JITENDRA SINGH versus MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 25-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
JITENDRA SINGH
v.
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5109 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 25, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Environmental Law:
Environment protection – Allotment of local ponds – To private
industrialists – By Industrial Development Authority – Challenged
before Green Tribunal – Challenge dismissed on the basis of affidavit
by the Authority claiming to develop bigger alternative water-bodies
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Plea of Authority that Government
order dated 3.6.16 permitted destruction of exiting ponds and
allotment thereof to third-parties in extra-ordinary circumstances
and that the land was not a ‘Pokhar’ Pond – Held: Allotment having
been made in 2012, order passed in 2016 would not operate
retrospectively – Moreover, no extra-ordinary circumstances made
out in favour of the allottee – Revenue records show that the land
was a ‘Pokhar’ – Protection of such village commons is essential to
safeguard the right u/Art. 21 of the Constitution – It is also
constitutional obligation of the respondents to ensure protection
and integrity of the environment as enshrined u/Arts. 48-A and 51-
A(g) – The scheme which extinguish local water bodies albeit with
alternatives are violative of constitutional principles and hence
liable to be struck down – Constitution of India – Arts. 48-A and
51-A(g),
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The respondents have not been able to
demonstrate how the 2016 Government Order can be made
applicable retrospectively, the possession having been given to
the Company in 2012. Notwithstanding this, no case of the present
instance being an extraordinary circumstance (hence permitting
recourse to the exceptional provisions of the Government Order)
has been made before the Court either. Photographs show that
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 220
220
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
221
there is substantial water in the pond, which has not been
controverted. Further, revenue records maintained by  the
Revenue Department themselves show that the land was
‘pokhar’. It is hence not open for the authorities to contradict
and plead against the record without any scientific or empirical
support, for such categorisation had been made by them in the
past. Further, it was conceded by respondent-authorities during
arguments that Khasra No. 490 was also recorded as ‘pokhar’ in
revenue records and that it too had been integrated in the
industrial development project. [Para 12] [226-G-H; 227-A-B]
2. Repeal of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and vesting of such ponds and local areas in the State
by Section 57 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 would not by itself
either change the nature of land contrary to revenue record nor
will defeat the long-established rights of the local people on
commons. [Para 13] [227-C-D]
3. Industrial activities without any rationale classification,
unlike the narrow class exempted under the Government Order
dated 3.6.16 do not serve a social public purpose or benefit the
local people, and thus will be hit by the inalienability bar.
[Para 17] [229-A]
4. Even otherwise, the action of the respondent-authorities
contravenes their Constitutional obligations. Article 48-A of the
Constitution casts a duty on the State to “endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country”, and Article 51-A(g) expects every citizen to
perform his fundamental duty to “protect and improve the natural
environment”. A perusal of the Constitutional scheme and judicial
development of environmental law further shows that all persons
have a right to a healthy environment. The State is nothing but a
collective embodiment of citizens, and hence collective duties of
citizens can constructively be imposed on the State.  Therefore,
it is the responsibility of the respondents to ensure the protection
and integrity of the environment, especially one which is a source
for livelihood for rural population and life for local flora and fauna.
[Paras 18 and 19] [229-B-C; 230-A]
JITENDRA SINGH v. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
5. Protection of such village-commons is essential to
safeguard the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. These common areas are the lifeline of village
communities, and often sustain various chores and provide
resources necessary for life. Waterbodies, specifically, are an
important source o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.