1. Interim directions for compensation to villagers affected by industrial pollution, based on a District Judge's report. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 860
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : N.Santosh Hegde
Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 2 , 17 , 1056 of 1990
Date of Decision : 4/25/00
The court held that interim compensation can be disbursed to affected victims based on verified reports to prevent delays, while allowing industries to object later. The state government may facilitate this disbursement and subsequently recover the amount from the polluting industries.
Headnote:(A) E.P. Act—Confiscation of tankers illegally transporting industrial effluents—Order modified to acknowledge that notification for such provision already exists (Para 1).
(B) Environmental Compensation—Interim disbursement to affected villagers—Where payments are over delayed, the court may pass interim orders for disbursement based on reports to ensure victims receive relief, subject to subsequent objections (Para 4).
(C) Quantum of Compensation—Determination of rates for dry and wet land—To avoid controversy regarding excess area, compensation may be restricted to areas verified ingovernment counter affidavits (Para 6).
(D) Recovery of Compensation—State Government's role—The State Government may deposit the quantified compensation for disbursement and subsequently recover the amount from the concerned polluting industries (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
Polluting industries raised objections against a report concerning compensation for affected villagers, specifically challenging the increase in the recorded area and the increased rates for dry and wet land. The petitioner contended that compensation should extend beyond crop loss to include loss of life and livestock. A previous order had noted a lack of provision for the confiscation of tankers transporting effluents, which was later found to be incorrect due to a subsequent notification.
Findings of Court:
The court modified its previous observation regarding the confiscation of tankers. To prevent further delay in payment to affected villagers, the court ordered interim disbursement of compensation as per the rates fixed in the report (Rs.1,300.00 for dry land and Rs.1,700.00 for wet land), but limited the payment to the area covered by a specific government annexure to avoid disputes over excess area.
Issues: Whether interim compensation should be disbursed to affected villagers despite objections from polluting industries regarding area and rates, and the mechanism for the payment and recovery of such compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: To ensure that delayed relief reaches affected victims, interim compensation can be disbursed based on official reports, provided the area is limited to verified records to mitigate controversy. Such funds can be initially provided by the state and then recovered from the responsible polluting entities.
Result: Interim directions for disbursement of compensation issued.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over scope of compensation report and rate increase for affected land, and objections to payment for excess area. (Para 4 )
3. Court notes delay and directs interim disbursement of compensation pending final objections, to benefit affected villagers. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Interim compensation can be ordered based on a preliminary report to prevent further delay, pending final objections. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Courtdirects interim compensation disbursement per report and State deposit, with industry reimbursement and filing of objections. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. Can compensation be ordered as an interim measure despite pending objections to a report?
Yes, to prevent further delay in payment to affected persons, the court may order interim compensation pending final objections. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. Should compensation be limited to the loss of crop only?
The court noted that affected villagers may be entitled to other compensations, but the present order was limited to the compensation recommended by the District Judge's report. (Para 6 )
(1) IT has been pointed out to us that in the Order, D/- 11/4/2000 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 5/7/1999. 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, D/- 25/10/1999 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, D/- 7/1/1998 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.1,000.00 to Rs. 1,300.00 for the dry land and Rs.1,700.00 for the wet land. Others have also raised certain objections with some minor discrepancy in the District Judges 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 recieved 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, D/- 25/10/1999 and earlier report, D/- 7/1/1998 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 Judges 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 Governments counter affidavit, D/- 11/7/1996. 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 Judges report, D/ - 25/10/1999. 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.1,300.00 for the dry land and Rs.1,700.00 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 recorded in detail the amount paid and to the persons paid and submit a report of having made the said payment by or before 18/7/2000 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 with in two weeks from today.
(8) OFFICE to send copy of this order to the District Judge, M
