IN RE.: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. T.N. B GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 03-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[201 O] 15 (ADDL.) S.C:R. 783 
I.A. NOS.2609-2610 OF 2009 
A 
IN 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0.202 OF 1995 
IN RE.: 
'CONSTRUCtlON OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA 
BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. T.N. 
B 
GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2010 
c 
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, AFTAB ALAM AND K.S. 
PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Forest Conservation Act, 1980: s. 2 - Forest land - Project 
at NO/DA for building large scale memorial with extensive 
D 
stone work - Spread over an area of 33.43 hectares of land 
- Whether the project area, a forest land - Held: In the 
revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the 
pr..oject area were ever shown as jungle or forest - The project 
are.a was treated as an urban park - Trees planted on it were 
E 
allowed to stand and grow for about 12-14 years when they 
were cut down to make the area clear for the project - Though 
man made forest may equally be a forest as a naturally grown 
one and non-forest land may also, with the passage of time, 
change its character and become forest land, but this cannot 
F 
be a rule of universal application and must be examined in 
the overall-facts of the case - The trees planted with the intent 
to set up an urban park cannot turn into forest within a span 
of 10 :to 12 years and the land that was forever agricultural 
would hot be converted into the forest land - The project site 
G 
. is not forest land - Construction of the project without the prior 
permission from the Central Government did not in any way 
contravene s. 2 of the Act - Environment Protection Act, 1986. 
Environment Protection Act, 1986: s. 3(3) -
State 
783 
H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Government's project for building large scale memorial with 
extensive stone work - Project at NO/DA - Requirement of 
prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification S. 0. 
1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Held: The project in 
question cannot be termed as a "Building and Construction 
s project" falling under item B(a) of the Schedule to the EIA 
Notification - Applying the test of 'Dominant Purpose or 
Dominant Nature' of the project or the "Common Parlance" 
test, the project could only be categorized under item B(b) of 
the schedule as a Township and Area Development project" 
c - But under that category it does not come up to the threshold 
marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33. 43 
hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even 
if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put 
together comes to 1,05,544.49 square metres, i.e., much 
below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres -
D Therefore, the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA 
notification - EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 
14, 2006 - Items B(a) and B(b) - Wild life. 
E 
Circular/Government order/Notification: 
EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 
- Items B(a) and B(b) - "Building and Construction project" 
and "Township project" - Distinction between. 
EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 
F - Ambiguity in - Held: The Notification calls for second look 
by the concerned authorities - Project activities under Item 
B(a) and B(b) of the schedule to the notification need 
description with greater precision and clarity - Environmental 
laws. 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21 - Construction of 
project adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary - Continuation of 
the project challenged on the ground that it was a potential 
hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the 
H Sanctuary- Held: Environment is one of the facets of the right 
IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 
785 
ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. 
to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution and if A 
the Court perceives any project or activity as. harmful or 
injurious to the environment it can step in - The question of 
the likelihood of the project causing any adverse effects on 
the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, therefore, be examined from 
this angle - Environmental impact assessment of the project 
B 
was done by expert agencies - None of the expert bodies took 
the view that the project was so calamitous or ruinous for the 
bird sanctuary that it be altogether scrapped in order to save 
the Sanctuary - The expert bodies gave recommendations 
which allowed the completion of the project subject to certain c 
co
1nditions - Therefore, project allowed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.