Housing project for 95 MLAs quashed for being 123 meters from wildlife sanctuary violating eco-sensitive zone rules

The SC dismissed an appeal concerning a housing project located 123 meters from Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary. The court held that no construction project can be permitted within such proximity to a wildlife sanctuary, emphasizing that the state failed to act under the Doctrine of Public Trust. The project, intended for 95 MLAs, involved high-rise buildings up to 92 meters in an eco-sensitive zone. The court quashed all clearances for the project, rejecting the state's proposal to limit the buffer zone to 100 meters, and ruled that authorities cannot be final arbiters in protecting wildlife sanctuary eco-sensitive zones.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Environmental Clearance and Conformity with MoEF Notification
2. Proximity to Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and Catchment Area
3. Legal Validity of Permissions Granted by Local Authorities
4. Impact on Eco-sensitive Zones and Wildlife Sanctuary
5. Doctrine of Public Trust and Government's Role

Summary:

1. Environmental Clearance and Conformity with MoEF Notification:
The Appellant challenged the High Court's decision invalidating the environmental clearance dated 17.09.2013 granted by SEIAA, Punjab, for Tata HDCL's housing project. The clearance was deemed non-compliant with the MoEF Notification dated 14.09.2006, which mandates prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or SEIAA.

2. Proximity to Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and Catchment Area:
The project site was found to be 123 meters from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake as per the Survey of India Map dated 21.09.2004. The High Court held that the Survey Map is binding on the State of Punjab and that the project site falls within the eco-sensitive zone.

3. Legal Validity of Permissions Granted by Local Authorities:
The permission granted by Nagar Panchayat, Naya Gaon, to Tata HDCL on 05.07.2013 was invalidated. The High Court noted that the project violated the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. The Chandigarh Administration disputed the permissions, asserting that the area is ecologically sensitive.

4. Impact on Eco-sensitive Zones and Wildlife Sanctuary:
The project was found to be in violation of eco-sensitive zone regulations. The MoEF had not accepted Punjab's proposal to limit the buffer zone to 100 meters and directed resubmission for at least a 1 km buffer zone. The High Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to eco-sensitive zone regulations to protect the wildlife sanctuary.

5. Doctrine of Public Trust and Government's Role:
The Court highlighted the Government's failure to act in accordance with the Doctrine of Public Trust, especially given that 95 MLAs were beneficiaries of the project. The Court stressed the importance of protecting the environment and wildlife, citing various legal principles and precedents. The entire exercise of obtaining clearance was quashed, and the appeals were dismissed with directions to protect the eco-sensitive zone.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for strict environmental regulations and protection of eco-sensitive zones. The permissions and clearances granted for the project were invalidated, and the appeals were dismissed.

---