LexT.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,_ T.N. GODA V ARMAN THJRUMULPAD A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. OCTOBER 17, 2006 [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B Environmental laws: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Proposal for development of International Hotel Complex on 315 hectares of land in Vasant Kun), identified C for urban use in Master Plan for Delhi 2001-Direction to obtain environmental clearance-Supreme Court holding 92 hectares of land out of 315 hectares as constraint area-Violation of environmental norms by DDA and allottees, construction works carried out without obtaining environmental clearance-Report of Expert Committee-Recommendation that Ministry of D Environment and Forests and Supreme Court to impose penalty on violators- Acceptability of-Held: 92 hectares of land declared as constraint area- MoEF to take decision on the same basis-Constructions had to be made after obtaining requisite clearance-Impression given by DDA to the parties participating in auction that all requisite clearances had been obtained, though it does not appear to be so-Thus, MoEF to take decision with E regard to remedial measures including imposition of amounts as costs within two months-Public interest litigation. In the Master Plan for Delhi 2001, 315 hectares of land situated in the Vasant Kunj area was identified for urban use. Delhi Development Authority proposed the development of International Hotel Complex. By order dated 13.9.1996 this Court directed that the proposed Complex of DOA to obtain environment clearance from the Authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 before carrying out any construction or development F in the area. Thereafter, by order dated 19.8.1997, this Court held that 92 hectares of land out of 315 hectares of land was constraint area and only for G balance 223 hectares of land constructions have to abide by conditions of clearence. It is alleged that there was violation of environmental norms by respondents. Project proponents commenced construction works without obtaining environm~nt clearance in contravention to the Notification in July 261 H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A 2004. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Expert Committee gave its report. It recommended that the Ministry of Environment & Forests and Supreme Court may consider imposing a penalty on the project proponents. Hence, the present IAs. Appellant contended that this Court never held that 92 hectares of land B are not a part of the ridge; that the order dated 19.8.1997 expressed no opinion whether the land was a part of the ridge; that the Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority gave a report that the environmental factors were not in favour of urban development use of land and the entire land should be developed as green; and that the Expert Committee's report is per se C unacceptable as it focused more on regularizing the unauthorized areas rather than on the consequences flowing from the non-observance of the procedure before undertaking any construction. Respondents contended that their lands were allotted by DDA; that as per Notification No.S0/60(E) dated 27.1.1994 for the first time a provision D for obtaining environmental clearance by a Central Government (MoEF) before undertaking any new project listed in Schedule-I to the Notification was introduced; that the Notification did not relate to new construction projects and as such did not apply to them; and that the amendment by Notificatfon dated 7.7.2004 postulates post facto clearance contemplated for new construction projects undertaken. E DDA and the allottees inter alia contended that the order dated 19.8.1997 clearly stated that 92 hectares of land was constraint area and was not an integral part of Delhi Ridge; that the Notification has never been challenged; that out of the said 92 hectares of land, only 19 hectares of said land are F sought to be utilized for the purpose of construction; and that it proceeded on a bona fide impression that all requisite clearances had been obtained by it and there was no question of acting in ma/a fide manner or irregular manner. G Disposing of the !As, the Court HELD: 1.1. The order dated 19.8.1997 makes the position clear that 92 hectares of land were kept out of consideration and in fact it was clearly declared to be a constraint area. The expression 'constraint area' has its own connotation. A Notification in respect of the l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.