RAZA AHMAD versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 07-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 850
850
RAZA AHMAD
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No 2804 of 2014)
MARCH 07, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss.14, 16 and 38 – In
April 2007, the seventh respondent, Steel Authority of India (SAIL)
and Jayprakash Associates entered into a Memorandum of
Association to establish a cement grinding unit of 2.2 MTPA capacity
at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh – Pursuant thereto, they set up the tenth
respondent, Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited – A parcel of land
admeasuring 34.59 acres belonging to SAIL, falling in the villages
of Hingna and Maroda at Bhilai in District Durg, was leased out to
the tenth respondent for thirty years, based on a long-term lease –
The land use of this land was designated as “green belt” in the
1991 Development Plan of Bhilai – On the tenth respondent’s
application, an Environmental Clearance was granted to their
project of the cement grinding unit on 1 May 2008 by the second
respondent, the then Ministry of Environment and Forests – On 18
February 2011, State notified modification of the use of land to
“industrial purpose” from “green belt” – Appellant-writ petitioner
instituted PIL under Art.226 of the Constitution of India before High
Court for quashing the EC and notification of the State and sought
restoration of land as “green belt” – High Court transferred the
petition to NGT, wherein it was dismissed on the ground of limitation
and lack of jurisdiction in NGT for entertaining notification of State
– Hence instant appeal by original writ petitioner – Held: NGT
came into force on 18 October 2010 – s.38(5) makes a provision
for transfer of all cases pending before its enactment to the NGT –
EC was issued prior to enforcement of NGT Act and no steps were
taken by writ petitioner under the old Act – Hence, there was no
question of transfer of proceeding under s.38(5) of NGT Act –
Challenge before High Court was raised three years after the date
of notifying EC – Therefore, Challenge to EC was barred by limitation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
– State notified on 18 February 2011 modification of the use of
land to “industrial purpose” from “green belt” whereas petition
was instituted on 8 September 2011 – s.14(3) of NGT Act provides
six months limitation period to apply for a dispute before NGT and
power to condone a delay for a further period not exceeding sixty
days – Proceedings remitted to NGT to determine whether the delay
can be condoned for sufficient cause within extended period by
applying proviso to s.14(3) – NGT left with the liberty to take a
decision on all the issues.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The NGT Act came into force on 18 October
2010, after it was published in the Gazette of India in pursuance
of the provisions of Section 1(2). Section 38(1) of the NGT Act
stipulates that the National Environment Tribunal Act 1995 and
the National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997 would
stand repealed. Section 38(2) protects anything done or any action
taken under the repealed enactments. Section 38(3) dissolved
the National Environment Appellate Authority established under
the above 1997 Act. Section 38(5), however, makes a provision
for the transfer of all cases pending before the National
Environment Appellate Authority to the NGT. In the present case,
the EC was issued on 1 May 2008, prior to the enforcement of
the NGT Act. No steps were taken by the appellant to pursue a
challenge to the EC under the provisions of the 1997 Act. No
challenge was pending on the date of the enforcement of the NGT
Act and hence, there was no question of transfer of any
proceedings to the NGT. The challenge before the High Court
to the EC was raised on 8 September 2011, well beyond three
years of the date of the publication of the EC in the newspapers
on 8 May 2008. Consequently, the challenge to the EC was barred
by limitation. [Paras 9, 13, 14][855-A; 856-A-D]
2. The appellant had also placed in issue the validity of the
notification of the State government dated 3 February 2011
(published on 18 February 2011), by which the use of the land
was sought to be altered to “industrial purpose”. The writ petition
RAZA AHMAD v.  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
before the High Court was instituted on 8 September 2011. In
terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act, any recourse to the original
jurisdiction of the NG

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