KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD versus SRI C. KENCHAPPA & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
v. 
SRI C. KENCHAPPA & ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[RUMA PAL AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Environmental Law 
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966: Sections 
3(1), 28 and 47 
Environment-Environmental degradation and its cunsequences·-
Ecological balance-Industrial development and ecological preservation---
Balance between-Sustained develupment--Agriculturists, who were affected 
by the acquisition of lands of different villages, filed a writ petition for a 
direction to the Industrial Development Board to refrain from converting 
their lands for any industrial or other purposes and to retain their lands for 
use by the agriculturists for grazing their cattle - Agriculturists alleged that 
notification under S. 3(1) was issued without hearing the affected parties-
High Court quashed the notification and consequential proceedings to the 
extent of lands which were reserved for grazing cattle. agricultural and 
residential purposes·- -Correctness al-Held: Before acquisition of lands for 
development, the consequence. and adverse impact of development on 
environment must be properly comprehended-The lands acquired for 
development must not gravely impair the ecology and environment---// is 
mandatory for the a//ottee to obtain the necessary clearance for the project 
from the State Pollution Control Board and the Department of Ecology and 
Environment before execution of the agreement-This is a mandatory 
condition-High Court judgment set aside-Constitution of India, 1950, 
Arts. 14, 21, 48A and 5/A(g). 
Doctrines I Principles : 
"Sustained deve/upment"--Meaning of--Explained. 
H 
"Public Trust Doctrine" Explained 
362 
--
KARNATAKA INDL. AREA DEVP. BOARD v. SRI C. KENCHAPPA 
363 
The respondents-agriculturists, who were affected by the acquisition 
A 
of lands of different villages, filed a writ petition before the High Court 
for a direction to the appellant-Board to refrain from converting their 
lands for any industrial or other purposes and to retain their lands for 
use by the respondents for grazing their cattle. The respondents had 
alleged that the appellant and the State Government had violated the 
zonal regulations in allotting the land to respondent No. 3. The respondents 
had also alleged that Without hearing the affected parties, notification 
under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board 
Act, 1966 had been issued. 
B 
The High Court directed that the notification issued under Section 
C 
3(1) of the Act and consequential proceedings be quashed to the extent 
oflands which were reserved for grazing cattle, agricultural and residential 
purposes. The High Court also directed that the appellant-Board must 
leave a one km buffer zone from the outer periphery of the village as a 
'free zone' or 'green area' towards preservation of land for grazing of 
cattle and to maintain ecological equilibrium. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Con rt 
D 
HELD: 1. It should be mandatory for the allottee to obtain the 
necessary clearance for the project from the Karnataka State Pollution 
E 
Control Board and the Department of Ecology and Environment before 
execution of the agreement. Consequently, the appellant is directed to 
incorporate this condition in the letter of allotment requiring the allottee 
to obtain clearance before putting up any industry. The condition has to 
be mandatory. (372-F) 
2.1. The need of the hour is inculcating the sense of urgency in 
implementing the rules relating to environmental protection which are 
not strictly followed. Its result would be disastrous for the health and 
welfare of the people. (381-D, E) 
2.2. The concept of sustainable development whose importance was 
the resolution of environmental problems is profound and undisputed. 
[381-E) 
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 
F 
G 
SCC 281; Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
647; Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR (1991) SC 420; A.P. Pollution 
Control Board fl v. M.V. Nayudu, (20011 2 SCC 62; Narmada Bachao 
Ando/an v. Union of India, (2000) IO SCC 664 and Af.C Mehta v. Union 
o/fndia, (19911 2 sec 137, relied on. 
B 
Essar Oil Ltd v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392, referred 
to. 
Professor Michael van Hauff: "The Contribution of Environmental 
Management Systems to sustainable Development: Rele
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.