M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 11-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: IA disposed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
M.C. MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(I.A. Nos. 2310/2008, 2378-2379/2009, 2269,
2270, 2393 and 2381-2384)
In
(W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985)
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Environmental Law:
Construction by applicant-company – Pursuant to exemption
granted u/s. 23 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban
Areas Act, 1975 on 17.04.1984 – By Notification dated 18.08.1992
(issued under Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900) prohibited
constitution activity on the notified land (including the land of the
applicant) – In a parallel exercise, steps were taken by the State
notifying development plan under Faridabad Complex (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1971 – On the basis of exemption granted
in 1984, Town and Country Planning Department encouraged the
applicant to go ahead with its construction activity – Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests was of the view that the land of the applicant
was a forest or was required to be treated as forest with the issuance
of Notification under PLP Act and hence, under Forest Conservation
Act, 1980, permission of Central Government was required for
carrying on a non-forest activity – In the meantime several orders
were passed by Supreme Court regarding the issue of deforestation
coupled with other environmental issues (in respect of the area in
which the land in question was situated) – Applications for
clarification or modification or recall of orders – Held: The purpose
of issuing the notification under PLP Act is to ensure that in the
closed area non-forest activities are not carried out – The
Notification is a clear indicator that such closed areas must be forest
land or treated as forest land – Therefore, the land notified under
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 384
 384
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
PLP Act must be treated as ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’ and has in fact
been so treated for several decades by the State – Construction
activity carried out by the applicant was clearly in violation of the
Notification dated 18.8.1992 and in blatant defiance of orders
passed by Supreme Court – Town and Country Planning of the State
had been supporting the illegalities of the applicant despite strong
resistance from the Forest Department of the State – Extent of
violation of the Notification is quite frightening as phenomenal
environmental and ecological damage has been caused to the area
by the applicants – Construction of the land done prior to
Notification date i.e. 18.08.1992 is saved and construction after
the Notification date being -illegal must be demolished – However,
the applicant is directed to compensate for the land, to those who
have made construction after the Notification date – Applicant is
directed to refund the amount with interest to those, to whom it has
conveyed the land – On the principle of ‘Polluter Pays’ applicant is
directed to pay 10% of the amount spent in the development of the
area, for rehabilitation of the damaged areas.
Practice and Procedure:
Applications filed before Supreme Court – Dealing of –
Guiding factors – Held: The nomenclature given to an application
is of no consequence – There is a growing tendency to provide
different nomenclatures to applications to side-step the rigours of
limitations imposed on an applicant and the Court in dealing with a
review petition – What is of importance is the substance of the
application – If it is found in substance to be an application for
review, it should be dealt with by the Court as such, and by
circulation.
Disposing of the applications, the Court
HELD:  1.1 There is nothing in the present applications to
remotely suggest that various orders passed by this Court need
any clarification or modification or recall. All issues raised by the
applicants have been considered threadbare by several Benches
of this Court and all of them have arrived at a similar conclusion
namely that the environmental and ecological degradation of the
Aravalli hills must stop and that everybody is bound by the terms
of the notification issued under the provisions of the PLP Act and
M.C. MEHTA  v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
that closed land under the notification dated 18th August, 1992 is
a forest and should be treated as a forest. [Para 82] [428-F-H]
1.2 The view expressed by this Court in *Gurdip Singh
Uban case cannot be limited only to applications for modification,
clarification or recall. There is a growing tenden

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