Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 624
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
MR. SUDHIR AGARWAL, J, DR. AFROZ AHMAD, ACJ
Bhavak Parasher – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Indu Walia & Ors. – Respondent
Review Application No. 22/2024 | In Original Application No. 807/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: None
A review cannot be sought simply for re-arguing a matter already decided, unless an error is apparent on the record.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act - Review of earlier decisions - The applicant claims a wrong interpretation was given regarding the term ‘Hilly Area’. The court finds the applicant’s arguments fail to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of record. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
(B) Review Jurisprudence - Principles established by previous Supreme Court decisions indicate that a review is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to reargue previously decided matters, but is limited to clear errors on record. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
This matter concerns a review application where environmental issues regarding land development and designation as ‘Hilly Area’ were previously adjudicated. The applicant claims that incorrect interpretations influenced crucial decisions concerning environmental degradation and required statutory permissions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial error that warranted a review, emphasizing the limited nature of review proceedings as per established jurisprudence.
Issues: The primary issues centered around the interpretation of ‘Hilly Area’ definitions under existing laws and the legality of prior development activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an error apparent must be evident and not merely the result of differing opinions; thus, review was denied.
Result: Review application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review application alleges inadequate interpretation of legal definitions related to environmental law. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented revolve around alleged factual inaccuracies and misapplication of law. (Para 3 , 4) |
ORDER
1. This review application has been filed by the applicant-Bhavak Parasher stating that a wrong interpretation has been given to the term ‘Hilly Area’ and he has taken grounds of review as under:-
“Grounds of Review May it please your lordship:
That three issues were decided and subsequent decisions were arrived at as detailed below (i) Whether the activity of cutting of slope and levelling of the area in question has resulted in environmental degradation and that too, in violation of environmental laws?
(Para 27 page 22 of judgement ANX D) Page 43 of Doc Issue I is accordingly answered against the applicant (Para 39 page 25 of judgement ANX D) Page 46 of Doc (ii) Whether respondent 1 has cut trees illegally causing damage to environment? And, (Para 27 page 22 of judgement ANX D) Page 43 of Doc Issue IT is answered accordingly and in favour of applicant (Para 50page 34 of judgement ANX D)Page 55 of Doc (iii) Whether applicant is entitled for any relief?
(Para 27 page 22 of judgement ANX D) Page 43 of Doc Issue III is answered accordingly.
(Para 55 page 35 of judgement ANX D) Page 56 of Doc Grounds of review on ISSUE No 1 The Main issue is of denial existence of hills in Malahat Distt Una specially the area in dispute in OA 807.Which is not a fact, even one percent. As the entire area in dispute falls under definition of any area with average slope of 30°.Even today the immediate touching/adjacent area to disputed area has slops more than 60°or more. This fact cannot be overlooked/ignored with open eyes by the way of argumentative jugglery of defendant advocate.
Images and 9 photographs attached ANX F to prove my point in review. Page 804 - 812 of Doc My submission before your lordship is that issue No 1 was decided on the grounds of incomplete citation of law laid in (by representing learned Advocate of R-1 Induwalia)
a. URDPFI Guidelines Government of India Ministry of Urban Development Hill city Page 158 of Chapter 5.5.1. ANX F Page 246 of Doc b. NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF INDIA 2005 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN HILLY AREAS. ANX G Page 60 Page 621 of Doc Definition laid down in above two documents (ANXF&G) i.e.
Any area above 600 m in height form mean sea level may be classified as hilly. or any area with avenge slope of 30* may also be classified as hilly, considering the sensitive and fragile ecosystem of hills and mountains. However, the State Governments may identify and notify areas to be covered under `Hilly Area', which need to be dealt with special consideration, when developmental activities are taken up.
Representing learned Advocate of R-1 InduWalia has misled the court by making incomplete citation of rules laid down by URDPF and national building code i.e. Any area above 600 m in height form mean sea level may be classified as hilly,but mentioned no reference of rest of law laid down i.e. or any area with average slope of 30* may also be classified as hilly. considering the sensitive and fragile eco-system of hills and mountains. However, the State Governments may identify and notify areas to be covered under `Hilly Area'. which need to be dealt with special consideration, when developmental activities are taken up.
Following is an observation in judgement onPara32 of page 24 of Judgement ANA D: Page 44 of Doc Now coming to the question, whether cutting and levelling of the area amounts to slope cutting of hill top, Learned Counsel for respondent 1 has placed reliance on National Building Code which defines `Hilly Area' in view of Regulation 27 of HPTCP Rules, 2014. Applicant has not stated anywhere and could not dispute, during the course of argument, that from the definition of trill area' in National Building Code 2005, which is attracted due to Regulation 27
