TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Bharuka, AOR, Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR, Mr. O. P. Bhadani, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR, Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv., Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv., Mr. Nanda Kumar, Adv. JUDGMENT S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred Under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity 'NGT Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and 04.05.2016 respectively passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002-8003 of 2016 are Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original Application No. 222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10'). The said Application was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicants'). Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in these appeals are the State of Karnataka and other authorities. They were arrayed as Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the application. Respondent Nos. 12 and 13 herein were subsequently impleaded in the application (for short 'the impleaded Respondents'). 3. The State o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 was also directed to take protective measures to spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves and also to commit that no construction would be carried out in the buffer zone. In the meeting of 11.11.2011, it was recorded that the project proposes car parking facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentally sensitive area. 6. It was alleged that NOC was issued covering an area of 17,404 sq. mtrs. whereas the built up area, as noted by SEAC, is 13,50,454.98 sq. mtrs. Respondent No. 9 obtained NOC from BWSSB by concealing material facts and by misrepresenting that NOC is required only for residential units which form a very minuscule part of the total project. Respondent No. 9 had approached the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short 'the KSPCB') for obtaining clearance, which was granted on 04.09.2012 subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stated in the consent order which included leaving the buffer zone all along the valley and towards the lake. It is further contended that the grant of consent by the KSPCB to Respondent No. 9 also contained a condition with regard to obtaining Environmental Clearance from the Competent Authority and no construction was to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil suggesting immediate remedial action in order to remove encroachments on the lake area and the Rajakaluves and preservation of the lakes in and around Bangalore city. It was further contended that other Expert Committees, including Lakshman Rau Expert Committee had also submitted proposals for preservation, restoration or otherwise of the existing tanks in Bangalore Metropolitan Area which recommended to maintain good water surface in Bellandur tank and to ensure that the water in the tank is not polluted. The Central Government in August 2013 had issued an advisory on conservation and restoration of water bodies in the urban areas. The applicants claim to have obtained monitoring report of the project by Respondent No. 5, Ministry of Environment and Forests, through RTI on 21.08.2013. The report dated 14.08.2013 revealed that the project proponents are in clear breach of their undertaking to carry out all precautionary measures to ensure that the Bellandur lake is not affected by the construction and operational phase of the project. This approach is particularly with regard to the major alteration in natural sloping ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tablishing an Information Technology Park and R & D Centre with facilities such as residential complexes, parks, education centres and other allied infrastructure within a single compound. It had submitted the proposal to establish such Information Technology Park and other facilities to the State Government and requested for allotment of land for the project. Its proposal was considered in 78th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.06.2000 and after examining the proposal, it was approved by the Government on 06.07.2000. Before the State High Level Committee, it had informed that its requirement was 110 acres of land, 25 MW of power from the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short the 'KPTCL'), and four lakh litres of water per day from BWSSB. The lands for the project were initially notified vide Notification dated 10.02.2004. Subsequently, the lands were allotted vide letter dated 28.06.2007 for which Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was signed on 30.06.2007. Considering the overall development of the State of Bangalore, this Respondent proposed a Mixed Use Development Project consisting of an Information Technology Park, residential apartments, retail, hot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that it has availed financial assistance from various banks and financial institutions towards the construction and execution of the project and that various contracts have been signed with the third parties. It is specifically pleaded that the petition is barred by time and suffers from defects and laches. 14. Respondent No. 10 pleaded that the applicants raised multifarious proceedings against it which is an abuse of the process of law and mala fide. It had submitted a revised proposal in respect of its project in question and to obtain fresh clearance on 31.08.2007 with an investment of Rs. 179.22 crores. The State High Level Committee had cleared the project which was communicated to it on 25.01.2008. Its properties are located in between Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake but there are no primary storm water drains and secondary storm water drains that exist in its properties. It has clearances from various authorities, including Environmental Clearance and consent for establishment. 15. KIADB stated that after possession of the land was handed over to Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, one year time was granted for the implementation of the project which was extended from time to tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tural lands. Therefore, it had questioned the decision of KIADB vide letter dated 06.07.2013 and even requested it to stop the construction activity and to re-classify the land as non-SEZ area. It was thereafter on 31.08.2013, that Respondent No. 9 wrote a letter for according approval for the proposed development projects. However, vide its letter dated 23.09.2013, LDA informed KIADB that it had no authority to grant or deny construction projects, but it also communicated its objections to KIADB mentioning that construction activity would be in contravention of the directions of the Supreme Court. Despite these warnings, KIADB granted approval to the extension of the building drawings of the project in favour of the project proponents with certain conditions, like ensuring that all natural valleys, valley zone, irrigation tanks and existing roads leading to villages in the said land should not be disturbed. Further, the natural sloping pattern of the project site was not to be altered and the lakes and other water bodies within and/or at the vicinity of the project area should be protected and conserved. Despite the objections, the plans were approved and approvals were extended f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all inspect not only the sites where the projects in question are located but even other areas of Bangalore which the Committee in its wisdom may consider appropriate, in order to examine the interconnectivity of lakes and impact of such activities upon the water bodies with particular reference to lakes. 4) The Committee shall submit whether the projects in question have encroached upon or are constructed on the wetlands and Rajakaluves. If so, are there any adverse environmental and ecological impact of these projects on the lake, particularly Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake, as well the Rajakaluves. The report should specify, if any Rajakaluves have been covered by the construction activities of Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 or by any of the projects in the area in question. 5) Committee should submit in its report, if these projects have any adverse impacts upon the surrounding ecology and environment, with particular reference to lakes and wetlands. If yes, then whether any part of the project is required to be demolished. If so, details thereof along with reasons. 6) The Committee shall substantially notice if any of the conditions of the Environmental Cleara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s into the lake or any of the water bodies in and around of the area in question. 14) For the reasons stated in the judgment, Respondent No. 9 is liable and shall pay a sum of Rs. 117.35 crores, while Respondent No. 10 shall pay a sum of Rs. 22.5 crores respectively being 5 per cent of the project value, within two weeks from today. The said amount would be paid to the KSPCB, which shall maintain a separate account for the same and would spend this amount for environmental and ecological restoration, restitution and other measures to be taken to rectify the damage resulting from default and non-compliance to law by the Project Proponent in that area, after taking approval of the Tribunal. 15) We make it clear that the said Respondents would not be entitled to pass on the amount in terms of direction 14, on to the purchasers because this liability accrues as a result of their own intentional defaults, disobedience of law in force and carrying on project activities and construction illegally and unauthorizedly. 19. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4829 and 4823 of 2015 before this Court. This Court by its Order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntentions of the parties and subject to just exception we would hear the parties in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India primarily on the question of imposition of Environmental Compensation and merits attached in relation thereto. Parties are given liberty to address their submissions on that behalf. With the above directions the M.A. No. 603 of 2015 and M.A. No. 596 of 2015 stand disposed of without any order as to cost. 21. It is evident from the above orders that the Tribunal had granted opportunity to the parties to address it "limited question", as aforementioned. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an order dated 04.05.2016 as under: General Conditions or directions: 1. In view of our discussion in the main Judgment, we are of the considered view that the fixation of distance from water bodies (lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt contradiction, legal infirmity and is without any scientific justification. The RMP - 2015 provides 50m from middle of the Rajkalewas as buffer zone in the case of primary Rajkalewas, 25m in the case of secondary Rajkulewas and 15m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in contradiction to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the time of grant of EC, the water requirement for the construction phase and operation phase should be considered separately. Due consideration should also be given for identification of source of supply of water and this should be a pre-requisite for grant of EC. ii. All the project proponents should necessarily use only treated sewage water for construction purpose and this should be reflected in EC as a condition for construction phase. iii. Wherever the quality of treated sewage water does not conform to the quality needed for construction, necessary upgradation in STP should be undertaken immediately. Specific Conditions/Directions for Respondent 9; In addition to the above directions which should be equally part of EC condition in respect of Respondents Nos. 9 & 10, following specific conditions shall apply to Respondent No. 9: i. Reclaimed area of the lake to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in survey No. 43 should be restored to its original condition at the cost of project proponent. The possession of this area should be restored by Respondent No. 9 to the concerned Authorities immediately. In addition, a buffer zone of 75 m should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd incorporated as a part of the overall project layout, within a period of 3 months. 10. Though, at the time of hearing prior to passing the Judgment, we had heard the parties on all aspects but still we have provided re-hearing to the parties on all issues with emphasis on imposition of environmental compensation including the quantum. Upon hearing, we are of the considered view that environmental compensation imposed upon Respondent No. 9 calls for no variation and the Respondent No. 9 should be called upon to pay the said amount of Rs. 117.35 Crores determined under the judgment prior to commencement of any project activity at the site. Respondent No. 10 has not commenced any actual construction activity but has carried out various preparatory steps including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock at the premises in question and a site office. Thus, considering cumulative effect on environment and ecology due to various breaches in that behalf by Respondent No. 10 and the fact that the remedial measures can more effectively be taken by the Respondent No. 10, we reduce environmental compensation payable by Respondent No. 10 to Rs. 13.5 cror....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted and is in possession of land admeasuring 63.94 acres, though Environmental Clearance has been granted for 2,92,636.03 Sq. Meters which is equivalent to 72.22 acres. For this reason alone, Environmental Clearance cannot be given effect to. While issuing the amended Environmental Clearance, SEIAA Karnataka shall take into consideration all these aspects and, if necessary, would require Respondent No. 9 to submit a fresh layout plant and the entire project may be revised in accordance with law. 7. Both the Respondents (Project Proponents) shall submit an appropriate plan in view of the conditions imposed in this judgment and the amended Environmental Clearance that would be issued. 8. The amount of environmental compensation will be deposited prior to issuance of amended Environmental Clearance. With the above directions, the Original Application No. 222 of 2014 and Misc. Applications Nos. 596/2016 and 603/2016 are finally disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 22. Appearing for the Appellants in C.A. No. 5016 of 2016, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior Counsel, has submitted that the State Government in exercise of the power confe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....direction imposing penalty/compensation is illegal on the ground that the applicants did not allege that the construction work of the project has caused environmental wrong. No wrong or injury either to Bellandur lake water body or to Bellandur lake area, has been alleged and established. As such, there is no question of any enquiry relating to imposition of penalty or any compensation. 26. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, in C.A. Nos. 5016 and 10995 of 2016, while supporting the submissions made by Shri Rohatgi, has submitted that the Appellant has obtained sanction and approvals for the project from the competent authorities. It could not start construction despite grant of all the permissions, including environmental clearance as early as possible i.e. 30.09.2013. Hence, imposing penalty/compensation is entirely unsustainable. 27. Learned Advocate General, Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the Appellant-State of Karnataka in C.A. Nos. 4923-4924 of 2017, has submitted that the State of Karnataka is also aggrieved by the order of the NGT to the extent of setting aside the buffer zone in respect of water bodies and drains specified in the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pposed the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants in C.A. No. 5016 of 2016 and C.A. Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016. It is submitted that the Tribunal is a specialized body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided Under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act. Section 14 provides for the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is involved. However, such question should arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction Under Section 15(1)(a) of the NGT Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in Schedule I. Under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1) (c), the Tribunal can provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit. Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) have not been made relatable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. In the instant case, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law hence it has to be dismissed in limine. He has taken us through various materials placed on record in order to substantiate that the direction passed and penalty imposed by the Tribunal upon to project proponents are sustainable. He prays for dismissal of the appeals. 34. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel of the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 35. Before considering the other contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, let us first consider the scope of enquiry in appeals filed Under Section 22, which is as under: 22. Appeal to Supreme Court.- Any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communication of the award, decision or order of the Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the Supreme Court may, entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficience ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their entire case to seek wholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix that has been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible Under Section 22. There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of facts and evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision. 39. The first question raised by the learned Counsel is in relation to the maintainability of the application before the Tribunal. 40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The Tribunal is a specialized judicial body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment. The right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right to life Under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights. 41. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided Under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... power & jurisdiction, independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3) juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitation provided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and 15 as self contained jurisdictions. 46. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file applications each Under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, it cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same with powers. As stated supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves no manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these provisions would be to read the provisions broadly i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sensitive in its natural condition so that the ecological balance of the area is not disturbed. It is clear from the documentary evidence supported by data, that the project proponents have committed breaches and the implementation of the project is bound to have serious adverse impact on the ecology, hydrology and the environment in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake. The environmental degradation as established from the documents would give rise to an independent cause of action. Therefore, this was a petition Under Section 15 of the Act and thus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose. 50. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal there was no mention of the provision under which it was being filed. It is well settled principle of law that non-mention of or erroneous mention of the provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. It would be a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the application or the judicial order of the Tribunal. 51. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the Appellant in CA No. 501....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on Google satellite images showing encroachment on two major Rajakaluves. 5) Google Satellite images retrieved from Google archives clearly reflect two distinct features. Firstly, change in the wetland area between the period of 13th November, 2000 and 23rd November, 2010. Secondly, it reveals the excavation work carried out by Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 commenced prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance. 6) Restriction in regard to extraction of ground water was not strictly complied with as permission of Central Ground Water Authority was not obtained before construction. 7) The conditions with regard to the natural slopping pattern of the project site to remain unaltered and natural hydrology of the area to be maintained as it is, to ensure natural flow of storm water as well as in relation to Lakes and other water bodies within and/or at the vicinity of the project area to be protected and conserved: The inspection report by the MoEF clearly notes that condition Nos. (xxxix) and (xl) in the Environmental Clearance of Respondent No. 9 cannot be complied with as it will necessarily result in some alteration of the natural slopping pattern of the project ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues in application and the writ petitions are directly and substantially the same. After examination of the pleadings, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there is no commonality of a cause of action or likelihood of a conflict between the judgments. The prayers and the geneses of the respective proceedings are entirely distinct and different in their scope and relief. The issues before the Tribunal would essentially relate to environment ecology and its restoration while the proceedings before the High Court relate to entirely different issues with acquisition of land, its allotment and transfer to the third party. These issues in both the proceedings are neither substantial nor materially identical. 58. After elaborately considering this question, the Tribunal has concluded as under: 51. ....For these reasons, we find no merit in this contention of Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. The purpose of the doctrine of res judicata is to provide finality and conclusiveness to the judicial decisions as well as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the present case, the question of re-agitating the issues or agitating similar issues in two different proceedings does not ar....