LexM.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
12ooar8 s-:-c. R~ 828 A M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. I.A. NO. 1901 IN B I.A. NO. 1888 IN (W.P.(c) No. 4677 Of 1985) • ... MAY 14, 2008 c [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKE$HWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Environmental Laws: Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 - ss. 3, 4 and 5 - D Notification dated 18th August, 1992 - Issued by State Gov- ernment under s.4, prohibiting activities contained in the said notification for 30 years- I.A. relating to land situated in Aravalli Range - Effect of decision of this Court in the earlier M. C. Mehta 's case - Held: Decision of this Court in the earlier M. C. E Mehta's case dealt with applicability of the Conservation Act to areas treated as forest by the State Forest Department - This Court was not only examining the mining activity in the area upto 5 km on the Haryana side of the Ridge, but also in the Arava/li Hills causing environmental degradation - Gen- ~ F tral Ground Water Board's report shows that the area in ques- y tion has been notified as a very precarious ground water situ- ation - Any construction activity therein without adequate wa- ter reserves will also have a negative effect - Therefore it is not correct as contended by the applicant that the nature of G lands of the applicant were considered by this Court in the earlier case and the restrictions did not operate so far as they A • are concerned - Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The State Government decided to notify the area in question under s.4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, H 828 M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 829 & ORS. .. . ' 1 1900, prohibiting activities contained in the said notifica- A tion dated 18th August, 1992 for a period of 30 years. The effect of the decision of this Court in M. C. Mehta's case* on the areas declared under ss.4 and 5 of the Act arose for consideration in the present I.As. B I.A. 1901 of 2005 relates to the land situated in Aravalli • Range. The applicants herein have developed plots in the 'y area in question and have sold it to persons who are not inhabitants of towns and vmages within the specified liv- ing area. It is the contention of the applicants that in view c of the decision in the earlier MC. Mehta's case*, the re- strictions did not operate so far as they were concerned. Dismissing the I.As, the Court HELD:1.1. s.3 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, D 1900 inter-alia provides that whenever the State Govern- ment with a view to conserve - (a) sub-soil water; (b) ero- sion in any area; may make a notification for the said pur- pose and s.4 thereof provides as to what activities can be prohibited. A perusal of ss. 4 and 5 would show that what E can be prohibited is- (a) the clearing or breaking up of any area/land which was not under cultivation; (b) the quarry- ing of stone or burning of lime which was not so being + done earlier; (c) the cutting of trees or timber or collection " or removal of any forest produce except for bonafide do- mestic use; (d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest F produce; (e) the admission, herding, retention or pastur- ing of animals; (f) the examination of forest produce and (g) the grant of permits to the inhabitants of the towns and villages to take any tree or timber or forest produce for their .. • own use or to pasture sheep or camel or to cultivate or to G make building etc. [Para 11] [839-E-H; 840-A] 1.2. In view of the notification under s.4 when the clearing or breaking up of the land is not permitted that itself is a bar from fresh construction because a construe- H 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A tion only can take place if clearing and breaking of an areal land taking place. This prohibition is clearly contained in the notification of 1992. The reliance placed by the appli- cants on clause (g) is clearly misconceived, inasmuch as the permissible activity allowed within clause (g) is in B favour of inhabitants of town and villages within the lim- its or vicinity of any such area. The admitted case is that the applicants herein have developed plots in the area in question and have sold it to persons who are not inhabit- ants of towns and villages within such specified living c area, but could be anybody from all over the country or outside, and therefore clause (g) in s.4 has no applica- tion. The factum of developing a plot and then construct therein would amount to clearing or ·breaking up of an area or land. [Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.