rameswari w/o

casuarina

Gnanamani

13

1070/2B

Wet

784

Veerapathiran s/o

casuarina

Varadappan

14

1070/3

Wet

845

Mohananraman s/o

casuarina

Govinda Naicker (1)

Ramanujam s/o Govinda

Naicker (2)

15

991

120

Elumalai s/o Vanrasi

casuarina

16

990

Wet

341

Seenuvasan s/o Sundra

casuarina

Naicker

17

992/2

Wet

120

Elumalai s/o Vanrasi

casuarina

18

992/3

Wet

120

Elumalai s/o Vanrasi

casuarina

19

983/1

Wet

1655

Thulasingam s/o Selvaraj

Vacant

20

983/2

Wet

380

Selvaraj s/o Murugesan

Vacant

21

896/1A 1

Wet

1531

Sridevi W/o

Casuarina

Chandrasekaran

22

896/1A 2

Wet

1532

Deenadayalan, S/o

Casuarina

Chakarapani

23

896/1B

Wet

120

Elumalai , S/o Vanrasi

Road

24

896/2A 1

Wet

1532

Deenadayalan, S/o

Casuarina

Chakarapani

25

896/2A 2

Wet

1621

Mohanaraman, S/o

Road

Govinda naicker

Manimegalai,W/o

Ramanujam

26

896/2B

Wet

120

Elumalai , S/o Vanrasi

Road

27

982/1

Wet

662

Mohanaraman, S/o

Casuarina

Govinda naicker

28

982/2 A

Wet

1621

Mohanaraman, S/o

Casuarina

Govinda naicker

Manimegalai,W/o

Ramanujam

29

982/2 B

Wet

1531

Sridevi w/o

Casuarina

(TOWER)

Chandrasekhar

30

982/2 C

Wet

1532

Deenadayalan s/o

Casuarina

(TOWER)

Chakkrapani

31

993/1

Wet

662

Mohanaraman, S/o

Casuarina

Govinda naicker

32

993/2

Wet

40

Alamelu w/o Ramadass

Casuarina

33

989/1

Wet

1657

Thulasingam s/o Selvaraj

Vacant

34

989/2

Wet

1658

Dhanasekaran s/o

Vacant

Selvaraj (1) Thulasingam

s/o Selvaraj(2)

35

989/3

Wet

1659

Dhanasekaran s/o

Vacant

Selvaraj

36

897/1

Wet

100

Elumalai s/o Kannappan

Vacant

37

897/2A1

Wet

100

Elumalai s/o Kannappan

Vacant

38

897/2B1

Wet

191

Kadumbadiammal w/o

Vacant

Lakshmanan

39

897/2B 2

Wet

191

Kadumbadiammal w/o

Vacant

Lakshmanan

40

897/1

Wet

100

Elumalai s/o Kannappan

Vacant

41

897/2A 1

Wet

100

Elumalai s/o Kannappan

Vacant

42

897/2 A 2

Wet

100

Elumalai s/o Kannappan

Vacant

43

897/2 B 1

Wet

191

Kadumbadiammal w/o

Vacant

Lakshmanan

44

897/2 B 2

Wet

191

Kadumbadiammal w/o

Vacant

Lakshmanan

45

902/1

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

46

902/2 A

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

47

902/2B

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

48

903/ 1 A

Wet

429

Dhanusu s/o Elumalai

Casuarina

49

903/2 A

Wet

1274

Alemelu w/o Dhanusu

Casuarina

0

903/2 B

Wet

1274

Alemelu w/o Dhanusu

Casuarina

51

905/1A

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Vacant

Dhanusu

52

905/1B

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Vacant

Dhanusu

53

905/2 A

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Vacant

Dhanusu

54

905/2 B

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

55

901/1 A

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

56

901/1 B

Wet

557

Balasundaram s/o

Casuarina

Lakshmanan

57

901/2

Wet

557

Balasundaram s/o

Casuarina

Lakshmanan

58

907

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Vacant

Dhanusu

59

906/1 A

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Road

Dhanusu

60

906/1 B

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Casuarina

Dhanusu

61

906/ 2 A

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Casuarina

Dhanusu

62

906/ 2 B

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

63

912/1

Wet

700

Ramamoorthy s/o

Casuarina

Manickam

64

912/2

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

65

912/3

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Casuarina

66

910

Wet

147

Ganesan s/o Elumalai

Vacant

( TOWER)

67

911/ 1A

Wet

318

Sarangan s/o Adimoolam

Vacant

68

911/ 1B

Wet

358

Subramani s/o

Vacant

Adimoolam

69

911/ 1C

Wet

485

Devarajan s/o Kaliya

Vacant

Mudaliar

70

911/ 2

Wet

521

Nagarathinam w/o

Vacant

Subramani

71

909/1

Wet

685

Rajamanickam s/o

Vacant

Ganajan

72

909/2

Wet

541

Paramasivam s/o

Vacant

Dhanusu

73

923/1

Wet

447

Thiruneelakandan s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

74

923/2

Wet

650

Muniammal w/o

Casuarina

Velayudham

75

923/3

Wet

205

Kallachiammal w/o Angu

Vacant

Nayakar

76

923/4

Wet

1088

Jayaraman s/o Kalyan

Vacant

naicker and two members

77

862/1

Wet

447

Thiruneelakandan s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

78

862/2

Wet

931

Subramani s/o Natesan

Vacant

79

862/3

Wet

447

Thiruneelakandan s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

80

860/1

Wet

524

Nalammal w/o

Vacant

Bakthavachalam

81

860/2

Wet

524

Nalammal w/o

Vacant

Bakthavachalam

82

860/3

Wet

147

Ganesan s/o Elumalai

Vacant

83

861/1 A

Wet

Symala W/o Devarajan

Vacant

84

861/1 B

Wet

317

Saraugpani s/o Manickam

Vacant

85

861/2

Wet

692

Rajammal w/o

Vacant

Tiruvenkatam

86

861/3

Wet

692

Rajammal w/o

Vacant

Tiruvenkatam

87

871/ 1 A

Wet

485

Devaraj s/o Kalya

Vacant

88

871/ 1 B

Wet

735

Rajeswari w/o

Vacant

Loganathan

89

871/ 12

Wet

448

Thiruloganayaki w/o

Vacant

Thiruneela kandan

90

857/1

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Vacant

91

857/2

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Vacant

92

857/4

Wet

303

Sakuntala w/o Karnan

Vacant

93

857/3

Wet

278

Ranganathan s/o

Vacant

Kanniappan

94

857/5

Wet

278

Ranganathan s/o

Vacant

Kanniappan

95

857/6

Wet

278

Ranganathan s/o

Vacant

Kanniappan

96

857/7

Wet

278

Ranganathan s/o

Vacant

Kanniappan

97

856

Wet

182

Kanagavalli w/o Ramu

Vacant

98

854/1

Wet

4

Varadaraja Perumal Kovil

Vacant

99

854/3

Wet

485

Devarajan s/o Kalya

Vacant

Mudalian

100

854/12

Wet

485

Devarajan s/o Kalya

Vacant

Mudalian

101

854/14

Wet

485

Devarajan s/o Kalya

Vacant

(TOWER)

Mudalian

102

854/4A

Wet

661

Jagadeesan s/o Mohan

Vacant

103

854/4B

Wet

1780

Pratheebha D/o

Vacant

Thangavel

104

854/5

Wet

1395

Balakrishnan s/o

Vacant

Thiruneelakandan

105

854/6 A

Wet

447

Thiruneelakandan s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

106

854/6 B

Wet

648

Muthusamy s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

107

854/15

Wet

447

Thiruneelakandan s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

108

854/18

Wet

447

Thiruneelakandan s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

109

854/16

Wet

1256

Shyamala w/o Devarajan

Vacant

110

854/17

Wet

692

Rajammal w/o

Vacant

(TOWER)

Thiruvankadam

111

854/11

Wet

692

Rajammal w/o

Vacant

Thiruvankadam

112

854/13

Wet

692

Rajammal w/o

Vacant

Thiruvankadam

113

854/19

Wet

1342

Kannan s/o Arumugam

Vacant

114

854/20

Wet

1342

Kannan s/o Arumugam

Vacant

115

854/21

Wet

1342

Kannan s/o Arumugam

Vacant

116

854/22

Wet

429

Dhanusu s/o Elumalai

Vacant

117

854/23

Wet

429

Dhanusu s/o Elumalai

Vacant

118

854/10

Wet

1779

Janaki w/o Neelakandan

Vacant

119

854/6C

Wet

155

Kalyani D/o Rajagopal

Vacant

120

854/7 B

Wet

655

Meganathan s/o Kanmani

Vacant

121

854/7A

Wet

218

Kali s/o appadurai

Vacant

122

854/8

Wet

1192

Arumugam s/o

Vacant

Ponnapppan and 5

Persons

123

854/9

Wet

265

Govindasamy s/o

Vacant

Vedachalam

124

853/1 A

Wet

1342

Kannan s/o Arumugam

Vacant

125

853/1B

Wet

1342

Kannan s/o Arumugam

Vacant

126

853/2 A

Wet

559

Punniakotti s/o Kali

Vacant

127

853/2 B

Wet

594

Mani s/o Arjunan

Vacant

128

848/2

Wet

530

Padmavathi w/o Vanrasi

Vacant

129

848/3

Wet

1610

Mohana w/o Duraivel

Vacant

130

848/4

Wet

700

Ramamoorthu s/o

Vacant

Manickam

131

848/1

Wet

203

Siva s/o Kannapillai

Vacant

132

850

Nil

-

Govt.Land

Vacant

133

847

Wet

700

Ramamoorthy s/o

Vacant

Manickam

134

330/1A

Wet

686

Ramachandran s/o

Vacant

Kannapan

135

330/1B

Wet

686

Ramachandran s/o

Road

Kannapan

136

330/2A

Wet

754

Loganathan s/o

Vacant

Kannappan

137

330/2 B

Wet

754

Loganathan s/o

Road

Kannappan

138

330/3 A

Wet

1536

Pushpa w/o

Vacant

Balasundaran

139

330/3 B

Wet

1518

Paravthi w/o

Vacant

Dakhinamoorthy

140

330/3 C

Wet

1518

Paravthi w/o

Road

Dakhinamoorthy

141

321/1

Wet

882

Mani s/o Arjunan

Vacant

142

321/2 A

Wet

883

Manivannan s/o

Vacant

Ramakrishnan

143

321/2 B

Wet

1708

Dinesh Kumar s/o Prasad

Vacant

Rau

144

321/3

Wet

1635

Dinesh Kumar s/o Prasad

Vacant

Rau

145

321/5

Wet

530

Padmavati w/o Vanrasi

Vacant

146

321/6

Wet

883

Manivannan s/o

Vacant

Ramakrishnan

147

321/7

Wet

700

Ramamoothy s/o

Vacant

Manickam

148

335/1

Wet

569

Perumal s/o Ganapthy

House

149

335/2

Wet

569

Perumal s/o Ganapthy

Road

150

334/1 A

Wet

103

Elumalai s/o Seenappa

Vacant

(TOWER)

Naicker

151

334/1 B

Wet

1420

Kothandaraman s/o

Paddy

nagamuthu (1)

Jayakodi w/o

Kothandaraman (2)

152

334/2

Wet

530

Padmavati w/o Dhanusu

Vacant

153

334/3

Wet

530

Padmavati w/o Dhanusu

Vacant

154

334/1

Wet

415

Dhanalakshmiammal W/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

155

331 (Tower)

Wet

4

Varadaraja Perumal Kovil

Vacant

156

332/2

Wet

3

Adeswarar Kovil

Vacant

(Tower)

157

333/1

Wet

1345

Balasundaram S/o

Vacant

Raghavan

158

333/2

Wet

702

Ramadass S/o

Vacant

Thangavel

159

333/3

Wet

702

Ramadass S/o

Vacant

Thangavel

160

340/1

Wet

1419

Jayakodi W/o

Vacant

Kothandaraman

161

340/3

Wet

1419

Jayakodi W/o

Vacant

Kothandaraman

162

340/2

Wet

515

Iyyappan S/o Arumugam

Vacant

163

340/4

Wet

515

Iyyappan S/o Arumugam

Vacant

164

340/9

Wet

515

Iyyappan S/o Arumugam

Vacant

165

340/7

Wet

1544

Krishnamoorthy S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

166

340/10

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

167

340/11

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

168

340/14

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

169

340/15

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

170

340/16

Wet

18

Arjunan S/o Kullappan

Vacant

171

340/5

Wet

1594

Krishnamoorthy S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

172

340/6

Wet

385

Sokkammal W/o Perumal

Vacant

173

340/8

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

174

340/13

Wet

559

Punniakotti S/o Kali

Vacant

175

340/12

Wet

797

Vanrasi S/o Appadurai

Vacant

176

340/17

Wet

569

Perumal S/o Ganapati

Vacant

177

340/18

Wet

160

Kannappan S/o

Vacant

Ponnappan

178

341

Wet

702

Ramadass S/o

Vacant

Thangavel

179

343/1

Wet

324

Chinnasami S/o Kali

Vacant

180

343/2

Wet

662

Mohanaraman S/o

Vacant

Govinda Naicker

181

343/3

Wet

214

Kali S/o Apparav

Vacant

182

343/4

Wet

415

Dhanalakshmiammal W/o

Vacant

Chinnasamy

183

342/1

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Paddy

Chinnasamy

184

342/3A

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Paddy

Chinnasamy

185

342/2

Wet

324

Chinnasami S/o Kali

Paddy

186

342/3B

Wet

1411

Chinnasami S/o Kali

Paddy

187

342/3C

Wet

1518

Parvati W/o

Vacant

Dakshinamoorthy

188

342/4

Wet

324

Chinnasami S/o Kali

Ragi

189

352

Wet

1168

Megu S/o Arumugam and

Vacant

Four Members

190

270/1

Wet

1518

Parvati W/o

Vacant

Dakshinamoorthy

191

270/2

Wet

1518

Parvati W/o

Paddy

Dakshinamoorthy

192

268/1

Wet

1593

Kannapiran S/o

Corn

Chinnasamy

193

268/2

Wet

408

Dhanalakshmiammal W/o

Corn

Muthu

194

353/1

Wet

703

Raniammal W/o

Paddy

Kannamani

195

353/2

Wet

703

Raniammal W/o

Paddy

Kannamani

196

353/3

Wet

703

Raniammal W/o

Paddy

Kannamani

197

267/1

Wet

1552

Muthu S/o Kali

Vacant

(Tower)

198

267/2

Wet

860

Krishnaveni (1)

Vacant

Dhanalakshmi (2)

199

354/1A

Wet

1683

Seenivasan S/o

Angular

(Tower)

Ranganathan. 1

ground

200

354/1B

Wet

1685

Seenivasan S/o

Angular

(Tower)

Ranganathan. 1

ground

Ramachandran S/o

Ranganathan.2

201

354/1C

Wet

1684

Ramachandran S/o

Angular

(Tower)

Ranganathan.

ground

202

354/2

Wet

279

Senbagavalli W/o

Angular

Arjunan

ground

203

262/1A

Wet

491

Navamani D/o

Vacant

Gangadurai Naicker

204

262/1B1

Wet

1683

Srinivasan S/o

Vacant

Ranganathan

205

262/1B2

1684

Ramachandran S/o

Vacant

Ranganathan.

206

262/2

Wet

1233

Arumugam S/o

Vacant

Munusamy

207

357/1

Wet

1522

Radhakrishnan S/o

Vacant

Natarajan

208

357/2

Wet

1523

Ravisankar S/o Natarajan

Vacant

209

357/3

Wet

1521

Manoharan S/o

Vacant

Natarajan

210

358/1

Wet

1524

Vankatesan S/o

Vacant

Natarajan

211

358/2

Wet

1524

Vankatesan S/o

Vacant

Natarajan

212

355/1

Wet

1233

Arumugam S/o

Vacant

Munusamy

213

355/2A

Wet

1233

Arumugam S/o

Ragi

Munusamy

214

355/2B

Wet

1233

Arumugam S/o

Road

Munusamy

215

355/3A

Wet

1245

Radhakrishnan S/o

Vacant

Parasuraman

216

355/3B

Wet

1245

Radhakrishnan S/o

Road

Parasuraman

217

355/4A

Wet

662

Mohanaraman S/o

Ragi

Govinda Naicker

218

355/4B

Wet

662

Mohanaraman S/o

Road

Govinda Naicker

219

356/1

Wet

892

Arumugam S/o

Vacant

Munusamy.1

Chandra W/o Arumugam

220

356/2

Wet

892

Arumugam S/o

Vacant

Munusamy.1

Chandra W/o Arumugam

221

386/1

Wet

746

Lakshmi W/o Vadivel

Vacant

(Tower)

222

386/2

Wet

746

Lakshmi W/o Vadivel

Vacant

(Tower)

223

361/1A

Wet

1523

Ravishankar S/o Nataraj

Vacant

224

361/1B

Wet

1521

Manoharan S/o Nataraj

Vacant

225

361/2A1

Wet

1523

Ravishankar S/o Nataraj

Vacant

226

361/2A2

Wet

1522

Radhakrishnan S/o

Vacant

Natarajan

227

361/2 A3

Wet

1524

Venkatesan s/o Nataraj

House

228

361/2 B

Wet

1524

Venkatesan s/o Nataraj

Road

229

384/1

Wet

582

Ponnurangam s/o

Vacant

Kalliyan

230

384/2

Wet

1590

Hemanthkumar s/o Babu

Vacant

231

384/3

Wet

1581

Hemanthkumar s/o Babu

Vacant

232

387/1 A

Wet

897

Arumugam s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

233

387/1 B

Wet

52

Arumugam s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

387/1 C

Wet

898

Palayam s/o Rathinam

Vacant

234

387/2

Wet

549

Palayam s/o Rathinam

Vacant

235

389/1

Wet

1521

Manoharan s/o Natraraj

Vacant

236

389/2

Wet

1523

Ravisankara s/o Nataraj

Vacant

237

389/3

Wet

1525

Ravisankar s/o Nataraj

Vacant

and three members

238

388

Wet

3

Adeswarar Kovil

Vacant

239

390/1

Wet

350

Sundaram s/o Palandi

Vacant

240

390/2

Wet

1522

Radhakrishnan s/o

Vacant

Nataraj

241

391/1

Wet

1554

Balusamy s/oVaradan

Vacant

242

391/2

Wet

1524

Venkatesan s/o

Vacant

Natarajan

243

391/3

Wet

1524

Venkatesan s/o

Vacant

Natarajan

244

392/1

Wet

292

Sathyaseelan s/o

Vacant

Sathyanathan

245

392/2

Wet

73

Isravel s/o Abraham

Vacant

246

392/3 A

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

247

392/3 B

Wet

73

Isravel s/o Abraham

Vacant

248

395/1 A

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

249

395/1B

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

250

395/1C

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

251

395/1D

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

252

453/1

Wet

98

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Balakrishnan

253

453/2

Wet

437

Damodaran s/o Varadn

Vacant

254

453/3 A

Wet

551

Balusamy s/oVarardan

Vacant

255

453/3 B

Wet

636

Murugammal w/o

Vacant

Jagadeesan

256

442/1 A

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

257

442/4A 1

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

258

442/4 A 2

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

259

442/4 A 3

Wet

304

Vedachalam s/o Cherian

Vacant

260

442/1 B

Wet

582

Ponnurangam s/oKalliyan

Vacant

(TOWER)

261

442/2

Wet

582

Ponnurangam s/oKalliyan

Vacant

(TOWER)

262

442/5

Wet

437

Damodaran s/o Varadan

Vacant

263

442/3

Wet

498

Natraj s/o Kallian

Vacant

(TOWER)

264

442/4 B

Wet

Vedachalam

Vacant

265

451/1

Wet

569

Perumal s/o Ganapathy

Vacant

266

452/2

Wet

569

Perumal s/o Ganapathy

Vacant

267

451/3

Wet

498

Natraj s/o Kalliyan

Vacant

268

443/1

Wet

582

Ponnurangam s/o

Vacant

Kalliyan

269

443/2

Wet

498

Natraj s/o Kalliyan

Vacant

270

439/1 A

Wet

1408

Jayalakshmi w/o Ravi

Vacant

271

439/1 B

Wet

109

Annammal w/o Palani

Vacant

272

439/2 A

Wet

294

Chandran s/o appu

Vacant

273

439/2 B

Wet

166

Kathiravel s/o Ragavan

Vacant

274

439/2 C

Wet

326

Sigamani s/o Durairaj

Vacant

275

445

Wet

500

Elumalai s/o Mayan

Vacant

276

438/1

Wet

1250

Nandagopal s/o

Vacant

Parasuraman

277

438/2

Wet

1247

Indira w/o Gangadaran

Vacant

278

438/3

Wet

1247

Indira w/o Gangadaran

Vacant

279

446/1

Wet

838

Mohana w/o Manmadan

Vacant

280

446/2

Wet

838

Mohana w/o Manmadan

Vacant

281

431

Wet

1423

Ramakrishna s/o

Vacant

Arumugham

282

432/1

Wet

561

Punniakotti s/o

Vacant

Vengusamy

283

432/2

Wet

1423

Ramakrishna s/o

Vacant

Arumugham

284

432/3

Wet

561

Punniakotti s/o

Vacant

Vengusamy

285

430/1

Wet

1413

Nirmala D/o Kasi

Vacant

Naicker

286

430/2

Wet

1316

Maharani w/o

Vacant

Mahalingam

287

430/3

Wet

1374

Rajendran s/o Balaraman

Vacant

288

429/1 A

Wet

863

Devendran s/o Perumal

Vacant

289

429/1 B

Wet

863

Devendran s/o Perumal

Vacant

290

429/2

Wet

569

Perumal s/o Ganapathy

Vacant

291

427/1

Wet

747

Lakshmi w/o

Vacant

Ramakrishnan

292

427/2 A

Wet

569

Perumal s/o Ganapathy

Vacant

293

427/2 B

Wet

1250

Nandagopal s/o

Vacant

Parasuraman

294

427/2C

Wet

1707

Saravanan s/o Kumar

Vacant

295

427/2 D

Wet

1601

Manivannan s/o Perumal

Vacant

296

428/1

Wet

561

Punniakotti s/o

Vacant

(TOWER)

Vengusamy

297

428/2

Wet

108

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

(TOWER)

Veerapathiran

298

543/1 A

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

299

543/ 1 B

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

300

543/ 3

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

301

543/ 4 A

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Ladies

Veerapathiran

finger

302

543/4 B

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

303

543/4 C 1

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

304

543/4 C 2

Wet

1356

Elumalai s/o

Brinjal

Veerapathiran

305

543/ 2 B

Wet

1355

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

306

543/2 A

Wet

108

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

307

543/ 5 A

Wet

1355

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

308

543/ 5 B

Wet

108

Elumalai s/o

Vacant

Veerapathiran

309

425/1

Wet

243

Mohan s/o Murugesan

Vacant

310

425/2

Wet

243

Mohan s/o Murugesan

Vacant

311

425/3

Wet

243

Mohan s/o Murugesan

Vacant

312

425/4

Wet

1684

Ramachandra s/o

Vacant

Ranganathan

313

425/5

Wet

1683

Seenivasan s/o

Vacant

Ranganathan

314

425/6

Wet

1382

Vijaya w/o Prabhakaran

Vacant

315

425/7

Wet

1384

Kasi s/o Parasuraman

Vacant

316

425/ 8 A

Wet

150

Gajendran s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

317

425/8 C

Wet

150

Gajendran s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy

318

425/ 8 B

Wet

773

Vijayarangan s/o

Vacant

Kuppammal

319

425/8 D

Wet

1615

Velu s/o Munusamy (1)

Vacant

Magesh s/o Munusamy

(2)

320

425/8 E

Wet

1615

Velu s/o Munusamy (1)

Vacant

Magesh s/o Munusamy

(2)

321

425/ 8 F

Wet

1615

Velu s/o Munusamy (1)

Vacant

Magesh s/o Munusamy

(2)

322

425/8 G

Wet

1170

Gajendran s/o

Vacant

Munnusamy and four

members

323

546/1 A

Wet

474

Devaki w/o Elumalai

Vacant

324

546/1 B

Wet

1445

Devaki w/o Elumalai

Vacant

325

546/1 C

Wet

928

Balaraman s/o Vengu

Vacant

naicker(1)

Kamachi w/o

Veerabhadran (2)

326

546/ 2 A 2

Wet

1375

Munusamy s/o

Vacant

Damodaran

327

546/2 B

Wet

1258

Elumalai s/o Gajendran

Vacant

(1)

Ramadas s/o Gajendran

328

424/1 A

Wet

80

Amuda w/o Dharman

Vacant

329

424/1 B

Wet

Vacant

330

424/1 C

Wet

80

Amuda w/o Dharman

Vacant

331

424/2 A

Wet

774

Vijayarangam s/o

Ladies

Nagappan

finger

332

424/2 B

Wet

1615

Velu s/o Munusamy

Ladies

finger

333

424/3 A

Wet

1379

Munusamy s/o

Vacant

Damodaran

334

424/3 B

Wet

773

Vijayarangan s/o

Vacant

Kuppammal

335

548

Wet

561

Punniakotti s/o

Vacant

Vengasamy

336

549

Wet

561

Punniakotti s/o

Vacant

Vengasamy

337

582/1

Wet

Bitter

gourd

338

582/2

Wet

904

Dharman s/o Arjunan

Ladies

finger

339

582/3

Wet

904

Dharman s/o Arjunan

Vacant

340

582/4

Wet

904

Dharman s/o Arjunan

Vacant

341

583/1 A

Dry

503

Nataraj s/o Jagannathan

Palm Tree

342

583/1 B

Dry

244

Gengappan s/o

Palm Tree

Murugesan

343

583/1 C

Dry

1127

Gengappan s/o

Palm Tree

Murugesan and three

persons

344

583/1D

Dry

371

Jayaraman S/o

Palm Tree

Arumugam

345

583/1G

Dry

371

Jayaraman S/o

Palm Tree

Arumugam

346

583/1F

Dry

21

Arjunan S/o Murugesan

Palm Tree

347

583/1E

Dry

503

Natarajan S/o