JUDGMENT : 1. Pursuant to our detailed order dated 10. 11.95 whereby after mentioning the relevant facts we dealt with the dual question of payment of compensation to the farmers whose lands were affected on account of the pollutants and the second and more important question in regard to the treatment of pollutants before the discharge of the effluents into the Nakkavagu Stream. So far as the first aspect is concerned, we had directed the State Government to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,34,000/- minus the amount paid by the industrialists which came to Rs. 7,49,963/- and we are told that the deposit has been made. On the second question, we were told that the Pollution Control Board had initiated action against the 22 defaulting industries but had failed to deal with those industries effectively because they had approached the High Court by way of Writ Petitions and had secured certain interim orders. The Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was directed to ascertain this fact and if necessary ask the Environment Department of the State Government to furnish information so that the matters can be expeditiously dealt with. The Registrar of the High Court was further directed to inform this Court of the total number of Writ Petitions pending in this behalf and the stage of which they were pending to keep this Court informed about the developments. The further direction was to direct the concerned District Judge to submit a report in regard to the further damage suffered by the farmers and also to ascertain if the treatment plants were set up and submit a report in regard to their functioning if already set up. The District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, submitted his report dated 27.1.96 through the High Court on both the aspects. So far as the first aspect is concerned, he has concluded that the compensation for the farmers from 1984-85 to 1988-89 comes to Rs. 32,94,041- 50p while for the remaining period from 1989-90 to 1995-96 he has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre per year in respect of the Ac. 625-15 1/ 2 Guntas of land which comes to a further sum of Rs. 43,77,712-50p. 2. In regard to the lands belonging to farmers of Ismalikhanpet, Yardancor and Arutla villages which too, according to the District Judge, were affected. 1,000/- per acre per year in respect of the Ac. 625-15 1/ 2 Guntas of land which comes to a further sum of Rs. 43,77,712-50p. 2. In regard to the lands belonging to farmers of Ismalikhanpet, Yardancor and Arutla villages which too, according to the District Judge, were affected. He opined that their claims had not been ascertained as the joint inspection was not conducted to identify the lands. He therefore, recommends joint inspection by the Revenue, Agriculture and Ground Water Departments to identify the lands affected and compensation to be paid to the farmers of lands so identified from 1984-85 to 1995-96 at the same rate which is proposed for affected lands which have already been identified. He further stated that an amount of Rs. 3,72,600/- has been assessed by a team of officials as compensation to be paid to the farmers of Kistareddypet for the year 1990-91 which has not been paid so far. Joint inspection is also necessary to identify the affected lands in that area as well as the Ilapur for the period from 1991-92 to 1995-96 and so also for the Sultanpur village lands for the same period. 3. As regards the common effluent treatment plant, the learned District Judge made an elaborate study and came to the conclusion that the quantity of effluent discharged and taken to the common effluent treatment plant varies between 1803 mg/lit to 6800 mg/lit whereas the plant is designed to take not more than 1500 mg/lit BOD. He has further pointed out that the anaerobic section of the plant was designed to receive effluent having suspended solids not more than 400 mg to 500 mg/lit. Whereas the effluent which the plant is receiving contains suspended solids varying between 7.00 mg/ lit and 10,000 mg/lit. The treatment plant is expected to reduce the suspended solids to not more than 30 mg/lit. As the common effluent treatment plant is unable to take this load, it is discharging the effluent in the stream without treating the effluent to reduce it to the tolerance limit. The learned District Judge has made a fairly elaborate and if we may say so a penetrating inquiry and has brought to surface the appalling conditions in regard to treatment of effluent and suspended solids therein. The learned District Judge has made a fairly elaborate and if we may say so a penetrating inquiry and has brought to surface the appalling conditions in regard to treatment of effluent and suspended solids therein. He has then remarked as under: "It is unfortunate that the State owned A.P.I.I.C. which is incharge of day to day operations of CETP (Common Effluent Treatment Plant), in utter disregard of the provisions contained in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Rules, is discharging such partially treatment effluent into the stream Nakkavagu. The Industrialists have very cleverly entrusted the management to the State owned A.P. Industrial Infra-structure Corporation in order to escape themselves from the penal provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Rules." 4. This is a telling remark so far as the operation and functioning of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant under State management is concerned. It also shows that the industrialists have by a clever manoeuvne thrown the responsibility on the State so that they may be beyond the reach of law, namely, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned District Judge had concluded the matter by pointing out that the plants set up and commissioned by the State have a limited capacity for the treatment of effluents and solids contained therein and since the total quantity of effluents is far in excess of the maximum capacity of the plant, untreated effluents are discharged in the Nakkavague stream with the result that the water of the stream is, according to the learned District Judge, "not useful for irrigation" and the water pollution problem remains unabated. He has recommended that the treatment plants should not be permitted to discharge the effluents in the Nakkavague stream. 5. Unfortunately, even though sufficient time has elapsed after the report of the District Judge was received so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned there is no positive response to it and we are distressed at the lack of concern shown by the State Government. We proceed to assume that it has nothing to say so far as the report of the District Judge is concerned. We therefore, accept it. 6. We proceed to assume that it has nothing to say so far as the report of the District Judge is concerned. We therefore, accept it. 6. We direct that the amount of compensation which has been deposited in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to our order of 10.11.95 should be disbursed to the farmers whose lands were identified to have been affected on account of the discharge of effluents. The Registrar of the High Court is directed to ask the District Judge of the concerned district Medak to examine the claims of the farmers and disburse this amount to them taking care to see that the amount reaches the farmers and no third party intervention should be allowed. The balance amount of Rs. 43,77,712.50p. as compensation found by the District Judge would have to be deposited with the High Court for similar disbursement. We direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to deposit the same within 8 weeks from today. As regards the lands of farmers in Ismalikhanpet, Yardanoor and Arutala villages are concerned, we direct that the State Government shall take steps for joint inspection by the Revenue, Agriculture and Ground Water Departments to identify the lands and the extent, of damage suffered and the rate of compensation payable to the farmers from 1984-85 to 1995- 96. We also direct the State Government to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,72,500/- assessed by the team of officials the compensation payable to the farmers of kistareddypet for the year 1990-91 and direct that the District Judge will disburse the same to the farmers and also further direct that the joint inspection team will identify the lands and the extent of damage thereto in Kistareddypet, Ilapur and Sultanpur areas covering the period from 1991-92 to 1995-96 within even time. The amount of Rs. 3,72,600/- will be deposited within even time. 7. We find from the report of the learned District Judge that certain industrial units have been sending their effluents for treatment to the common effluent treatment plant. The names of those industries have been set out in Annexure D-1 (pages 16-17) and D-3 numbering 59 and 42 respectively. Before we decide to take action against these industries, we would like the District Judge to enquire into the matter and identify those industries which are sending their effluents for treatment to the plants beyond the capacity of the plant itself. Before we decide to take action against these industries, we would like the District Judge to enquire into the matter and identify those industries which are sending their effluents for treatment to the plants beyond the capacity of the plant itself. We would also like the State Government to State what action it plans to undertake to ensure that untreated pollutants and solids are not discharged into the Nakkavagu stream or any other stream for that matter. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh so that he can personally look into the matter and work out an arrangement with the Industries, if necessary, to ensure that untreated effluents are not required to be discharged in the Nakkavague stream. This is essential because it does not pay the State Government to pay the compensation for damage to land from year to year; because otherwise it may turn out to be in expensive proposition for the State Government. What is important is to ensure that a treatment plant of sufficient capacity is installed either by expansion of the existing one or setting up a second independent plant in consultation with the industries as they must bear the cost and also ensure that it is a cost effective arrangement worked out both by the industries as well as the State government. We may state that no one on behalf of the industries is present today before us, but we will not hesitate, if necessary, to direct closure of the industries unless they come up with an arrangement which deals with the question of pollution. This may require also the involvement of the Pollution Control Authority so that a proper solution can be found to this menace, if we may say so since it is not only damaging the lands but also the lives of the people as well as marine life. We do hope that on the re-opening of the Court after the Summer Vacation in July, 1996, we will be informed of the action plan worked out by all concerned. 8. We place on record our appreciation for the pains taken by the learned District Judge and amount of labour put in for preparing the report pursuant to our order dated 10.11.1995. 9. List on 16th July, 1996.