The duty of the first respondent Authority to assess the loss sustained in each individual case and the rejection of the argument that paying compensation based on the crops raised by the petitioners would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Elipe Dharmarao, J.

The petitioners are the joint owners of 10.50 acres of land in S.Nos.330 and 331 and Patta No.1243 of Thoppampatti village, Thennilai Keezh Bhavani Ayacut, Aravakkurichi Taluk, Karur District. According to the petitioners, their lands are situated along the left bank of the River Noyal and they were cultivating various crops like sugarcane, groundnut, paddy, mango, coconut and teak and they draw water for the irrigation from an open well near the river bank. The petitioners further stated that though they were obtaining high yield, of late, the yield has gone down drastically due to the contamination of the well caused by the pollutants in the River Noyyal, which has, over the years, became a depository for chemical effluents discharged by the dyeing industry at Tiruppur; that bleaching and dyeing units are set up in the vicinity of the river, in violation of G.O.Ms.No.213 (Environment and Forests (EC-1), dated 30.3.1989, which prohibits the establishment of highly polluting industries within one kilometre from the embankments of water sources and therefore, they sought the assistance of Dr.K.K.Krishnamurthy, a renowned Soil Scientist and a former Dean of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University to render expert opinion on the phenomenon of pronounced reduction in crop yields and they have also obtained an analytical report from the Laboratory of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, which has reported that soil and well water showed that the E.C. was as high as 14 and PH was as high as 4. The petitioners further stated that Dr.Krishnamurthi, in his expert report on the soil condition and crop yield on the petitioners land has referred to the analytical results and concluded that the high EC and PH are entirely due to the toxic chemicals emanating from the dyeing industry, which are mixed with the ground water and such contamination caused great damage not only to the crops but also to the soil and in the long run, the soil would deteriorate so much that it becomes beyond reclamation and may have to be abandoned altogether.

2. After obtaining the said report, the petitioners have filed a Claim Petition before the 1st respondent Authority in January, 2003, seeking a compensation of Rs.5 lakh for loss of teak and a further compensation of Rs.50,000/= per annum for the recurring loss. Thereafter, the petitioners amended the claim petition and sought a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the loss of teak, a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the loss of coconut trees (300 trees x Rs.1000), a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss due to yield of coconut trees for four years, compensation of Rs.2,50,000/= for polluted well water (including a 5 HP motor),compensation of Rs.5,25,000/= for damage to 10.5 acres of land and a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the loss of water sources on 10.5 acres of land and they have also sought for framing a scheme for the remediation of their land, ground water and the river Noyyal.

3. Thepetitioners state that a reply was received by them on 13. 2003 from the first respondents Administrative Officer stating that the Authority had taken up the work of assessing the loss to ecology and environment in the affected areas of Karur District and that the petitioners claim would be considered only when the work of identification of individuals and families who have suffered due to pollution in the affected areas was taken up and thereafter a team of officials of the first respondent visited Karur District on 18th and 19th of March, 2003, but they did not visit the areas affected by the contamination of the waters of the river Noyyal and they confined their field visit to localities in Karur town like Sanapparatti, Appipalayam and Sukkaliyur and therefore, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.18197 of 2003 before this Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to dispose of their claim petition and the said writ petition was disposed of on 7. 2003