2018 Supreme(SC) 875

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
M.C. Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
I.A. No.2310/2008, I.A. Nos. 2378-2379/2009, I.A. No. 2269, I.A. No. 2270, I.A. No. 2393, I.A. Nos. 2381-2384 IN W.P. (C) No. 4677 OF 1985
In Re : Kant Enclave matters WITH I.A. Nos. 2310-2311 IN W.P. (C) No. 202/1995
Decided On : 11-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Closed land under the PLP Act is forest land or in any event, is required to be treated as forest land.
Application concealing important information is to be rejected.
Nomenclature of an application is of absolutely no consequence. Substance of the application is significant.
Validity of notification cannot be challenged collaterally without a direct attack, more so by relying upon another decision of Supreme Court, which has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
If an notification does not reflect intention of the State Government, nothing stops the Government from issuing a corrigendum or a fresh notification.
Provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 have no relevance or reference to the provisions of PLP Act. Act 1975 cannot exempt a person from prohibitions imposed by the subsequent notification under PLP Act. Similarly Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 does not prohibit notification under PLP Act.
Principle of polluter pays.

Headnote:(a) Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Section 4 – Notification under – Does not convert land into forest land – But recognizes it as such or at least requires it to be treated as such. (Para 75)

       (b) Supreme Court Rules – Rule XL – Review – Applications filed by appellant not making out a case for any clarification or modification in the various orders passed by the Court – Various Benches of the Court concluding that environmental and ecological degradation of the Aravalli hills must stop – That, everybody is bound by the terms of the notification issued under Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – That, closed land under the notification dated 18th August, 1992 is a forest and should be treated as a forest. (Para 82)

       (1996) 8 SCC 462; (1997) 3 SCC 715; (1997) 2 SCC 267; W.P. No. 171 of 1996; W.P. No. 202 of 1995; (2004) 12 SCC 118; (2008) 16 SCC 401; W.P. No. 4677 of 1985; (2008) 17 SCC 294; (2014) 12 SCC 172; (2000) 7 SCC 296 – Referred

       (c) Supreme Court Rules – Rule XL – Review – Nomenclature of an application is of absolutely no consequence – Substance of the application is significant – An application, in substance, an application for review – Should be dealt with by the Court as such, and by circulation. (Para 83)

       (d) Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Section 4 – Notification under – As far back as in 1985-86 areas closed under the Act considered and treated as forest land – Closure under the Act creates forests during period of closure – Thereafter the land is not shown as forest – But closed areas are counted as forests – No construction can be made thereon – Held, Town & Country Planning Department was categorical in recommending the environmental degradation of the Aravalli hills. (Para 87, 88, 91, 92, 95)

       W.P. No.171 of 1996; (1997) 2 SCC 267; (1996) 8 SCC 462; (1997) 3 SCC 715 – Relied upon

       (e) Supreme Court Rules – Rule XL – Review – Applicant filing petition for review of order dated 11th October, 1996 seeking exemption from permission from Central or State Pollution Control Board in respect of constructions made by applicant beyond the 1 km but within the 5 km radius of Badkal Lake and Surajkund – Concealing the important notification under PLP Act – Application vitiated. (Para 107, 110)

       (f) Administration of justice – Despite dismissal of its review petition and IA and several orders of Supreme Court as to status of land closed under PLP Act applicant continuing to file applications to challenge communication issued pursuant to orders of supreme Court and reports of expert bodies like CEC – Instantly applicant again raising issue of closed lands – Not tenable. (Para 115, 116)

       (g) Administration of justice – Cause of action – Validity of notification – Cannot be challenged collaterally without a direct attack – More so by relying upon another decision of this Court, which has nothing to do with the facts of the case. (Para 119)

       (h) Environmental law – Orders of Supreme Court – Concern being to preserve and protect environment in and around the Aravalli hills – And, generally avoid environmental and ecological degradation of the area both through the stoppage of mining activity and constructions – Orders not confined to mining activities only – a (Para 122,

       (i) Administrative law – Notification – Intention of State Government – If contrary to that reflected in notification – Nothing stops the Government from issuing a corrigendum or a fresh notification. (Para 124)

       (j) Interpretation of statute – Provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Act 1975 has no relevance or reference to the provisions of PLP Act – Act 1975 cannot exempt the applicant from prohibitions imposed by the subsequent notification under PLP Act – Similarly Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 does not prohibit notification under PLP Act. (Para 128, 129)

       (k) Interpretation of judgment – Court permitting construction in accordance with law and according to sanctions plans etc – Not permitting constructions de hors notification under PLP Act. (Para 131)

       (l) Administration of justice – Appellant taking people for a ride by construction violative of statutory notification and orders of Supreme Court – Full refund with interest 2 18% per annum ordered – However construction made pursuant to exemption notification u/s 23, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 but prior to notification under PLP Act permitted – All constructions after notification under PLP Act directed to be demolished – Compensation to affected persons quantified as 50 lakh. (Para 138, 139, 140, 142)

       (2014) 3 SCC 430 – Relied upon

       (m) Environmental law – Polluter pays – Applicant directed to pay Rs.5 croes for rehabilitation of the damaged areas. (Para 143)

       (1996) 3 SCC 212; (1996) 5 SCC 647 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       By a communication dated 17th April, 1984 the Commissioner & Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana granted exemption to the applicant R. Kant & Co. for setting up a Film Studio and Allied Complex in Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 (owned by the applicant) in village Anangpur in Faridabad district. The exemption was granted under Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

       Eventually, the applicant accepted the terms and conditions and entered into an agreement on 27th March, 1992 with the State of Haryana. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement was that the applicant would complete the entire project of a Film Studio and Allied Complex within a period of five years; extensions for the area earmarked for group housing could be considered on merits. It is nobody’s case that the entire project was completed within a period of five years and there is nothing on record to suggest that any extension was granted to the applicant for group housing.

       Decisions were taken for closing the area between Surajkund and Badkal Lake under the provisions of the PLP Act. The overall objective of these discussions and the reference to the PLP Act was for preventing environmental and ecological degradation of the area due to mining and quarrying as well as construction activity.

       the applicant had the benefit of an exemption under Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975; the applicant was administratively permitted (if not encouraged) by the Town & Country Planning Department to construct upon the land owned by it in village Anangpur; the layout plan prepared by the applicant was approved by the Town & Country Planning Department and was apparently in conformity with the Development Plan for Faridabad and finally, the applicant had entered into an agreement with the State of Haryana to complete its project of a Film Studio and Allied Complex within 5 years. On the other hand, environmental and ecological degradation in the entire area (which included the land owned by the applicant) was sought to be prevented by the State of Haryana through a statutory notification issued by the Forest Department under the provisions of the PLP Act. There was, therefore, a dichotomy of views and a conflict of interest between two Departments of the Haryana Government – one favouring colonization and the other favouring environmental protection and conservation.

       The Conservator of Forests sent a communication to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 17th May, 1996 requesting that the land owned by the applicant may be de-notified and that the Haryana Government is morally bound to allow the applicant to develop the project as per the sanctioned plans.

       The land of the applicant was admittedly not de-notified.

       Supreme Court directed that no construction shall be permitted within the green belt around the two lakes, that is an area having roughly 1 km radius. As far as the area outside the green belt is concerned, it was directed that no construction would be permitted for a further 1 km. It was, however, clarified that the latter direction would not apply to plots already sold or allotted prior to 10th May, 1996 in the developed areas and that unallotted plots in the said areas may be sold with the prior approval of the concerned authority. All development schemes and plans for constructions in the area from 1 km to 5 km radius of the lakes shall require prior approval from the Central Pollution Control Board and the Haryana Pollution Control Board,

       It was further directed that a person owning land in the areas above mentioned (in the order dated 11th October, 1996) may construct a residential house up to 2 ½ floors subject to the building bye laws and rules operating in the area.

       Some areas got excluded from the 1 km green belt, as originally proposed. It was directed that these areas could be urbanised in accordance with the applicable laws and rules. With regard to private lands (such as that of the applicant) it was directed that in the areas adjoining the Surajkund complex, the State of Haryana may review the position so that only single-storey “hutments” are permitted to be constructed and “not tall buildings as originally conceived.

       Supreme Court declined to permit the State of Haryana to contend that land closed under the provisions of the PLP Act is not forest.

       In view of the somewhat alarming situation, it was recommended by the CEC that colonies, farm-houses, banquet halls and other buildings illegally constructed in areas closed under the provisions of the PLP Act, such as Kant Enclave should be demolished.

       The principal question that arises in this batch of substantive applications is whether, in the State of Haryana, land notified under the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land. If so, whether construction carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. on this land is in contravention of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 issued under the provisions of the PLP Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and decisions of this Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Applicant has violated statutory notification as well as orders of the Supreme Court.

       Result: Applications disposed of.