1. Expansion of National Highway — Requirement of environmental clearance under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and relevant Notifications — Dispute over project segmentation and right of way limits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
PAN DARI NATHAN GOVINDARAJULU AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020
Decided on : 19-01-2021
Important Points
Environmental clearance for National Highway expansion is required only if the project exceeds 100 km and involves additional right of way/land acquisition exceeding 40 meters on existing alignments or 60 meters on realignments/bypasses. Segmentation of projects to evade such clearance is impermissible.
Subject
Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance
Act Referred
Headnote
National Highways Act, 1956 - National Highway - Environmental clearance for expansion - Project of widening and improvement of existing 4-laning carriage way in State of Tamil Naduand Union Territory of Puducherry, was bifurcated into four packages - Approval was granted by Competent Authority, i.e. Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways No. 45-A and agreements were entered into between Appellant and the concessionaires - Process was initiated for acquisition of lands required for the project - Writ Petitions were filed in High Court of Madras by certain aggrieved farmers and public interest litigants questioning commencement of project without obtaining environmental clearance - Whether Segmentation Of A National Highway Project Beyond A Distance Of 100 Kms Is Permissible – Held, Court do not agree - As Para 2.3 of aforementioned Manual makes it clear that right of way is total land width required for project Highway to accommodate right of way, side drains, service roads, tree plantations, utilities etc., toll plazas and rest houses should be included in "right of way" - Consternation of High Court that Appellant had been remiss in not fulfilling requirement of reafforestation in spite of giving undertakings for the projects taken up earlier is to be noted - There is an obligation on the part of Appellant to plant ten trees for each felled tree - High Court commented upon Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ) clearances to be taken at certain points - Learned Attorney General submitted that Appellant has already obtained CRZ clearances, wherever it is required – Court have not dealt with issues relating to acquisition of land being in contravention of National Highways Act, 1956 as no such submission was made either before High Court or this Court - Appeals are allowed accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, Advocate, Mr. Bibin Kurian, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, Advocate, Mr. Bibin Kurian, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Whether environmental clearance is mandatory for highway expansion exceeding 100 km without exceeding specified right of way limits — Permissibility of project segmentation to avoid clearance. (Para 3 , 6 , 16 , 17 )
3. Literal interpretation of notifications requires both length and right of way thresholds to be met for clearance — Segmentation to evade environmental regulations is impermissible. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 19 )
4. Environmental clearance for National Highway expansion is required only if the project exceeds 100 km and involves additional right of way exceeding specified limits. (Para 7 , 10 , 15 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Environmental clearance not required for the project — Expert Committee to be constituted on segmentation — Reafforestation ordered. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. When is environmental clearance required for National Highway expansion projects?
Clearance is required only if the expansion project is greater than 100 km and involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses. (Para 7 , 10 , 15 )
7. Is project segmentation permissible as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance?
No, segmentation of a project as a strategy to evade environmental clearance under the relevant Notifications is not permissible, as it would render the regulatory requirements redundant. (Para 16 , 19 )
8. Does the term right of way include road amenities such as toll plazas and rest houses?
Yes, the right of way is the total land width required for the project highway, which includes the roadway, side drains, service roads, tree plantations, utilities, toll plazas, and rest houses. (Para 21 , 23 , 24 )
9. How should statutory Notifications be interpreted when the language is precise and unambiguous?
When the words of a statute or Notification are precise and unambiguous, the golden rule of interpretation applies, and the literal, ordinary meaning must be adopted to declare the intent of the law-giver. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
L. Nageswara Rao. J.
The dispute in these appeals pertains to the environmental clearance for expansion of National Highway 45-A between Villuppuram to Nagapattinam. The High Court held that it is necessary. The Appellant disagrees. Hence, these appeals.
2. The project of widening and improvement of the existing 4-laning carriage way in the State of Tamil Naduand the Union Territory of Puducherry, from Villuppuram to Nagapattinam was bifurcated into four packages, which are as follows:
i. Villuppuram to Puducherry (29.000 kms)-Package I.
ii. Puducherry to Poondiankuppam (38.00 kms)-Package II.
iii. Poondiankuppam to Sattanathapuram (56.800 kms)-Package III.
iv. Sattanathapuram to Nagapattinam (55.755 kms)-Package IV.
3. Approval was granted by the Competent Authority, i.e. Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways No. 45-A in March, 2018 and agreements were entered into between the Appellant and the concessionaires. Process was initiated for acquisition of lands required for the project. Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras by certain aggrieved farmers and public interest litigants questioning the commencement of the project without obtaining environmental clearance. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and issued the following directions:
a. "The present project of expansion of NH-45A covering a stretch of 179.555 k.m. shall be put on hold, and the present status quo is directed to be maintained.
b. That the project proponent (NHAI) shall undertake an EIA study and obtain environmental clearance.
c. The NHAI is also directed to obtain approval from CRZMA for CRZ clearance for two locations that it has indicated in its counter in W.P.15217/2019.
d. Once the necessary clearances are obtained as mentioned in (b) and (c) above, the project can proceed. If the EIA study to be undertaken provides any contra-indicators to the NHAI's plan of development of NH-45A, it will be at liberty to make necessary alterations and modifications to make the project environmental viable.
e. If after ensuring the environmental viability of the project, its implementation resumes, the project proponent, and subject to the terms of the contract, the concessionaire, should first identify the places for planting the saplings of the same variety, preferably native-trees, for every tree felled, and it must be grown first. Possibility of forming a Miyawaki forest has to be explored as well.
f. This Court proposes to form a committee to monitor the compliance of the direction given in (e) above, and hence, before resumption of the project, NHAI is required to approach this Court".
4. Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to take all such measures for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. One of the measures provided in Section 3 (2) (v) is restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 were made in exercise of power conferred by Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. According to Rule 5, the Central Government may prohibit or restrict the location of industries and the carrying on of processes and operations in different areas.
5. In exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government by Sub-Clause (i) and Clause (v) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Clause (b) of Sub rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India issued a Notification on 14.09.2006 directing construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernisation of existing projects or activities listed under the Schedule to the Notification shall be undertaken only after prio
