Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4916
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM, Arun Kumar Verma, EM
Pradeep Singh Shekhawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Original Application No.192/2024/EZ
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Sura
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Malabika Roy Dey, Mr. P. Nayak, Ms. Anamika Pandey
Permitting road upgrades in wildlife sanctuaries must comply with mandated environmental assessments to prevent ecological damage.
Headnote:(A) Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 - Sections 3A and 3B - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Alleged illegal road construction within a wildlife sanctuary without central approval - Applicant demanded cessation of construction, assessment of damage, and accountability for environmental harm. (Paras 1, 5, 30)
(B) Environmental Protection - Necessity for compliance with environmental guidelines during road upgrades - Existing road prior to 1980 may be upgraded with restrictions on black-topping or runway expansion. The Tribunal directed adherence to guidelines in MoEF Notification dated 29.04.2005 for road upgradation. The thoroughfare is protective for the sanctuary and local ecology, emphasizing timely intervention against illegal activities. (Paras 29, 30).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal standing of the applicant and the context of the application. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 13) |
| 2. claims of illegal construction impacting the sanctuary. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. observations related to the road's condition and ecological significance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. clarifications on regulatory compliance for road upgrades. (Para 29) |
| 5. final ruling directing adherence to environmental guidelines. (Para 30 , 32) |
-
ORDER
1. This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant, seeking the following reliefs:-
a. “Issue suitable order/directions directing the Respondents to stop all illegal constructions, including the illegal construction of road to Bhuban Hill, within the Barak Bhuban Wildlife Sanctuary located in Cachar District, Assam;
b. Issue suitable order/directions directing the Respondents to undertake site inspection and assess the damage done to the forest area and to recover payment for Compensatory Afforestation and Net Present Value from the erring officials of the Forest Department were responsible illegal activities;
c. Direct that Sh. MK Yadava and the concerned officials of the Respondent No.2 be made personally liable for the damage caused to the forest area and pay compensation for the loss to ecology and environment;
d. Direct punishment of Sh. MK Yadava-Respondent No.3 and other concerned officials of Respondent No.2 as well as Respondent No.3 under Section 3A and 3B for committing offences under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 ;
e. Pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”
2. The Applicant in the present Original Application is stated to be a resident of A-34, A, Vivekanand Colony, Naya Khera, Jaipur, Rajasthan, and is stated to have conducted a lot of investigative work on the adverse impacts of illegal mining in Rajasthan as well as in Assam.
3. The allegation, inter alia, of the Applicant is of construction of a road within the Barak Bhuban Wildlife Sanctuary without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government as mandated by the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 .
-
4. It is also alleged that the illegal construction is still ongoing and creating an environmental hazard in the said Wildlife Sanctuary.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has also drawn our attention to Annexure-A/7 (page no.78) to the Original Application, which is the Minutes of the field visit of the site in question dated 29.11.2022, and submits that in the report itself it is mentioned by the then PCCF & HoFF, Assam, that diversion of the area under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , and afforestation in an equivalent area elsewhere, in which case, the road as well as the Right of Way (ROW) of the road shall be under the control of the PWD; the Forest Department shall have no control over the road as it will be a public road.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that in the Minutes dated 29.11.2022, two ‘Approaches’ were suggested for purposes of taking decision. Approach-1 mentions that the Forest Department shall have no control over the road as it will be a public road; whereas Approach-2 mentions that the entire control of the road and Right of Way (ROW) shall continue to be with the Forest Department.
Approach 1 & 2 of the Minutes dated 29.11.2022 read as under:-
“Approach 1: Diversion of the area under FC Act and afforestation in an equivalent area elsewhere, in which case, the road as well as the ROW of the road shall be under the control of the PWD; the Forest department shall have no control over the road as it will be a public road.
Approach 2: The entire land to be under the control of the Forest Department by way that the road to be developed by PWD on behalf of the Forest Department. In that case the entire control of the road and ROW shall continue to be with the Forest Department.”
7. Learned Counsel further submits that subsequently in the said Minutes a decision was taken tha
