2010 (12) TMI 1367 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

a. Whether the project site constituted "forest land" under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and if the construction violated this provision without prior approval from the Central Government.

b. Whether the project required prior environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

a. Forest Land and Section 2 of the FC Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, restricts the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval from the Central Government. The definition of "forest" was expanded by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, where it was held that "forest" should be understood in its dictionary sense and includes areas recorded as forest in government records.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether the project site could be classified as "forest land" by considering the reports from the Chief Conservator of Forests, the Forest Survey of India, and the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The CEC concluded that the project site did not qualify as "forest" or "deemed forest" as the trees were planted and not naturally grown.

Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the project area was historically recorded as agricultural land and not as forest in revenue records. The plantation was initiated by NOIDA as an urban park, not for afforestation.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that the project site did not meet the criteria for "forest" under the FC Act, as it was not recorded as forest land in government records, and the trees were planted for urban park purposes.

Treatment of competing arguments: The applicants argued that the tree cover constituted a "forest" as per the expanded definition. The State contended that the project site was an urban park, not forest land. The Court sided with the State, emphasizing the historical land use and the intent behind the plantation.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the project site was not forest land and the construction did not violate Section 2 of the FC Act.

b. Environmental Clearance and the EIA Notification 2006

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The EIA Notification 2006 requires prior environmental clearance for projects listed in its Schedule. Category 'A' projects require clearance from the Central Government, while Category 'B' projects require clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether the project fell within the ambit of the EIA Notification 2006. The CEC and the applicants argued that the project required clearance due to its scale and proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.

Key evidence and findings: The SEIAA initially stated that the project did not require clearance as it was not covered by the notification's schedule. The MoEF's stance shifted, but ultimately it maintained that the project did not fall under the notification.

Application of law to facts: The Court considered the project's built-up area and the nature of the constructions. The CEC's report suggested that the project's activity area exceeded the threshold for requiring clearance, but the MoEF and the State disagreed.

Treatment of competing arguments: The applicants and the CEC argued for the necessity of environmental clearance, while the State and MoEF contended that the project did not meet the criteria for mandatory clearance.

Conclusions: The Court directed the MoEF to conduct an environmental impact assessment to address potential environmental concerns, despite agreeing with the MoEF that the project did not initially require clearance under the EIA Notification 2006.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The project site is not forest land and the construction of the project without the prior permission from the Central Government does not in any way contravene Section 2 of the FC Act."

Core principles established: The Court reaffirmed that the definition of "forest" under the FC Act includes both naturally grown and man-made forests, but the historical land use and intent behind plantations are critical in determining the applicability of the FC Act.

Final determinations on each issue: The Court concluded that the project did not violate the FC Act as it was not forest land, and it did not initially require environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006. However, the Court mandated an environmental impact assessment to ensure no harm to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.