MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. versus FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS. on 5 March 2019

[2019] 4 S.C.R. 995

MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD.

v.

FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.5016 of 2016)

MARCH 05, 2019

[A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 22– Wetlands (Conservation of Management) Rules, 2010 – KarnatakaTown and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Applicants filed applicationbefore National Green Tribunal (NGT) contending that ecologicallysensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial AreaDevelopment Board (KIADB) to respondents nos.9 & 10 for settingup of Software Technology Park, Commercial and ResidentialComplex, hotel and Multi-level Car Parks – It was further contendedthat the Revenue Map in respect of properties referred in the LandLease Agreements had multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains)– It was alleged that the said Project was encroaching on twoRajakaluves – It was also alleged that respondents had obtainedNOC by concealing material facts and commenced construction overthe ecologically sensitive area of the lake catchment area and valley,with utter disregard to the statutory compliances – Tribunalconstituted the committee to inspect the projects in question andsubmit the report – Further, Tribunal directed Respondent No.9 topay penalty of Rs.117.35 crores and Respondent No. 10 to paypenalty of Rs. 22.5 crores for environmental and ecologicalrestoration – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellantscontended that original application was not maintainable as it didnot satisfy requirements of s.14(1) and 14(3) of the Act and it wasbarred by limitation as it was not filed within six months from dateon which cause of action arose – Held: The Jurisdiction of theTribunal is provided u/ss. 14, 15 and 16 of the Act – s.14 providesthe jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial questionrelating to environment (including enforcement of any legal rightrelating to environment) is involved – However, such question shouldarise out of implementation of the enactments specified in ScheduleI – Also, s.15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power andjurisdiction r/w. s.20 of the Act – Whenever the environment and

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the tribunal canapply s.20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of theenvironment – The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the powerbestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly – Aninterpretation which furthers the interests of environment must begiven a broader reading – Further, an interpretation that is in favourBof conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal should be preferred ratherthan one taking away jurisdiction – Insofar as limitation isconcerned, the original application filed was not an application u/s. 14 of the Act, it was a petition u/s. 15 of the Act and thus it couldbe filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for suchCcompensation on relief first arose – Also, the findings arrived at bythe Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were availableon record but also on the pleadings that were made by the partiesbuttressed by the Committee’s report and the inspection note of theExpert Members – Therefore, the directions passed and the penaltyimposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents valid andDsustainable.

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 – s.100 – Held:s. 22 provides for an appeal to theSupreme Court on the grounds specified in s.100 of the CPC – U/s.100 CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the caseEinvolves a substantial question of law as may be framed by theAppellate Court – The scope of appeal u/s. 22, therefore, is restrictedto substantial question of law arising from the judgment of theTribunal.

Conclusion

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Appellants soughtFa factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation offactual matrix by Supreme Court u/s.22 of the NGT Act – Held: It issettled that merely because the remedy of appeal is provided againstthe decision of the Tribunal on a substantial question of law alone,that does not ipso facto permit the appellants to agitate their appealGto seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire matter –The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to seekwholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix thathas been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible u/s.22 – There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of factsand evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision.H

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14 and 15 – Held:s.15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction, independent of s.14thereof – Further, s.14(3) juxtaposed with s.15(3) of the Act, areseparate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunalwith distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating thatjurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. s. 14 ands.15 of the Act) independently – The limitation provided in s.14 is aperiod of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action firstarose and whereas in s.15 it is 5 years – Therefore, the legislativeintent is clear to keep s.14 and s.15 as self-contained jurisdictions.

Dismissing C.A.No.5016 of 2016 and C.A.No.8002-8003of 2016, the Court HELD: 1. The first question raised by the appellants is inrelation to the maintainability of the application before theTribunal. The Tribunal has been established under aconstitutional mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13of the Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken atthe United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development.The Tribunal is a specialized judicial body for effective andexpeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protectionand conservation of forests and other natural resources includingenforcement of any legal right relating to environment. The rightto healthy environment has been construed as a part of the rightto life under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements.Therefore, the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcementof environmental rights. [Paras 39 and 40] [1025-D-F]

2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided underSections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all civil cases where asubstantial question relating to environment (includingenforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved.However, such question should arise out of implementation ofthe enactments specified in Schedule I. [Para 41] [1025-F-G]

3. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a)of the Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims ofpollution and other environmental damage arising under the AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aenactments specified in Schedule I. Further, under Section15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) the Tribunal can provide for restitution ofproperty damaged and for restitution of the environment for sucharea or areas as the Tribunal may think fit. It is noteworthy thatSection 15(1)(b) & (c) have not been made relatable to ScheduleI enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a glimpse intoBthe wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been cloaked withrespect to restoration of the environment. [Para 42] [1025-H;1026-A-B]

4. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of powerand jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principlesCof sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluterpays, propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicialpronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock ofenvironmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore,wherever the environment and ecology are being compromisedDand jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for takingrestorative measures in the interest of the environment.[Para 43] [1026-C-D]

5. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the powerbestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. AnEinterpretation which furthers the interests of environment mustbe given a broader reading. The existence of the Tribunal withoutits broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c) read withSection 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless,and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specializedTribunal specifically to address environmental concerns. TheFTribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well aswith Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation toprovide for preventive and restorative measures in the interestof the environment. [Para 44] [1026-D-F]

6. Section 15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction,Gindependent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3)juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisionsfor filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinctperiods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating thatjurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. SectionsH

MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION

14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitation provided inSection 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which thecause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years.Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and15 as self contained jurisdictions. [Para 45] [1026-F-H]

7. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to fileapplications each under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, itcannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to theTribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same withpowers. As stated supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, itsbreadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions ofthe Act as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leavesno manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to theseprovisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour ofcloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. An interpretationthat is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferredrather than one taking away jurisdiction. [Para 46] [1027-A-C]

8. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect tothe provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent containedin any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue oflaw other than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powersover anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, PlanningAct, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act”);and the Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 (“RMP”). ACentral legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VIIof the Constitution of India will have the overriding effect overState legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal whileproviding for restoration of environment in an area, can specifybuffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in contradictionwith zoning regulations under these statutes or the RMP.[Para 47] [1027-C-E]

9. The second question raised by the appellants is that thepetition is barred by time. According to appellants, environmentalclearance was granted to the respondent No. 9 on 17.02.2012 forwhich notice was published in the leading newspaper on12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012. Modified building plan was approvedon 30.08.2012, which was followed up to 10.08.2014. Similar

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Aevents had taken place in regard to the project of respondentNo. 10 who had been granted environmental clearance on30.09.2013. The application had to be filed within a period of sixmonths from the date on which cause of action for such disputehas first arisen in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Admittedly,the present application has been filed in March, 2014 andBaccording to them, it is much beyond the prescribed period oflimitation. Also, there is no application for condonation of delayaccompanying the main application. Therefore, the Tribunal willnot have jurisdiction to condone the delay. [Para 48] [1027-F-H]

10. The OA No. 222 of 2014 filed before the Tribunal wasCnot an application simpliciter under Section 14 of the Act. It wasan application where a specific prayer has been made withreference to Lake Development Authority’s (“LDA”) Reportdated 12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment, Forest andClimate Change (“MoEF”) Monitoring Committee Report datedD14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically sensitive land and formaintaining the sensitive in its natural condition so that theecological balance of the area is not disturbed. It is clear fromthe documentary evidence supported by data, that the projectproponents have committed breaches and the implementation of the project is bound to have serious adverse impact on the ecology,Ehydrology and the environment in the catchment area of BellandurLake. The environmental degradation as established from thedocuments would give rise to an independent cause of action.Therefore, this was a petition under Section 15 of the Act andthus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which theFcause for such compensation or relief first arose.[Para 49] [1028-A-D]

11. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunalthere was no mention of the provision under which it was beingfiled. It is well settled principle of law that non-mention of orGerroneous mention of the provision of law would not be of anyrelevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass anorder. It would be a mere irregularity and would not vitiate theapplication or the judicial order of the Tribunal. [Para 50][1028-D-E]

H

12. The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of theCommittee report of August 2015, that the appellant hadencroached 3 acres 10 guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundarywall has been raised around the said land. The Tribunal has alsofound that the project proponents have violated the Master Plan.They have not obtained the mandatory clearance from theSensitive Zone Committee constituted by the Government ofKarnataka. It is also clear from the materials on record thatthere are several other violations by the project proponents. TheTribunal has discussed all these issues. It is also clear from thematerials on record that there is a definite possibility ofenvironment, ecology, lakes, and wetland being adversely affectedby these projects. [Para 52] [1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]

13. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not onlybased on the documents that were available on record but alsoon the pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by theCommittee’s report and the inspection note of the ExpertMembers. Therefore, the directions passed and the penaltyimposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents are validand sustainable and do not suffer from any perversity.[Para 54] [1030-F-G]

Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees’ State InsuranceCorpn.(2007) 4 SCC 579 : [2007] 6 SCR 139 ;Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinningand Manufacturing[1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 549– relied on.

Case Law Reference

[1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 549relied onPara 37[2007] 6 SCR 139relied onPara 44

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5016

of 2016

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2016 of the NationalGreen Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.222 of 2014

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003, 12326, 9227, 10995, 10993, 10994,10992, 12157, 12152, 12156, 12158, 12160, 12159 of 2016, 4923-4924,1343, 14966 of 2017, 2246 of 2018.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

AUdaya Holla, Adv. General, Shashi Kiran Shetty, Maninder Singh,Dharuv Mehta, Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, R. Venkataramani,Sajan Poovayya, Ms. Kiran Suri, Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs.,Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, Savyasachi Sahai, Ms. VipashaSingh, Gaurav Goel, V. N. Raghupathy, M/S. Devasa & Co., DevashishBharuka, Justine George, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Kanika S., Ravi Bharuka,BMs. Sarushree, Satish Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, George Thomas, AnuragGharote, A. S. Bhasme, Abid Ali Beeran P, Nishanth Patil, Rohit Prasad,Ananth Suresh, S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni,Shekhar G. Devasa, Bhuvanendra K.V., S. Mahesh, Manish Tiwari, LuvKumar, Praveen Vignesh, M/S. Devasa & Co., Priyadarshi Banerjee,CPratibhanu Singh Kharola, Saransh Jain, Meka V. Ramakrishna,Madhavam Sharma, Ms. Sriparna Dutta Choudhury, UdayadityaBanerjee, Mahesh Agrwal, Ankur Saigal, Sarans Jain, Ms. TanviManchanda, Nithin P., Ms. Priyanka M.P., E. C. Agrawala, DevashishBharuka, S.J. Amith, Ms. Rithika Gambir, A. Shwarya Kumar,Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Parikshit P. Angadi, Chinmay Deshpande, GeetDAhuja, Parikshit Angadi, Anup Kumar, O. P. Bhadani, Rajesh Mahale,Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Dharm Singh, Sandeep Grover, Ms. PankhuriBhardwaj, Pai Amit, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ES. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. These appeals have been preferredunder Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity‘NGT Act’) challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and04.05.2016 respectively passed by the Principal Bench of the NationalGreen Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘the Tribunal’).F2.The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002- F2.The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002-8003 of 2016 are respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original ApplicationNo. 222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent Nos. 9 and10’). The said Application was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein(hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicants’). Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 inthese appeals are the State of Karnataka and other authorities. TheyGwere arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the application. RespondentNos. 12 and 13 herein were subsequently impleaded in the application(for short ‘the impleaded respondents’).

3. The State of Karnataka has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4923-4924of 2017, challenging the general condition and direction No.(1) containedH

in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016. The other appeals havebeen filed by different entities, who were not parties before the Tribunalchallenging the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016 insofar as it directsa buffer/green zone of 75 meters in respect of lakes, 50 meters in respectof primary Rajakaluves, 35 meters in case of secondary Rajakaluvesand 25 meters in case of tertiary Rajakaluves with retrospective effect.According to them, they are adversely affected by the aforesaid conditionin the impugned order.

4. The applicants filed O.A. No.222 of 2014 by contending thatecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial AreaDevelopment Board (for short ‘the KIADB’) to respondent Nos. 9 and10 vide Notifications dated 23.04.2004 and 07.05.2004 respectively forsetting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residentialcomplex, hotel and Multi Level Car Parks. The Master Plan formulatedby the Bangalore Development Authority (for short the ‘BDA’), identifiesthe allotted land as ‘Residential Sensitive’, though the same land wasidentified in the Draft Master Plan as ‘Protected Zone’. It was furthercontended that the Revenue Map in respect of properties as referred inthe Land Lease Agreements has multiple Rajakaluves (Storm WaterDrains). The development projects in question sit right on the catchmentand wetland area which feeds the Rajakaluves, which in turn drains rainwater into Bellandur Lake. The project will thus encroach two Rajakaluvesof 1.38 acres and 1.23 acres each.

5. The Satellite Digital Images of the area from the year 2000 to2012 show encroachment upon these Rajakaluves, as well as the mannerin which they are covered by the construction. The State Level ExpertAppraisal Committee (for short ‘SEAC’), which was to assist the StateLevel Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short ‘SEIAA’),held its meetings on various dates to examine the project. It had requiredthe appellant No.9 to submit a revised NOC from the Bangalore WaterSupply and Sewerage Board (for short ‘BWSSB’) for the project inquestion. It was also observed that the project lies between the BellandurLake and the Agara Lake. Respondent No.9 was also directed to takeprotective measures to spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves andalso to commit that no construction would be carried out in the bufferzone. In the meeting of 11.11.2011, it was recorded that the projectproposes car parking facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentallysensitive area.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6.It was alleged that NOC was issued covering an area of 17,404sq. mtrs. whereas the built up area, as noted by SEAC, is 13,50,454.98sq. mtrs. Respondent No.9 obtained NOC from BWSSB by concealingmaterial facts and by misrepresenting that NOC is required only forresidential units which form a very minuscule part of the total project.Respondent No.9 had approached the Karnataka State Pollution ControlBBoard (for short ‘the KSPCB’) for obtaining clearance, which wasgranted on 04.09.2012 subject to the fulfillment of the conditions statedin the consent order which included leaving the buffer zone all along thevalley and towards the lake. It is further contended that the grant ofconsent by the KSPCB to respondent No.9 also contained a conditionCwith regard to obtaining Environmental Clearance from the CompetentAuthority and no construction was to commence until such clearancewas granted.

Arguments

7. Applicants further contended that respondent No.9 violated theconditions and commenced construction of the project. There was alsoDviolation of the stipulations stated in the approval of SEAC in relation tobuffer zone and construction over Rajakaluves. The construction hadbeen commenced over the ecologically sensitive area of the lakecatchment area and valley, with utter disregard to the statutorycompliances. Referring to these blatant irregularities, the applicantsubmitted that the conversion of land from ‘Protected Zone’ toE‘Residential Sensitive Area’ is violative of the law. The project is right inthe midst of a fragile wetland area which ought not to have been disturbedby the development activity. The fragile environment of the catchmentarea has been exposed to grave and irreparable damage. It has severelydisturbed and damaged the Rajakaluves. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10Fstarted to level the land by filling it with debris, thus causing damage tothe drains. The conditions with regard to no-disturbance to the StormWater Drains, natural valleys and buffer area in and around theRajakaluves have been violated. It has in turn, affected the ground watertable and bore wells which are the only source of water for thousands ofhouseholds. Fishing and agriculture which depends on Bellandur LakeGare also severely affected. The construction over the wetland betweenthe two lakes is in violation of Wetlands (Conservation of Management)Rules, 2010 (for short ‘Rules of 2010’).

8. It was submitted that SEIAA in its meeting dated 29.09.2012,decided to close the file pertaining to respondent No. 10 due to non-H

submission of requisite information and the application thereof wasrejected in November, 2012. Despite the rejection, respondent No.10commenced construction on the project in full swing.

9. The applicants also relied upon the findings of the JointLegislative Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri A.T.Ramaswamy in the month of July 2005, which stated that there were262 water bodies in the Bangalore city in 1961 which drastically camedown because of trespass and encroachments. It was also affirmed thatabout 840 kms. of Rajakaluves have been encroached upon in severalplaces and have become sewage channels. The applicants also relied onthe Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.K. Patil suggesting immediate remedial action in order toremove encroachments on the lake area and the Rajakaluves andpreservation of the lakes in and around Bangalore city. It was furthercontended that other Expert Committees, including Lakshman Rau ExpertCommittee had also submitted proposals for preservation, restoration orotherwise of the existing tanks in Bangalore Metropolitan Area whichrecommended to maintain good water surface in Bellandur tank and toensure that the water in the tank is not polluted. The Central Governmentin August 2013 had issued an advisory on conservation and restorationof water bodies in the urban areas. The applicants claim to have obtainedmonitoring report of the project by respondent No.5, Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, through RTI on 21.08.2013. The report dated14.08.2013 revealed that the project proponents are in clear breach oftheir undertaking to carry out all precautionary measures to ensure thatthe Bellandur lake is not affected by the construction and operationalphase of the project. This approach is particularly with regard to themajor alteration in natural sloping pattern of the project site and naturalhydrology of the area.

10. The Lake Development Authority (for short ‘the LDA’), afterinspection in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake submitted itsreport dated 12.06.2013 which confirms that the project will havedisastrous impact, including deleterious effect on the Bellandur Lake.This report was brought to the notice of KIADB. The LDA has alsoopined that the land should be classified and maintained as sensitivearea. The KIADB called upon respondent No. 9 to comply with therules of Ecology and Environment Department and to obtain necessaryapproval from KSPCB and LDA. Despite all this, respondent Nos. 9

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aand 10 have continued with their illegal constructions and have causeddamage to the ecology and the environment by irreparably jeopardizingthe ecological balance in this sensitive area. The applicants rely uponthe Revised Master Plan, 2013 issued by BDA which specifically providesthat 30 meters buffer zone is to be created around the lakes and 50meters buffer zone to be created on either side of the Rajakaluves. ItBwas also pleaded that respondent No. 9 had obtained the NOC fromBWSSB only with regard to residential units and not for the entire projectand that the Environmental Clearance obtained by respondent No.9 isbased upon the partial NOC issued by BWSSB which itself is amisrepresentation. It was contended that the projects are bound to createCwater scarcity as the requirement of the project of respondent No. 9alone is approximately 4.5 million liters per day, i.e. 135 million liters permonth, which is more than what the BWSSB supplies to the entireAgaram Ward. The construction of respective projects by respondentNos.9 and 10 respectively, besides having commenced without permissionfrom the authorities and being in violation of the conditions imposed forDgrant of permission/consent, is bound to damage the environment, resultingin change in the topography of the area, posing potential threat ofextinction of the Bellandur lake, causing traffic congestion, shorteningand wiping out the wetlands, extinction of Rajakaluves and causing seriousand potential threat of flooding and massive scarcity of water in the cityEof Bangalore, particularly the areas located near the water bodies.

11. Respondent No.9 in its objections contended that it wasincorporated with the objective of establishing an Information TechnologyPark and R & D Centre with facilities such as residential complexes,parks, education centres and other allied infrastructure within a singleFcompound. It had submitted the proposal to establish such InformationTechnology Park and other facilities to the State Government andrequested for allotment of land for the project. Its proposal was consideredin 78[th] High Level Committee meeting held on 21.06.2000 and afterexamining the proposal, it was approved by the Government on06.07.2000. Before the State High Level Committee, it had informedGthat its requirement was 110 acres of land, 25 MW of power from theKarnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short the‘KPTCL’), and four lakh litres of water per day from BWSSB. Thelands for the project were initially notified vide Notification dated10.02.2004. Subsequently, the lands were allotted vide letter datedH

28.06.2007 for which Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was signed on30.06.2007. Considering the overall development of the State ofBangalore, this respondent proposed a Mixed Use Development Projectconsisting of an Information Technology Park, residential apartments,retail, hotel and office buildings with a total built up area of 13,50,454.98sq mtrs. The Project was conceived as a zero waste discharge project.The project is located one and a half kms. away from the southern-sideof the Bellandur Lake. Towards the North, adjacent to the Project, liesvast stretches of lands belonging to the Defence and towards the East,lies the Project of respondent No. 10 and another developer is alsodeveloping a project on the western side. It has obtained sanction planon 04.07.2007 which was renewed from time to time.

12. Respondent No. 9 claims that it has obtained NOC from AirportAuthority of India on 09.04.2010. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, vide itscommunication dated 16.04.2010, granted clearance for the projectconstruction. BWSSB, vide its communication dated 26.04.2011 issuedNOC for portion of the proposed construction to be built. The BangaloreElectricity Supply Company Ltd. also granted NOC for arranging powersupply to the proposed residential and commercial building in its favour.Environmental Clearance was granted by SEIAA vide communicationdated 17.04.2012. The Director General of Police has issued NOC andKSPCB vide order dated 04.09.2012 accorded its consent for constructionof the said project subject to the conditions stated therein. It was furtherstated that after grant of the Environmental Clearance on 17.09.2012,the same was published in the leading newspapers “Kannada Prabha”and “The Indian Express” on 12.03.2012 and 14.03.2014 respectively.

13. It submitted a modified the building plan which was approvedby KIADB vide its letter dated 30.08.2012, which was valid up to10.08.2014. It started the construction of the project in November 2012,taking all precautions as per terms and conditions of the orders issued bythe competent authorities. It was also submitted that it has raised theconstructions in accordance with the plans and conditions of theEnvironmental Clearance and consent orders and that it has not violatedany of the conditions and has not caused any adverse impact on theecology and environment of the area. It has denied the contention thatits construction activity has blocked the Rajakaluves and has adverselyaffected the lake. It has already spent a sum of Rs 306.73 crores on theproject towards procurement of men and materials, machinery, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ainfrastructure, medical and sanitary facilities, etc. and that it has availedfinancial assistance from various banks and financial institutions towardsthe construction and execution of the project and that various contractshave been signed with the third parties. It is specifically pleaded that thepetition is barred by time and suffers from defects and laches.

B14.Respondent No.10 pleaded that the applicants raisedmultifarious proceedings against it which is an abuse of the process oflaw and mala fide. It had submitted a revised proposal in respect of itsproject in question and to obtain fresh clearance on 31.08.2007 with aninvestment of Rs. 179.22 crores. The State High Level Committee hadcleared the project which was communicated to it on 25.01.2008. ItsCproperties are located in between Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake butthere are no primary storm water drains and secondary storm waterdrains that exist in its properties. It has clearances from variousauthorities, including Environmental Clearance and consent forestablishment.

D

D

15. KIADB stated that after possession of the land was handedover to respondent Nos. 9 and 10, one year time was granted for theimplementation of the project which was extended from time to time.The building drawings were approved on 04.07.2007, and the modifiedbuilding drawings were approved on 26.04.2011 and 30.08.2012 withEspecific conditions. In its meeting held on 16.07.2013, it was resolved toinform respondent No. 9 to fully comply with the Ecology andEnvironment Rules and to obtain approvals from the LDA and KSPCB.LDA vide its letter dated 24.09.2013, had informed KIADB that theconstruction activity in the catchment area in the Bellandur Lake coulddrastically impact the Lake with deleterious effects and asked it to stopFconstruction activity of respondent Nos. 9 and 10. However, the validityof the building drawings was again extended up to 10.08.2014.TheLokayukta on 17.12.2013 had written a letter in respect of complaintfiled by the South East Forum for Sustainable Development where ithad been averred that the decision had been taken by the Board onG21.12.2013 to keep in abeyance the approval accorded and even the re-validations of plans. This was also informed to respondent No.9. TheBoard took a decision which was communicated to respondent No.9 on02.01.2014, wherein it asked the respondent No.9 to stop all constructionactivities on the allotted lands. The said communication was challengedby respondent No. 9 and on the stop-work notice, stay was granted byH

the High Court of Karnataka. The stop-work notice dated 23.12.2013issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’)was also stayed vide order dated 21.01.2014. The proposal submittedby respondent Nos. 9 and 10 had been approved by the State Government.The land allotted to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 does not consist of anyRajakaluves.

16. The LDA took a stand that it was not at all aware of theproject initiated by KIADB. It came to know about the entire projectonly when certain newspaper reports surfaced during the month of June,2013 and till that time it was in the dark. After the complaints, it inspectedthe Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake on 12.06.2013 and prepared aninspection report. In the report, it was noticed that large scale constructionactivities were going on in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake andthat there was a change in the land use, which in turn has directly affectedthe catchment of Bellandur Lake. The wetland area of Agara Lake hadalso shrunk, which originally formed the irrigation area for the adjoiningagricultural lands. Therefore, it had questioned the decision of KIADBvide letter dated 06.07.2013 and even requested it to stop the constructionactivity and to re-classify the land as non-SEZ area. It was thereafteron 31.08.2013, that respondent No. 9 wrote a letter for according approvalfor the proposed development projects. However, vide its letter dated23.09.2013, LDA informed KIADB that it had no authority to grant ordeny construction projects, but it also communicated its objections toKIADB mentioning that construction activity would be in contraventionof the directions of the Supreme Court. Despite these warnings, KIADBgranted approval to the extension of the building drawings of the projectin favour of the project proponents with certain conditions, like ensuringthat all natural valleys, valley zone, irrigation tanks and existing roadsleading to villages in the said land should not be disturbed. Further, thenatural sloping pattern of the project site was not to be altered and thelakes and other water bodies within and/or at the vicinity of the projectarea should be protected and conserved. Despite the objections, theplans were approved and approvals were extended from time to time. Ithas taken a categorical stand that the projects as approved by the KIADBwould have adverse impact on Bellandur and Agara Lakes.

17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framedthe following questions for consideration and determination:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A 1. Whether the application filed by the applicants and supportedby respondent Nos. 11 and 12, is barred by time and thus, notmaintainable?

2. Whether the petition as framed and reliefs claimed therein,disclose a cause of action over which this Tribunal hasBjurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under theprovisions of the NGT Act, 2010?

3. Whether the present application is barred by the principle of resjudicata and/or constructive res judicata?

4. Whether the application filed by the applicants should not beCentertained or it is not maintainable before the Tribunal, in viewof the pendency of the Writ Petitions 36567-74 of 2013, beforethe Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka? and

5. What relief, if any, are the applicants entitled to? Should or notthe Tribunal, in the interest of environment and ecology issueDany directions and if so, to what effect?18. The Tribunal by its order dated 07.05.2015 at Annexure A-2,disposed of the applications with the following directions:

1) We decline to pass any direction or order to stop further progressand/or demolition of the project or any part thereof at this stage.EHowever, we constitute the following Committee to inspect theprojects in question and submit a report to the Tribunal inter aliabut specifically on the issues stated hereinafter:

a) Advisor in the Ministry of Environment and Forest dealing withthe subject of wetlands.F

b) CEO of the Lake Development Authority, Karnataka State.

c) Chief Town Planner of BBMP, Bangalore.

d) Chairman of SEAC which recommended the grant ofEnvironmental Clearance to the projects in question.G

e) Sr. Scientist (Ecology) from the Indian Institute of Sciences,Bangalore.

f) Dr. Siddharth Kaul, former Advisor to MoEF.

g) A Senior Officer from the National Institute of Hydrology,Roorkee.

2) Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution ControlBoard shall act as the Convener of the Committee and would submit thefinal report to the Tribunal.

3) The Committee shall inspect not only the sites where the projectsin question are located but even other areas of Bangalore which theCommittee in its wisdom may consider appropriate, in order to examinethe interconnectivity of lakes and impact of such activities upon the waterbodies with particular reference to lakes.

4) The Committee shall submit whether the projects in questionhave encroached upon or are constructed on the wetlands andRajakaluves. If so, are there any adverse environmental and ecologicalimpact of these projects on the lake, particularly Bellandur Lake andAgara Lake, as well the Rajakaluves. The report should specify, if anyRajakaluves have been covered by the construction activities ofrespondent Nos. 9 and 10 or by any of the projects in the area in question.

5) Committee should submit in its report, if these projects haveany adverse impacts upon the surrounding ecology and environment,with particular reference to lakes and wetlands. If yes, then whetherany part of the project is required to be demolished. If so, details thereofalong with reasons.

6) The Committee shall substantially notice if any of the conditionsof the Environmental Clearance order in each case of respondent Nos.9 and 10 have been violated. If so, to what extent and suggest remedialmeasures in that behalf to restore the ecology of the area.

7) The Committee would also recommend what should be thebuffer zone around the lake(s) and interconnecting passages and wetlands.The Committee shall also report, whether activities of multipurposeprojects which have serious repercussions on traffic, air pollution,environment and allied subjects should be permitted any further or not,particularly, in wetlands and catchment areas of water bodies.

8) Recommendations should be made with regard to the stepsand measures that should be taken for restoration of lakes, particularlyin the city of Bangalore.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9) The Committee shall also find out that whether the constructionof the projects is in accordance with the sanctioned drawings and bye-laws in accordance with the letters dated 4[th] July, 2007 and 22[nd] April,2008 respectively. Further, the Committee would also report whetherboth respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have installed ETP/STP and have takenfull measures for recycling of used water for washing and flushing, etc.Bin terms of letters dated 11[th] October, 2013 and 3[rd] January, 2013, issuedby the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to respondentNos. 9 and 10 respectively.

A

10) In the event, the Committee is of the opinion that the adverseimpacts noticed are redeemable, then what directions need to be issuedCin that behalf and the cost involved for achieving the said conservationand restoration of lakes and water bodies.

11) Till the submission of the report by the Committee and directionspassed by the Tribunal in that regard, both respondent Nos. 9 and 10 arehereby restrained from creating any 3[rd] party interests or part with theDpossession of the property in question or any part thereof, in favour ofany person.

12) The Committee shall submit its report to MoEF and to thisTribunal as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than threemonths from today. During that period we restrain MoEF, SEIAA and/Eor any public authority from sanctioning any construction project on thewetlands and catchment areas of the water bodies in the city of Bangalore.

13) The Committee shall report if the project proponents areproposing to discharge their trade or domestic effluents into the lake orany of the water bodies in and around of the area in question.F

14) For the reasons stated in the judgment, respondent No. 9 isliable and shall pay a sum of Rs. 117.35 crores, while respondent No. 10shall pay a sum of Rs. 22.5 crores respectively being 5 per cent of theproject value, within two weeks from today. The said amount would bepaid to the KSPCB, which shall maintain a separate account for theGsame and would spend this amount for environmental and ecologicalrestoration, restitution and other measures to be taken to rectify thedamage resulting from default and non–compliance to law by the ProjectProponent in that area, after taking approval of the Tribunal.

15) We make it clear that the said respondents would not be entitledto pass on the amount in terms of direction 14, on to the purchasersbecause this liability accrues as a result of their own intentional defaults,disobedience of law in force and carrying on project activities andconstruction illegally and unauthorizedly.

19. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 9 and 10filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4829 and 4823 of 2015 before this Court. ThisCourt by its Order dated 20[th] May, 2015 passed the following order:

“One of the main contentions raised by the Appellants inthese Appeals is that though the Tribunal had heard the matteronly on preliminary issues and no arguments on merit wereadvanced, final judgment decides the merits of the disputes aswell and above all a penalty of Rs.117.35 crores against the originalRespondent No.9 (the Appellant in C.A. No. 4832 of 2015) andRs. 22.5 crores against Original Respondent No. 10 (the appellantin C.A. No. 4829/2015) is imposed.

On the aforesaid averment, we feel that it would be moreappropriate for the appellant to file an application before theTribunal with the prayer to recall the order on merits and decidethe matter afresh after hearing the counsel for the parties, as theTribunal knows better as to what transpired at the time of hearing.

With the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioners, theappeals are disposed of. Certain preliminary issues are decidedagainst the appellants which are also the subject matter ofchallenge. However, it is not necessary to deal with the same thisstage. We make it clear that in case the said application is decidedagainst the appellants or if ultimately on merits, it would be opento the appellants to challenge those orders by filing the appeal andin that appeal all the issues which are decided in the impugnedjudgment can also be raised.

The counsel for the appellants state that they would file therequisite application within one week. Till the said application isdecided by the Tribunal, there shall be stay of the directionpertaining the payment of aforesaid penalty. Mr. Raj Panjwanipoints out that the Tribunal has allowed the appellants to proceedwith the construction only on the payment of the aforesaid fine/penalty. We leave it to the Tribunal to pass whatever orders itdeems fit in this behalf, after hearing the parties.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A20.In relation to Issue No.5, an opportunity of hearing was grantedto the respondents. The Tribunal passed order dated 06.04.2016 on theseapplications as under:

“M.A. No. 603 of 2015 and M.A. No. 596 of 2015

These Applications have been filed on behalf of the Respondent 9& 10 respectively. It is not necessary for us to refer to any detailsin view of the directions that we propose to issue in this case.

B

Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the partiesand subject to just exception we would hear the parties in termsof the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India primarily onthe question of imposition of Environmental Compensation andmerits attached in relation thereto. Parties are given liberty toaddress their submissions on that behalf.

C

With the above directions the M.A. No. 603 of 2015 and M.A.No. 596 of 2015 stand disposed of without any order as to cost.”

D

21. It is evident from the above orders that the Tribunal had grantedopportunity to the parties to address it “limited question”, asaforementioned. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an orderdated 04.05.2016 as under:

“General Conditions or directions:

E

1. In view of our discussion in the main Judgment, we are of theconsidered view that the fixation of distance from water bodies(lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt contradiction, legalinfirmity and is without any scientific justification. The RMP –2015 provides 50m from middle of the Rajkalewas as buffer zone F

in the case of primary Rajkalewas, 25m in the case of secondaryRajkulewas and 15m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in contradictionto the 30m in the case of lake which is certainly much biggerwater body and its utility as a water body/wetland is well knowncertainly part of wet land. Thus, we direct that the distance in theGcase of Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 from Rajkulewas, Waterbodiesand wetlands shall be maintained as below:-

(i) In the case of Lakes, 75m from the periphery of waterbody to be maintained as green belt and buffer zone for all theexisting water bodies i.e. lakes/wetlands.

(ii) 50m from the edge of the primary Rajkulewas.

(iii) 35m from the edges in the case of secondary Rajkulewas

(iv) 25m from the edges in the case of tertiary Rajkulewas This buffer/green zone would be treated as no constructionzone for all intent and purposes. This is absolutely essential forthe purposes of sustainable development particularly keeping inmind the ecology and environment of the areas in question.

All the offending constructions raised by Respondents Nos.9 and 10 of any kind including boundary wall shall be demolishedwhich falls within such areas. Wherever necessary dredgingoperations are required, the same should be carried out to restorethe original capacity of the water spread area and/or wetlands.Not only the existing construction would be removed but also noneof these Respondents - Project Proponent would be permitted toraise any construction in this zone.

All authorities particularly Lake development Authority shallcarry out this operation in respect of all the water bodies/ lakes ofBangalore.

2. The capacity of the existing STPs to treat sewage is 729MLD, whereas another 500 MLD sewage is proposed to be treatedin 10 upcoming STPs. In this context, all the STPs operating inthe area whether Government or privately owned, should meetthe revised standards notified by CPCB/MoEF.

3. Bangalore city receives treated potable water of 1360 MLDfrom river Cauvery whereas the requirement is for another 750MLD and the entire area falls in critical zone in terms of groundwater exploitation. Information reveals that only one million litreper month of STP treated water is used by builders for constructionpurposes. For this reason, the BWSSB issues partial NOC tovarious residential and commercial projects in respect of supplyof potable water. In this context, following directions need to beissued:

i. At the time of grant of EC, the water requirement for theconstruction phase and operation phase should be consideredseparately. Due consideration should also be given for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

identification of source of supply of water and this should be apre-requisite for grant of EC.

ii. All the project proponents should necessarily use only treatedsewage water for construction purpose and this should bereflected in EC as a condition for construction phase.

iii. Wherever the quality of treated sewage water does notconform to the quality needed for construction, necessaryupgradation in STP should be undertaken immediately.

Specific Conditions/ Directions for Respondent 9; In addition to the above directions which should be equally part ofEC condition in respect of respondents nos. 9 & 10, followingspecific conditions shall apply to respondent no. 9:

i. Reclaimed area of the lake to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntasin survey No. 43 should be restored to its original condition atthe cost of project proponent. The possession of this area shouldbe restored by Respondent No. 9 to the concerned Authoritiesimmediately. In addition, a buffer zone of 75 m should beprovided between the lake and the project area and this shouldbe maintained as green area.

ii. In the remaining area, where primary Rajkalewa is abuttingthe project area, 50 m buffer zone on the side of the projectarea from the edge of the rajkalewa should be maintained asgreen belt.

iii. Several irrigation canals or tertiary rajkalewas taking offfrom the Agara tank were passing through the area ofrespondent No. 9, and serve the dual purpose of irrigating paddyfields and disposal of surface run off (storm water drains) duringrainy season. However on account of the activities of theproject, these drains have been totally obliterated. For thepurpose of proper disposal of storm runoff from the entire areafalling between the Agara lake and the Belandur Lake,respondent No. 9 must provide required number of storm waterdrains based on proper hydrological study. These storm drainsshould have a buffer zone of 15 m on either bank maintainedas green belt.

iv. The cumulative quantity of earth excavated for theconstruction of project is around 4 lakhs cubic meters in thedepth range of 0 to 9 meters. This has created huge hillock likestructure obstructing the natural flow pattern of surface runofffrom Agara Lake side to Balendur Lake side or primaryRajkalewas. For this purpose, during construction phase garlanddrain should be constructed around the existing dumping sitefor safe disposal of runoff to the Rajkalewas. For the disposalof excavated material, a proper muck disposal plan dulyapproved by SIEAA shall be prepared. In any case the planshould ensure that no muck/sediment flows into Rajkalewasand/or Belandur lake.

v. The Kharab land identified by Revenue Dept. admeasuring1 acre 2 guntas should be demarcated and maintainedseparately as green belt.

vi. The entire green belt created under the directions of thisTribunal should not to be considered as part of green belt ofthe project as part of EC condition and will be over and abovethe green belt as indicated in the EC.

vii. In view of the heavy traffic load in the adjoining Sarjapurroad, a proper study on the basis of traffic density,foot fallsexpected, etc., a proper plan needs to be prepared and theconcept of service road exclusively for the project needs to beworked out and additional parking space created within theproject area and incorporated as a part of the overall projectlayout, within a period of 3 months.

10. Though, at the time of hearing prior to passing the Judgment,we had heard the parties on all aspects but still we have providedre-hearing to the parties on all issues with emphasis on impositionof environmental compensation including the quantum. Uponhearing, we are of the considered view that environmentalcompensation imposed upon Respondent No. 9 calls for novariation and the Respondent No. 9 should be called upon to paythe said amount of Rs. 117.35 Crores determined under theJudgment prior to commencement of any project activity at thesite. Respondent No. 10 has not commenced any actualconstruction activity but has carried out various preparatory steps

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating ahillock at the premises in question and a site office.

Thus, considering cumulative effect on environment andecology due to various breaches in that behalf by RespondentNo. 10 and the fact that the remedial measures can moreeffectively be taken by the Respondent No.10, we reduceenvironmental compensation payable by Respondent No. 10 toRs. 13.5 crores (3% of the stated project cost instead of 5% asimposed in the original judgment).

General Directions:

1. We direct SEIAA, Karnataka to issue amended order grantingEnvironmental Clearance within four weeks from todayincorporating all the conditions stated in this judgement and suchother conditions as it may deem appropriate in light of this judgmentand Inspection Note of the Expert Members. The ProjectProponents would be permitted to commence activity only afterissuance of amended Environmental Clearance order.

2. SEIAA Karnataka and MoEF shall ensure regular supervisionand monitoring of the project and during the construction and evenupon completion to ensure that activity is carried out strictly inaccordance with the conditions of the order granting EnvironmentalClearance, this Judgment, Notification of 2006 and other laws inforce.

3. The distances in respect of buffer zone specified in this judgmentshall be made applicable to all the projects and all the Authoritiesconcerned are directed to incorporate such conditions in theprojects to whom Environmental Clearance and other permissionsare now granted not only around Belandur Lake, Rajkulewas,Agara Lake, but also all other Lakes/wetlands in the city ofBengluru.

4. We hereby direct the State of Karnataka to submit a proposalto the MoEF for demarcating wetlands in terms of Wetland Rules2010 as revised from time to time. Such proposal shall be submittedby the State within four weeks from today and the MoEF shallconsider the same in accordance with law and grant its approvalor otherwise within four weeks thereafter. After such approval is

granted by MoEF, the State would issue notification notifying suchareas immediately thereafter in accordance with Rules and law.

5. Both the Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 shall ensure that debris orany construction material that has been dumped into theRajkulewas, or on their Banks and on the buffer zone of wetlandsshould be removed within four weeks from today. In the eventthey fail to do so, the same shall be removed by the LakeDevelopment Authority along with the State Administration andrecover charges thereof from the said Respondents.

6. There is a serious discrepancy even in regard to the measurementof land as far as Respondent No. 9 is concerned. Admittedly theRespondent has been allotted and is in possession of landadmeasuring 63.94 acres, though Environmental Clearance hasbeen granted for 2,92,636.03 Sq. Meters which is equivalent to72.22 acres. For this reason alone, Environmental Clearancecannot be given effect to. While issuing the amendedEnvironmental Clearance, SEIAA Karnataka shall take intoconsideration all these aspects and, if necessary, would requireRespondent No. 9 to submit a fresh layout plant and the entireproject may be revised in accordance with law.

7. Both the Respondents (Project Proponents) shall submit anappropriate plan in view of the conditions imposed in this judgmentand the amended Environmental Clearance that would be issued.

8. The amount of environmental compensation will be depositedprior to issuance of amended Environmental Clearance.

With the above directions, the Original Application No. 222 of2014 and Misc. Applications Nos. 596/2016 and 603/2016 arefinally disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

22. Appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.5016 of 2016, ShriMukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the StateGovernment in exercise of the power conferred under the KarnatakaIndustrial Areas Development Act (for short ‘KIAD Act’) declared theland in question as an industrial area. Thereafter, the land in questionhas been acquired by the State Government in the year 2004. Followingthe acquisition, on 28.06.2007, the land was allotted to the appellant bythe KIADB. The SEIAA granted environmental clearance which was A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afollowed by public notice concerning clearance on 14.03.2012. Neitherthe allotment of land nor the environmental clearance was challengedbefore the Tribunal. Thus, none of the statutory decisions or processes,are the cause of action for the purpose of the application. The avermentsmade in the original application does not satisfy or meet the requirementsof Section 14(1) and (3) of the NGT Act and the original applicationBdoes not spell out the cause of action relevant for the purpose of saidprovision. Since the statutory processes and clearances could not havebeen challenged for being hit by Section 14(3), the construction activitieswhich were the alleged cause of action could not have been challenged.Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the application was notCmaintainable.

23. Further the application is barred by limitation. Thoughenvironmental clearance was granted on 17.02.2012 and it was publishedin two leading newspapers on 12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012, modified planwas approved by the KIADB on 30.08.2012, the application ought toDhave been filed within six months from the date on which cause of actionfor the dispute first arose in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Thepresent application has been filed in March, 2014 which was much beyondthe prescribed period of limitation. No application seeking condonationof delay has been filed accompanying the application. Hence, theTribunal ought to have dismissed the application on the ground that as itEis barred by time.

24. It was also argued that buffer zone laid down by the NGT issubstantially higher as compared to buffer zone which is required to bemaintained as per the Revised Master Plan, 2015 issued on 22.06.2007.This is contrary to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961F(for short ‘the Planning Act’).

25. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Shri R.Venkataramani, learnedsenior counsel appearing for the appellants, in this case have also madesimilar submissions. It was argued that the direction imposing penalty/compensation is illegal on the ground that the applicants did not allegeGthat the construction work of the project has caused environmental wrong.No wrong or injury either to Bellandur lake water body or to Bellandurlake area, has been alleged and established. As such, there is no questionof any enquiry relating to imposition of penalty or any compensation.

26. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants, in C.A. Nos.5016 and 10995 of 2016, while supporting thesubmissions made by Shri Rohatgi, has submitted that the appellant hasobtained sanction and approvals for the project from the competentauthorities. It could not start construction despite grant of all thepermissions, including environmental clearance as early as possible i.e.30.09.2013. Hence, imposing penalty/compensation is entirelyunsustainable.

27. Learned Advocate General, Shri Udaya Holla, appearing forthe appellant-State of Karnataka in C.A.Nos.4923-4924 of 2017, hassubmitted that the State of Karnataka is also aggrieved by the order ofthe NGT to the extent of setting aside the buffer zone in respect ofwater bodies and drains specified in the Revised Master Plan, 2015,and enlargement of the buffer zone in respect of lakes and Rajakaluves.It is also aggrieved by the order of the NGT directing the authorities todemolish all the offending constructions raised/built in the buffer zone,which will result in demolition of 95% of the buildings in Bengaluru. It issubmitted that the Revised Master Plan is statutory in nature and NGThas no power, competence or jurisdiction to consider the validity or viresof any statutory provision/regulation. Therefore, the order of the NGTto that extent is liable to be set aside.

28. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in othercases, have also supported the arguments of the learned AdvocateGeneral. It was contended that the Revised Master Plan provides for a30 meters buffer zone around the lakes and a buffer zone of 50 meters,25 meters and 15 meters from the primary, secondary and tertiary drains,respectively to be measured from the centre of the drain. Vide theimpugned judgment, the NGT has revised these buffer zones and hasdirected that the buffer zone be maintained for 75 meters around thelake and 50, 35 and 25 meters respectively from the primary, secondaryand tertiary drain, respectively. Variation of buffer zone, as directed bythe NGT is without any legal and scientific basis and has the effect ofamending the Revised Master Plan, 2015, without there being anychallenge to the same or any relief sought with respect to the said RevisedMaster Plan.

29. On the other hand, Shri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel,appearing for the applicants, has fairly submitted that the applications

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awere filed only against the appellants in C.A Nos. 5016 of 2016 and8002-8003 of 2016 (respondent Nos. 9 & 10). He has no objection toset aside the order in so far as the appellants in other appeals includingthe State of Karnataka are concerned. He has also no objection to setaside the general conditions and directions of the NGT in paragraph (1)of the order dated 04.05.2016 except the directions issued againstBrespondent Nos. 9 and 10. In view of the above, it is not necessary toexamine the contentions of the learned Advocate General in Civil AppealNos. 4923-4924 of 2017. It is also not necessary to consider thecontentions urged in the other civil appeals except the appeals filed byrespondents Nos. 9 and 10.

C

30. Shri Poovayya has strongly opposed the submissions made bythe learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. No. 5016of 2016 and C.A. Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016. It is submitted that theTribunal is a specialized body for effective and expeditious disposal ofcases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests Dand other natural resources including enforcement of any legal rightrelating to environment. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided underSections 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act. Section 14 provides for thejurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating toenvironment is involved. However, such question should arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The TribunalEhas the jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the NGT Act to providerelief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmentaldamage arising under the enactments specified in Schedule I. UnderSections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c), the Tribunal can provide for restitutionof property damaged and for restitution of the environment for suchFarea or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit. Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c)have not been made relatable to enactment specified in Schedule I ofthe Act. Section 15(1)(c) is an entire island of power and jurisdictionread with Section 21 of the Act. He submits that whenever ecology isbeing compromised and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20for taking restorative measures in the interest of environment. TheGlimitation provided in Section 14 is period of six months from the date onwhich cause of action first arose whereas in Section 15 it is five years.Therefore, the petition is not barred by time.

31. He has further submitted that the provisions of Section 33shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained inany other law for the time being in force. This gives the Tribunal overridingpowers over anything inconsistently contained in KIAD Act, PlanningAct, Revised Master Plan of Bangalore, 2015 and Karnataka MunicipalCorporation Act, 1976 (for short ‘KMC Act’). Therefore, the Tribunalwhile providing for restoration of environment in an area can specifybuffer zone around specific lakes and water bodies in contraventionwith zoning regulation.

32. Regarding limitation, he has submitted that the application filedby respondents 1 to 3 was not an application simplicitor under Section 14of the Act. It was an application where a specific prayer has beenmade with reference to Lake Development Authority’s report dated12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate ChangeMonitoring Committee report dated 14.08.2013 for restoration ofecologically sensitive land and for maintaining sensitive area in its naturalcondition so that ecological balance of the area is not disturbed. Therefore,the petition was under Section 15 of the Act and it can be filed withinfive years from the date on which the cause for such compensation orrelief first arose.

33. It was further submitted that right to appeal under Section 22is not a vested right unless provided by statute. Exercise of AppellateJurisdiction without the fulfillment of statutory mandate would be withoutjurisdiction. Section 22 of the Act provides for an appeal on the groundspecified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short‘the CPC’). Under Section 100 of the CPC, an appeal can be filed onlyon the ground that the case involves a substantial question of law as maybe framed by the Appellate Court. In the instant case, the appeal doesnot involve any substantial question of law hence it has to be dismissedin limine. He has taken us through various materials placed on recordin order to substantiate that the direction passed and penalty imposed bythe Tribunal upon to project proponents are sustainable. He prays fordismissal of the appeals.

34. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel of the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

A35. Before considering the other contentions of the learned counselfor the parties, let us first consider the scope of enquiry in appeals filedunder Section 22, which is as under:

“22. Appeal to Supreme Court.- Any person aggrieved by anyaward, decision or order of the tribunal, may, file an appeal to theBSupreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communicationof the award, decision or order of the Tribunal, to him, on any oneor more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):

Provided that the Supreme Court may, entertain any appeal afterCthe expiry of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant wasprevented by sufficience cause from preferring the appeal.”

36. It is settled that there is no vested right of appeal unless thestatute so provides. Further, if a statute provides for a condition subjectto which the appropriate Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction, theDCourt is under an obligation to satisfy itself whether the conditionprescribed is fulfilled. Exercise of appellate jurisdiction without thefulfillment of statutory mandate would be without jurisdiction. Therefore,the right of appeal provided under Section 22 is to be read subject to theconditions provided therein.

E37. Section 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court onthe grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC. Under Section 100CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case involves asubstantial question of law as may be framed by the Appellate Court.The scope of appeal under Section 22, therefore, is restricted to substantialquestion of law arising from the judgment of the Tribunal. The test toFdetermine whether the question is substantial question of law or not waslaid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehtaand Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing, 1962 Supp.(3) SCR 549. This Court has laid down the test as under:

E

“The proper test for determining whether a question of law raisedGin the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is ofgeneral public importance or whether it directly and substantiallyaffects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either anopen question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Courtor by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from H

difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the questionis settled by the highest court or the general principles to be appliedin determining the question are well settled and there is a merequestion of applying those principles or that the plea raised ispalpably absurd the question would not be a substantial questionof law.”

38. It is equally settled that merely because the remedy of appealis provided against the decision of the Tribunal on a substantial questionof law alone, that does not ipso facto permit the appellants to agitatetheir appeal to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entirematter. The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to seekwholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix that hasbeen considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible under Section22. There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of facts andevidence in a statutory appeal under this provision.

39. The first question raised by the learned counsel is in relationto the maintainability of the application before the Tribunal.

40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutionalmandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the Constitution ofIndia, to implement the decision taken at the United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development. The Tribunal is a specialized judicialbody for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating toenvironmental protection and conservation of forests and other naturalresources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment.The right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of theright to life under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements. Therefore,the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmentalrights.

41. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under Sections 14,15 and 16 of the Act. Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all civilcases where a substantial question relating to environment (includingenforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved.However, such question should arise out of implementation of theenactments specified in Schedule I.

42. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) ofthe Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aother environmental damage arising under the enactments specified inSchedule I. Further, under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) the Tribunalcan provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of theenvironment for such area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit. It isnoteworthy that Section 15(1)(b) & (c) have not been made relatable toSchedule I enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a glimpse intoBthe wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been cloaked with respectto restoration of the environment.

43. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power andjurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles of sustainabledevelopment, precautionary principle and polluter pays, propounded byCthis Court by way of multiple judicial pronouncements, have now beenembedded as a bedrock of environmental jurisprudence under the NGTAct. Therefore, wherever the environment and ecology are beingcompromised and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 fortaking restorative measures in the interest of the environment.D

44. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the powerbestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretationwhich furthers the interests of environment must be given a broaderreading. (See Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees’ StateInsurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579, para 17). The existence of theETribunal without its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c)read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless,and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized Tribunalspecifically to address environmental concerns. The Tribunal, speciallyconstituted with Judicial Members as well as with Experts in the field ofenvironment, has a legal obligation to provide for preventive andFrestorative measures in the interest of the environment.

45. Section 15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction,independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3) juxtaposedwith Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinctapplications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, therebyGamply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from theseSections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitationprovided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on whichthe cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years.Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and 15 as selfHcontained jurisdictions.

46. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to fileapplications each under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, it cannotbe argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal whileSection 15 merely supplements the same with powers. As stated supra.the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth of powers as providedunder the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the Scheduledenactments, cumulatively, leaves no manner of doubt that the only tenableinterpretation to these provisions would be to read the provisions broadlyin favour of cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. Aninterpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should bepreferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction.

47. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to theprovisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any otherlaw or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than thisAct. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over anything inconsistentcontained in the KIAD Act, Planning Act, Karnataka MunicipalCorporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act”); and the Revised Master Plan ofBengaluru, 2015 (“RMP”). A Central legislation enacted under Entry13 of List I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India will have theoverriding effect over State legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunalwhile providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specifybuffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in contradiction withzoning regulations under these statutes or the RMP.

48. The second question raised by the appellants is that the petitionis barred by time. According to appellants, environmental clearance wasgranted to the respondent No. 9 on 17.02.2012 for which notice waspublished in the leading newspaper on 12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012.Modified building plan was approved on 30.08.2012, which was followedup to 10.08.2014. Similar events had taken place in regard to the projectof respondent No. 10 who had been granted environmental clearanceon 30.09.2013. The application had to be filed within a period of sixmonths from the date on which cause of action for such dispute has firstarisen in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Admittedly, the presentapplication has been filed in March, 2014 and according to them, it ismuch beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Also, there is noapplication for condonation of delay accompanying the main application.Therefore, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A49. The OA No. 222 of 2014 was not an application simpliciterunder Section 14 of the Act. It was an application where a specificprayer has been made with reference to Lake Development Authority’s(“LDA”) Report dated 12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment,Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF”) Monitoring Committee Reportdated 14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically sensitive land and forBmaintaining the sensitive in its natural condition so that the ecologicalbalance of the area is not disturbed. It is clear from the documentaryevidence supported by data, that the project proponents have committedbreaches and the implementation of the project is bound to have seriousadverse impact on the ecology, hydrology and the environment in theCcatchment area of Bellandur Lake. The environmental degradation asestablished from the documents would give rise to an independent causeof action. Therefore, this was a petition under Section 15 of the Act andthus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause forsuch compensation or relief first arose.

A

D50. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal therewas no mention of the provision under which it was being filed. It is wellsettled principle of law that non-mention of or erroneous mention of theprovision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had therequisite jurisdiction to pass an order. It would be a mere irregularity andwould not vitiate the application or the judicial order of the Tribunal.E

D

51. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, appearing forthe appellant in CA No.5016 of 2016 has submitted that the constructionshad not commenced before the grant of environment clearance. Theinspection report dated 11.01.2012 of the Chairman of the KSPCBobserves that “no construction” had commenced on the date of inspection.FThis report cannot be overlooked on the basis of some dumping of debriswhich could not be attributed to the appellant. He has pointed out thereport of the Committee appointed by the Tribunal in the month of August2015, wherein it was stated that “it started construction after obtainingclearance”. In this regard he has also taken us through various documentsGplaced on record and submits that there is absolutely no justification inimposing monitoring penalty/compensation without assessment of impact.

52..The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of the Committeereport of August 2015, that the appellant had encroached 3 acres 10guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundary wall has been raised around H

the said land. The Tribunal has also found that the project proponentshave violated the Master Plan. They have not obtained the mandatoryclearance from the Sensitive Zone Committee constituted by theGovernment of Karnataka. It is also clear from the materials on recordthat there are several other violations by the project proponents. TheTribunal has discussed all these issues from para 52 onwards. It is alsoclear from the materials on record that there is a definite possibility ofenvironment, ecology, lakes, and wetland being adversely affected bythese projects. That is why, the Tribunal has observed as under:

“72. In light of the above scope of the project and records beforethe Tribunal and the defaults on the part of the Project Proponents,the cumulative adverse effects of the activities undertaken by therespondents before us can be summed up as under:

1) The construction of both the projects had started prior to thegrant to Environmental Clearance.

2) The EIA Notification of 2006 requires that without grant ofEnvironmental Clearance, no project can commence its activity.This restriction applies not only to operationalization of the projectbut even for the purposes of establishment.

3) Revenue Map images shows multiple Rajakaluves flowingthrough the project(s) in question. The images further showencroachment on Rajakaluves.

4) Digital images of the land available on Google satellite imagesshowing encroachment on two major Rajakaluves.

5) Google Satellite images retrieved from Google archives clearlyreflect two distinct features. Firstly, change in the wetland areabetween the period of 13[th] November, 2000 and 23[rd] November,2010. Secondly, it reveals the excavation work carried out byRespondent Nos. 9 and 10 commenced prior to obtainingEnvironmental Clearance.

6) Restriction in regard to extraction of ground water was notstrictly complied with as permission of Central Ground WaterAuthority was not obtained before construction.

7) The conditions with regard to the natural slopping pattern ofthe project site to remain unaltered and natural hydrology of the

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aarea to be maintained as it is, to ensure natural flow of stormwater as well as in relation to Lakes and other water bodies withinand/or at the vicinity of the project area to be protected andconserved: The inspection report by the MoEF clearly notes thatcondition nos. (xxxix) and (xl) in the Environmental Clearance ofrespondent no. 9 cannot be complied with as it will necessarilyBresult in some alteration of the natural slopping pattern of theproject site and the natural hydrology of the area. It noted that theproject area is located in the catchment area of the BellandurLake and the project authorities have informed that they will takeall precautionary measures to ensure that the lake will not beCaffected by project activities either during construction or operationphase.”

A

53. In paragraph 81, the Tribunal has observed as under:

“81.…………Another very important aspect which cannot beoverlooked by the Tribunal is with regard to the respondent nos. 9D& 10 carrying on their project activity fully knowing that theywere incapable of or it was not possible for them to comply withcondition no. xxxix and xl (or alike conditions) in the order grantingthe Environmental Clearance. This has even been noticed by theMoEF in its monitoring report dated 14th August, 2013. TheseErespondents never applied for variation or amendment of theseconditions and continued with their construction activities. Thisrenders these respondents entirely liable for environmental andecological damage and the restoration and restitution thereof.”

D

D

54. In our view, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not onlybased on the documents that were available on record but also on theFpleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the Committee’sreport and the inspection note of the Expert Members. Therefore, thedirections passed and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal on both projectproponents are valid and sustainable and do not suffer from any perversity.

G55.We are also of the view that it is impermissible for the appellantsto seek a factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation offactual matrix by this Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act.

56. Shri R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel has also raiseda subsidiary issue relating to res judicata. According to him, respondent H

Nos. 12 and 13 filed Writ Petition Nos.3656-57/2013 seeking similarreliefs in a representative capacity. The issues raised therein are sameas those canvassed in the application before the Tribunal. The reliefssought for are essentially the same. Hence, the applications are barredby the principle of res judicata.

57. The Tribunal has answered this issue in paragraphs 47 to 51of the order. There was no dispute in so far as filing of the writ petitionsis concerned. However, the parties are not common nor the issues inapplication and the writ petitions are directly and substantially the same.After examination of the pleadings, the Tribunal has recorded a findingof fact that there is no commonality of a cause of action or likelihood ofa conflict between the judgments. The prayers and the geneses of therespective proceedings are entirely distinct and different in their scopeand relief. The issues before the Tribunal would essentially relate toenvironment ecology and its restoration while the proceedings beforethe High Court relate to entirely different issues with acquisition of land,its allotment and transfer to the third party. These issues in both theproceedings are neither substantial nor materially identical.

58. After elaborately considering this question, the Tribunal hasconcluded as under:

“51.….For these reasons, we find no merit in this contention ofrespondent Nos. 9 and 10. The purpose of the doctrine of resjudicata is to provide finality and conclusiveness to the judicialdecisions as well as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the presentcase, the question of re-agitating the issues or agitating similarissues in two different proceedings does not arise. The ambit andscope of jurisdiction is clearly decipherable. The jurisdictions ofthe Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and this Tribunal areoperating in distinct fields and have no commonality in so far asthe issues which are raised directly and substantially in thesepetitions, as well as the reliefs that have been prayed for beforethe Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunal are concerned. There isno commonality in parties before the Tribunal and the High Court.The ‘cause of action’ in both proceedings is different and distinct.The matters substantially and materially in issue in one proceedingsare not the same in the other proceeding. There is hardly anylikelihood of conflicting judgments being pronounced by the Tribunal A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

1032SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aon the one hand and the High Court on the other. Therefore, weare of the considered view that the present applications are neitherhit by the principles of res judicata nor constructive res judicata.We also hold that culmination of proceedings before the Tribunalinto a final judgment would not offend the principle of ‘judicialpropriety’, because of the Writ Petitions pending before theBHon’ble High Court of Karnataka.”

A

59. We do not find any error in the aforesaid conclusion of theTribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holdingthat the objections taken by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 do not satisfythe basic ingredients to attract the application of res judicata orCconstructive res judicata.

60. The State of Karnataka is aggrieved by the following offendingportion of the order dated 04.05.2016:

“1. In view of our discussion in the main Judgment, we are of theDconsidered view that the fixation of distance from water bodies(lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt contradiction, legalinfirmity and is without any scientific justification. The RMP –2015 provides 50m from middle of the Rajkalewas as buffer zonein the case of primary Rajkalewas, 25m in the case of secondaryRajkulewas and 15m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in contradictionEto the 30m in the case of lake which is certainly much biggerwater body and its utility as a water body/wetland is well knowncertainly part of wet land. Thus, we direct that the distance in thecase of Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 from Rajkulewas, Waterbodiesand wetlands shall be maintained as below:- F

(i) In the case of Lakes, 75m from the periphery of waterbody to be maintained as green belt and buffer zone for all theexisting water bodies i.e. lakes/wetlands.

(ii) 50m from the edge of the primary Rajkulewas.

(iii) 35m from the edges in the case of secondary Rajkulewas G

(iv) 25m from the edges in the case of tertiary Rajkulewas This buffer/green zone would be treated as no construction zonefor all intent and purposes. This is absolutely essential for the purposesof sustainable development particularly keeping in mind the ecology andHenvironment of the areas in question.

All the offending constructions raised by Respondents Nos. 9 and10 of any kind including boundary wall shall be demolished which fallswithin such areas. Wherever necessary dredging operations are required,the same should be carried out to restore the original capacity of thewater spread area and/or wetlands. Not only the existing constructionwould be removed but also none of these Respondents - Project Proponentwould be permitted to raise any construction in this zone.

All authorities particularly Lake development Authority shall carryout this operation in respect of all the water bodies/ lakes of Bangalore.”

61. We have already noticed that Shri Poovayya has no objectionto set aside the aforesaid impugned portion of the order in so far as theappellants in all the appeals except the appeals filed by respondent Nos.9and 10. The aforesaid portion of the order contains not only generaldirections but also certain directions against respondent Nos. 9 and 10.Therefore, only that portion of the order which does not pertain torespondent Nos. 9 and 10 needs to be quashed.

62. In the light of the above discussion, we pass the followingorder:

i) Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003of 2016 filed by the appellants/respondent nos. 9 and 10 arehereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order in so faras appellants/respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are concerned issustained.

ii) All the other appeals are hereby allowed and the direction/condition No. (1) in the order dated 4.5.2016 is hereby set asideexcept the direction issued against respondent Nos. 9 and 10.

63. There will be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H