The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to environmental regulations, the jurisdiction of the NGT, and the limitation period for challenging environmental clearances.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. This appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010¹[“NGT Act”] arises from a judgment dated 2 August 2013 of the National Green Tribunal²[“NGT”], at its Central Zone Bench in Bhopal.

2. In April 2007, the seventh respondent, Steel Authority of India³[“SAIL”], and Jayprakash Associates entered into a Memorandum of Association to establish a cement grinding unit of 2.2 MTPA capacity at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. In pursuance of this goal, 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 dated 16 June 2007. The land use of this parcel of land had been designated as “green belt” in the 1991 Development Plan of Bhilai. On the tenth respondent’s application, an Environmental Clearance⁴[“EC”] was granted to their project of the cement grinding unit on 1 May 2008⁵[Letter No J-1101111000112007-IA-ll(I)] by the second respondent, the then Ministry of Environment and Forests. It was subsequently published in newspapers on 8 May 2008.

3. It is alleged by the appellant that since the EC was incorrectly issued, the tenth respondent’s constructions on the parcel of land were illegal. In this regard, several notices were issued to them by the fifth respondent, Director, Town and Country Planning, Bhilai and the sixth respondent, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Bhilai to revert the land to its original condition or face demolition of the structure. The tenth respondent then applied for the modification of the land use of the parcel of land admeasuring 34.59 acres.

4. The first respondent, the State of Chhattisgarh, considered their case under Section 23-A of Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973. On 22 May 2010, the State government made a proposal to change the land use from “green belt” to “industrial purpose” on the basis that the setting up of the cement grinding unit by the tenth respondent constituted an “urgent public purpose”. Between 13 July 2010 and 15 July 2010, the State government published circulars in two evening newspapers highlighting the proposed modification in land use and inviting objections/suggestions from the general public. The appellant allegedly raised objections against the proposed modification. However, relying on the EC granted on 1 May 2008, the State government issued a notification⁶[Notification No F/7-24/32/2010] dated 3 February 2011 modifying the land use of the parcel of land from “green belt” to “industrial purpose”. The notification was published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on 18 February 2011.

5. The appellant then instituted a public interest petition, ⁷[Writ Petition (PIL) No 5467 of 2011] under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 8 September 2011. The reliefs which were sought by the appellant were:

(i) Quashing of the notification dated 3 February 2011 of the State government modifying the land use of the parcels of land designated in the 1991 Development Plan of Bhilai as a “green belt” to “industrial purpose”;

(ii) Quashing of the EC issued on 1 May 2008 to the tenth respondent for its cement grinding unit (the ground of challenge being that the project had been erroneously categorized in Category B2 instead of Category A, and hence the mandatory procedures of conducting an Environmental Impact Study and public hearing/consultation were not followed); and

(iii) The restoration of 34.59 acres of land designated as a “green belt”, which was leased out to the tenth respondent, to its original condition prior to the construction which was carried out on the land.

6. An objection was raised in regard to the maintainability of the petition before the High Court by the tenth respondent.

7. By an order dated 28 January 2013, the High Court transferred the petition to the NGT