Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Dinesh Joshi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 258

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Joshi and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5328-5329 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 10239 of 2018, Civil Appeal Nos. 407-408, 409-410, 2370-2371 of 2021, Civil Appeal No. 1877 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12945 of 2019
Decided On : 22-03-2023

Headnote:
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 19 and 22 – Injunction against granting sanction to develop and construct properties in vicinity of “Teliya Talab”, a man-made lake or reservoir in city of Mandsaur – NGT was aware that applicant wished to interdict development in vicinity of Talab, for which sanction had been granted – Yet, it did not feel necessity of seeking particulars from parties before it, and whether any parties were likely to be affected by its orders – As a judicial Tribunal, bound by principles of natural justice, it ought to have impleaded, or at least issued a public notice, about pendency of litigation, and sought intervention of those likely to be adversely affected. Its omission to take this step, has resulted in prejudice to all appellants before this court, who were faced with drastic and serious consequences, because sanction for development or construction upon lands owned, purchased or developed by them, immediately became out of bounds – Parties are bound by principle of finality which results in a decree by a competent court, acquiring a final and binding nature, especially where it is confirmed concurrently and upheld by highest court of land – NGT did not advert to any facts, such as existence of Development/Master Plan, or green area, and road, after which plots were sought to be developed, although these were expressly brought to its notice, in review proceedings – Appeal allowed. (Paras 16, 20, 24 and 25)
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Special leave granted in SLP (C) No. 12945/2018. In all these appeals, all respondents were served and had entered appearance. The original applicant before the National Green Tribunal (hereafter ‘NGT’) too had been served; an affidavit was filed on his behalf. He was however, not represented on the date of hearing. With consent of counsel for the parties, all appeals were heard finally.

2. These appeals, under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereafter ‘NGT Act’) and appeals by special leave¹ [Against order dated 10.7.2018 in W.P. No. 3484/2018 (PIL) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court], question various orders² [Dated 17.02.2016 in O.A. No. 100/2015; dated 19.04.2016 in R.A. No. 3/2016; dated 21.09.2020 in O.A. No. 17/2018; dated 18.11.2020 in R.A. No. 8 and 9/2020 and order dated 25.11.2020 in M.A. Nos. 9, 11 and 14/2020] of the National Green Tribunal which directed that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mandsaur (hereafter ‘Parishad’) should desist from granting sanction to develop and construct properties in the vicinity of the “Teliya Talab” (hereafter ‘talab’) a man-made lake or reservoir in the city of Mandsaur.

3. The original applicant, Dinesh Joshi, preferred an application before the Central Bench of NGT, seeking directions for protection and conservation of the talab, alleging that construction permissions had been granted by the authorities, i.e. the Parishad and the State, to various private parties and allowed construction upon a water body, resulting in depletion of the lake’s area, thus reducing availability of surface water. It was also further alleged that untreated domestic waste and industrial effluents were being discharged or dumped into the talab. The Parishad and the Town and Country Planning Department (hereafter ‘TCD’) filed replies, upon being issued notices.

4. The NGT, by its order dated 17.02.2016 (referred to hereafter as ‘the main order’) took note of the Parishad’s reply, as well as that of the TCD and relied on a ‘revenue trace map’ to say that the “Maximum Water Line” (hereafter ‘MWL’) had been shown and the land over which construction permission was given, i.e. Khasra. No. 1238, fell within the “Full Water Line” (hereafter ‘FWL’) as well as the MWL. It was observed that if the water was allowed to reach the maximum level, the lands would be submerged, as according to the NGT, they fell within the catchment area.

5. The appellants (except the appellant in the appeal by special leave) preferred review petitions, pointing to the fact that they had been given permission by the Parishad much earlier, and also drawing to the notice of the NGT that a Development Plan had been finally sanctioned in 2003, in terms of which a green area abutted the talab, beyond which a public road had been sanctioned and built, and further that their lands lay beyond this road. It was argued that in these circumstances, the NGT should review its order, as they were not heard before the main order was made.

6. The appellant in C.A. No. 5328-5329/2016 (hereafter called ‘the society’) additionally urged that the lands owned by it were allotted a long time earlier to it, and that its use for construction of residential units to its members (who were workers, belonging to the poorer segments of society) became a subject matter of a previous litigation, whereby the state authorities had cancelled the conversion certificate, on the ground that the lands fell in the submergence area. The society filed a suit, which was decreed by trial court³ [By order dated 24.12.1994 passed by the Civil Judge First Class, Mandsaur in C.S. No. 524A/88] the state’s appeal was dismissed⁴ [By order dated 18.05.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 80A/2001] and its second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, met the same fate, i.e. dismissal⁵ [By order dated 23.06.2011 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 415/2001]. It was also pointed out that the special leave pet