Expanded environmental restoration powers under the NGT Act support protective directions, compensation, and demolition where degradation is proved.

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was applied as conferring independent environmental jurisdiction: Sections 14 and 15 supported a fresh cause of action for environmental restoration, so the application was not time-barred. Res judicata and constructive res judicata did not apply because the prior writ and Tribunal proceedings involved different parties, causes of action, and reliefs. The Tribunal's restorative powers under Sections 15 and 20, together with the Act's overriding effect, permitted protective buffer zones, demolition of offending constructions, and environmental compensation where the record showed ecological degradation, breach of clearance conditions, and damage to lakes, wetlands, and drains.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application before the Tribunal was barred by limitation and maintainable under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; (ii) Whether the proceedings were barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata; (iii) Whether the Tribunal could direct enlarged buffer zones, demolition of offending constructions, and environmental compensation in exercise of its statutory powers.

Issue (i): Whether the application before the Tribunal was barred by limitation and maintainable under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 operates independently. Section 14 governs civil cases involving a substantial question relating to environment, while Section 15 empowers relief, compensation, and restitution of damaged property and environment. The proceeding was treated as one seeking environmental restoration based on later inspection reports and environmental degradation, giving rise to an independent cause of action. The Court also held that the appeal under Section 22 is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit a wholesale reappreciation of facts.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable and not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already found that the writ proceedings pending before the High Court and the environmental proceedings before the Tribunal involved different parties, different causes of action, and different reliefs. The matters in issue were neither directly nor substantially the same, and there was no likelihood of conflicting decisions on identical issues. The doctrine of res judicata was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal could direct enlarged buffer zones, demolition of offending constructions, and environmental compensation in exercise of its statutory powers.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 15(1)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Section 20 confers broad restorative powers on the Tribunal, and Section 33 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent State laws and instruments. In environmental matters, the Tribunal may prescribe protective buffer zones, order restoration measures, and impose environmental compensation where the record shows ecological degradation, breach of clearance conditions, and damage to lakes, wetlands, and drains. The findings of the Tribunal on encroachment, alteration of hydrology, and violations of clearance conditions were held to be supported by the record.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had the power to issue restorative directions and impose environmental compensation.

Final Conclusion: The appeals by the project proponents failed, while the remaining appeals succeeded to the limited extent of setting aside the impugned general direction insofar as it operated beyond the project proponents.

Ratio Decidendi: The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 confers independent and expansive restorative jurisdiction, and where environmental degradation is established, the Tribunal may grant restitutionary relief, impose compensation, and issue protective directions notwithstanding inconsistent State regulations.

---