SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 61

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, DR. AFROZ AHMAD, JJ
BHAVAK PARASHER – Appellant
Versus
SMT INDU WALIA WO RAM PARKESH – Respondent
807/2022 / DELHI



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent: AAGNEY SAIL

Unauthorized land development and illegal tree cutting violate environmental laws, necessitating penalties and remedial actions.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 16, and 17 - Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 - Section 39(2) - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Environmental degradation - Allegations against landowner for unauthorized land development and tree cutting - Tribunal found that while some trees were cut illegally, the land was not classified as a hilly area under applicable laws, thus limiting the scope of environmental violations. (Paras 1, 27, 40, 52)

(B) Environmental Law - Cutting of trees - The Tribunal held that the cutting of trees without proper permission constitutes a violation of environmental laws, necessitating penalties and remedial actions. (Paras 48, 52)

Facts of the case:
The applicant alleged that the respondent unlawfully leveled a hilltop area of 7.7 hectares, causing environmental damage. Complaints were made to various authorities, but no effective action was taken until the Tribunal intervened. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that while some illegal tree cutting occurred, the land in question did not meet the criteria for being classified as a hilly area, thus limiting the application of certain environmental regulations. (Paras 40, 49)

Issues: The main issues were whether the land development caused environmental degradation and whether the respondent illegally cut trees. (Paras 27, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the respondent's activities did not constitute illegal mining or significant environmental violations under the applicable laws, but acknowledged illegal tree cutting and mandated penalties. (Paras 32, 49)

Result: Original Application allowed; respondent directed to pay environmental compensation and take remedial actions. (Paras 56, 58)

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Bhavak Parasher, son of Late Gaja Nand Parasher, resident of H.No. 506, Zail Singh Nagar, Roop Nagar has come up before Tribunal in this Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) filed under Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) alleging that Smt. Indu Walia (respondent 1) is the owner of land, measuring 7.7 hectares, at Village-Mahalat, Tehsil and District-Una, State of Himachal Pradesh. The land is on hilly top. Respondent 1 has removed mountain top in the area measuring 7.7 hectares (206 Kanals) using bulldozers and loaders and has made it flat plateau. Muck has been buried across the streams and onward through bottoms of hills, she has uprooted centuries old core zones of biospheres, changed the topography and damaged the hilly topography of the area. Applicant made complaint to Divisional Forest Officer, Una vide letter dated 13.03.2019; to Deputy Commissioner, Una vide various letters dated 02.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 and to Environmental Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘HPSPCB’) vide letter dated 22.07.2019. Some enquiries were made by the authorities concerned but no effective action was taken. Member Secretary, Special Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘SADA’), District Una, State of Himachal Pradesh, however, issued an order dated 13.08.2019 under Section 39(2) of Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HPTCP Act, 1977’) directing respondent 1 to stop unauthorised development of land over khasra nos. 2894, 2423/2475, 2874, 2861, 2863 and 2895 at village Malahat, Tehsil and District-Una. Applicant also filed a complaint no. HPRERA2022003 under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERD Act, 2016’) before Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘HPRERA’) wherein an order was passed on 11.07.2022 (at page 31) by HPRERA, directing respondent 1 not to proceed with any sale etc. of the land in dispute without first getting the Project registered with HPRERA.

The relevant extract of the order reads as under:

“The Authority considering all the facts and circumstances of the case holds that respondent shall not advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building without first getting the project registered with this Authority as per the mandate of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. To conclude the respondent is barred/restrained from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering for sale or inviting persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building owned by respondent in Mauja Malahat, District Una, H.P. without getting the project registered with the Authority as per Section 3 of the Act ibid. Any violation of this order shall further entail per day penalty under Section 63 of the Act ibid.”

2. Another order was passed on 27.09.2022 by HPRERA, observing that the Authority is satisfied that respondent 1 has sold 18 plots having more than 500 m2 without having registration with the Authority under the provisions of RERD Act, 2016 and has violated the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, passed following order, restraining respondents from further sale of any plot etc.:

“The Authority considering all the facts and circumstances of the case hereby holds that till further orders respondent shall not advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building in aforesaid land without first getting the project registered with this Authority as per the mandate of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. 2016. To conclude the respondent is barred/restrained from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top