Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 2185
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.
Centre For Envir. Law, WWF-I – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 2, 27, 34, 37, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 58-60, 67, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995
Decided On : 06-02-2008
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Mr. Vijay Panjwani.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Gambhir, Mr. Niraj Sharma, Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Mr. T.S. Doabia, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. A.K. Sinha, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. S. Joseph Aristotle, Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla, Mr. Arul Varma, Mr. Manjit Singh, Mr. Harikesh Singh, Mr. T.V. George, Mr. M.P. Meharia, Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Mr. Rahul Srivastava, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Mr. Biswanath Aggarwalla, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Mr. A. Henry, Mr. Amit Mishra, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Mr. Bhavani Shankar Gadnis, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Mr. Ritu Raj, Mr. A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, M/s. Arputham Aruna, Mr. J.S. Attri, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Mr. Riku Sarma, Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. Jubair Ahmad Khan, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. U. Hazarika, Mr. Satya Mitra, Ms. Sunita Hazarika, Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Mr. B.B. Singh, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Mr. G. Prakash, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Pinky Behera, Ms. Jesal, Ms. Shivangi, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. M. Veerappa, Mr. Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Mr. G.V. Rao, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, Mr. R.S. Suri, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, Mr. Avijeet Bhujabal, Mr. Sridharan Ramkumar, Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Mr. A.K. Chitale, Mr. Niraj Sharma, Mrs. Sadhna Sharma, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Mr. A.P. Sahay, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Debasis Mishra, Mr. S.S. Shinde, Mrs. Asha G. Nair, Mr. A.P. Mayee, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mr. Ameet Singh, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Mr. Fuzail Ahmad, Mr. BS. Banthia, Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Mr. R. Sathish, Mr. P.V. Dinesh.
Headnote:
Moef (Ministry of Environment and Forests) - NBWL (National Board for Wildlife ) - IBWL(Indian board of wildlife) - Wild life Protection Act - Section 24 - State of Madhya Pradesh - Seeking for settlement rights of villages and waiver of NPV - Relating to Settlement of Rights Proceedings under Section 24 of Wild Life Protection Act - Held, Prayed for time to file response of MoEF and NBWL - State of Orissa - Height of dam was increased by mtrs in anticipation of approval by Central Government - In view of such increase in height of dam an additional area of hectares of forest land submerged under water - IBWL rejected proposal on ground that it would cause damage to wild life and directed action against Irrigation Department officials of State of Orissa for violation of provisions of Forest Conservation Act filed by State of Orissa was referred to NBWL which rejected proposal - This Court directed MoEF to file its response on proposed action for violation of provisions of said Act - MoEF by its letter May directed State Government to initiate action against officers who are involved - State Government is yet to take any action for prosecution - Held, Court are told that State of Orissa has already made available a total of hectares of land to forest department for afforestation apart from paying a compensation of lacs to Forest Department for afforestation purpose in lieu of submerged land - It is also stated saplings have also been planted in said land - It is also stated that decision to raise height of dam was taken by some officers of Irrigation Department more than twenty years ago and those officers have all retired from service - In view of peculiar circumstances of case and compensatory action as also long delay Court are of view that proposed action against officers of Irrigation Department should be dropped and matter be closed - Is disposed of - Manufacturer of Titanium Dioxide - Sought permission to draw water from Chambal river by laying a pipeline through Gharyal wildlife sanctuary - Proposal was examined and rejected by National Board for Wildlife - Held, Applicant has not filed any response to NBWL report regarding rejection - Application rejected - Applicant was given acres of land in Tanda Forest Block Terai Central Forest Division Haldwani Dist Nainital in lieu of some encroached land - Issue was referred to C.E.C and C.E.C has advised that allotment may be considered by Forest Advisory Committee - Held, Applicant was therefore permitted to submit his application before F.A.C applicant states that he has submitted his applications December - F.A.C has not filed its report as per directions of this Court - Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam - Construction of a new power house - Matter was referred to National Board for Wild Life for consideration and report/response as long back as - NBWL has not so far filed any report or response - Work is stated to be crucial and any further delay will cause considerable hardship - Held, Court permit Uttaranchal Nigam Ltd to proceed with construction - State Government shall however comply with any conditions that may be imposed by NBWL in due course - I.A is disposed of - National Hydro Electric Power Corporation - Hydro electric power projects - project has been approved by National Board for Wild Life by its letter subject to fulfillment of three conditions - As per condition no State Government should increase sanctuary area suitably - As per condition no project proponent should pay NPV and comply with conditions - Counsel appearing for State expresses some technical difficulty in increasing sanctuary area due to demarcation etc - Court have considered matter - State is directed to identify suitable forest land for increasing sanctuary area as per condition no - Held, Discussions with MoEF and seek modification of condition - Project proponent is however directed to comply with condition no as also other conditions - Applicant is permitted to execute work subject to above - This order shall not however be a precedent for other matters - I.A.s are disposed of accordingly - There was a proposal to translocate some lions from Gir N.P Gujarat to Kuno wildlife sanctuary in State of Madhya Pradesh - As State of Gujarat has raised certain objections matter was directed to be considered by National Board for Wild Life - Court are told that Board would be meeting and is expected to take a decision in matter - To await report/response from N.B.W.L
ORDER :
I.A. No. 2 and I.A. No. 92:
1. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that NBWL will be meeting on 19.2.2008 and prayed for time to file response of MoEF and NBWL in respect of the prayer of State of Madhya Pradesh seeking Rs. 280 crores for settlement of rights of 150 villages and waiver of NPV, relating to Settlement of Rights Proceedings under Section 24 of the Wild Life Protection Act. List in the second week of April, 2008 for the response of MoEF and NBWL.
I.A. No. 27:
2. There is an irrigation dam in the State of Orissa near Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary. Central Government gave approval in March, 1986 for submergence of 339.253 hectares of forest land. In the year 1989, the height of the dam was increased by 3.5 mtrs. in anticipation of approval by Central Government. In view of such increase in the height of the dam, an additional area of 142.62 hectares of forest land submerged under water. IBWL rejected the proposal on the ground that it would cause damage to wild life and directed action against the Irrigation Department officials of the State of Orissa for violation of the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, filed by State of Orissa was referred to NBWL which rejected the proposal on 25.8.2004. On 6.12.2004 this 10 Court directed MoEF to file its response on the proposed action for violation of the provisions of the said Act. MoEF by its letter dated 21st May, 2007 directed the State Government to initiate action against the officers who are involved. The State Government is yet to take any action for prosecution.
3. We are told that the State of Orissa has already made available a total of 575 hectares of land to the forest department for afforestation apart from paying a compensation of Rs. 35.14 lacs to the Forest Department for afforestation purpose in lieu of the submerged land. It is also stated saplings have also been planted in the said land. It is also stated that the decision to raise the height of the dam was taken by some officers of Irrigation Department more than twenty years ago and those officers have all retired from service. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the compensatory action as also long delay, we are of the view that the proposed action against the officers of the Irrigation Department should be dropped and the matter be closed. However, MoEF may verify as to whether the afforestation activities are being carried out as stated, and if there are any lapses, further action may be taken in that regard. With the observations, is disposed of.
I.A. Nos. 52 and 95:
4. Report of NBWL and response of the State of Uttarakhand are awaited. List in the 2nd week of April, 2008.
I.A. No. 54:
5. Report awaited from the National Board for Wildlife. List in the 2nd week of April, 2008.
I.A. Nos. 78 and 79:
6. The applicant, a manufacturer of Titanium Dioxide, has sought permission to draw water from the Chambal river by laying a pipeline through Gharyal wildlife sanctuary. The proposal was examined and rejected by the National Board for Wildlife. The applicant has not filed any response to NBWL report regarding rejection. In view of the same, the two applications (I.A. Nos. 78 and 79) are rejected.
I.A. Nos. 67 and 76:
7. Report awaited from the National Board for Wildlife. List in the 2nd week of April, 2008.
I.A. No. 83 and 84:
8. It is alleged that applicant was given 3.125 acres of land in Tanda Forest Block, Terai Central Forest Division, Haldwani, Dist. Nainital, in lieu of some encroached land. The issue was referred to C.E.C. and the C.E.C. has advised that the allotment may be considered by the Forest Advisory Committee. The applicant was, therefore, permitted to submit his application before the F.A.C. The applicant states that he has submitted his applications on 7th December, 2007. The F.A.C. has not filed its report as per the directions of this Court. Report of the F.A.C. is awaited. List in the 2nd week of April, 2008.
I.A. No. 37:
9. Report awaited from the National
