Mantri Technoze Pvt. Ltd. vs Forward Foundation .

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity 'NGT Act') challenging

the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and 04.05.2016 respectively

passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New

Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002-8003

of 2016 are respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original Application No.

222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Nos. 9 and 10').

The said Application was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein

(hereinafter referred to as 'the applicants'). Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in

these appeals are the State of Karnataka and other authorities. They

were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the application. Respondent

Nos. 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. 4923-4924 of

2017, challenging the general condition and direction No.(1)

contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016. The other

appeals have been filed by different entities, who were not parties 3

before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated

04.05.2016 insofar as it directs a buffer/green zone of 75 meters in

respect of lakes, 50 meters in respect of primary Rajakaluves, 35

meters in case of secondary Rajakaluves and 25 meters in case of

tertiary Rajakaluves with retrospective effect. According to them, they

are adversely affected by the aforesaid condition in the impugned

order.

4. The applicants filed O.A. No.222 of 2014 by contending that

ecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial

Area Development Board (for short 'the KIADB') to respondent Nos. 9

and 10 vide Notifications dated 23.04.2004 and 07.05.2004

respectively for setting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial

and Residential complex, hotel and Multi Level Car Parks. The Master

Plan formulated by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short the

'BDA'), identifies the allotted land as 'Residential Sensitive', though the

same land was identified in the Draft Master Plan as 'Protected Zone'.

It was further contended that the Revenue Map in respect of properties

as referred in the Land Lease Agreements has multiple Rajakaluves

(Storm Water Drains). The development projects in question sit right

on the catchment and wetland area which feeds the Rajakaluves,

which in turn drains rain water into Bellandur Lake. The project will

thus encroach two Rajakaluves of 1.38 acres and 1.23 acres each. 4

5. The Satellite Digital Images of the area from the year 2000 to

2012 show encroachment upon these Rajakaluves, as well as the

manner in which they are covered by the construction. The State

Level Expert Appraisal Committee (for short 'SEAC'), which was to

assist the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for

short 'SEIAA'), held its meetings on various dates to examine the

project. It had required the appellant No.9 to submit a revised NOC

from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short

'BWSSB') for the project in question. It was also observed that the

project lies between the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake.

Respondent No.9 was also directed to take protective measures to

spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves and also to commit that no

construction would be carried out in the buffer zone. In the meeting of

11.11.2011, it was recorded that the project proposes car parking

facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentally sensitive area.

6. It was alleged that NOC was issued covering an area of 17,404

sq. mtrs. whereas the built up area, as noted by SEAC, is

13,50,454.98 sq. mtrs. Respondent No.9 obtained NOC from BWSSB

by concealing material facts and by misrepresenting that NOC is

required only for residential units which form a very minuscule part of

the total project. Respondent No.9 had approached the Karnataka

State Pollution Control Board (for short 'the KSPCB') for obtaining 5

clearance, which was granted on 04.09.2012 subject to the fulfillment

of the conditions stated in the consent order which included leaving

the buffer zone all along the valley and towards the lake. It is further

contended that the grant of consent by the KSPCB to respondent No.9

also contained a condition with regard to obtaining Environmental

Clearance from the Competent Authority and no construction was to

commence until such clearance was granted.

7. Applicants further contended that respondent No.9 violated the

conditions and commenced construction of the project. There was

also violation of the stipulations stated in the approval of SEAC in

relation to buffer zone and construction over Rajakaluves. The

construction had been commenced over the ecologically sensitive area

of the lake catchment area and valley, with utter disregard to the

statutory compliances. Referring to these blatant irregularities, the

applicant submitted that the conversion of land from 'Protected Zone'

to 'Residential Sensitive Area' is violative of the law. The project is

right in the midst of a fragile wetland area which ought not to have

been disturbed by the development activity. The fragile environment of

the catchment area has been exposed to grave and irreparable

damage. It has severely disturbed and damaged the Rajakaluves.

Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 started to level the land by filling it with

debris, thus causing damage to the drains. The conditions with 6

regard to no-disturbance to the Storm Water Drains, natural valleys

and buffer area in and around the Rajakaluves have been violated. It

has in turn, affected the ground water table and bore wells which are

the only source of water for thousands of households. Fishing and

agriculture which depends on Bellandur Lake are also severely

affected. The construction over the wetland between the 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-submission of requisite information and the application thereof

was rejected in November, 2012. Despite the rejection, respondent

No.10 commenced construction on the project in full swing.

9. The applicants also relied upon the findings of the Joint

Legislative Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri

A.T. Ramaswamy in the month of July 2005, which stated that there

were 262 water bodies in the Bangalore city in 1961 which drastically

came down because of trespass and encroachments. It was also

affirmed that about 840 kms. of Rajakaluves have been encroached

upon in several places and have become sewage channels. The

applicants also relied on the Report of the Committee under the

Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil suggesting immediate 7

remedial action in order to remove encroachments on the lake area

and the Rajakaluves and preservation of the lakes in and around

Bangalore city. It was further contended that other Expert

Committees, including Lakshman Rau Expert Committee had also

submitted proposals for preservation, restoration or otherwise of the

existing tanks in Bangalore Metropolitan Area which recommended to

maintain good water surface in Bellandur tank and to ensure that the

water in the tank is not polluted. The Central Government in August

2013 had issued an advisory on conservation and restoration of water

bodies in the urban areas. The applicants claim to have obtained

monitoring report of the project by respondent No.5, Ministry of

Environment and Forests, through RTI on 21.08.2013. The report

dated 14.08.2013 revealed that the project proponents are in clear

breach of their undertaking to carry out all precautionary measures to

ensure that the Bellandur lake is not affected by the construction and

operational phase of the project. This approach is particularly with

regard to the major alteration in natural sloping pattern of the project

site and natural hydrology of the area.

10. The Lake Development Authority (for short ‘the LDA’), after

inspection in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake submitted its

report dated 12.06.2013 which confirms that the project will have

disastrous impact, including deleterious effect on the Bellandur Lake. 8

This report was brought to the notice of KIADB. The LDA has also

opined that the land should be classified and maintained as sensitive

area. The KIADB called upon respondent No. 9 to comply with the

rules of Ecology and Environment Department and to obtain

necessary approval from KSPCB and LDA. Despite all this,

respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have continued with their illegal

constructions and have caused damage to the ecology and the

environment by irreparably jeopardizing the ecological balance in this

sensitive area. The applicants rely upon the Revised Master Plan, 2013

issued by BDA which specifically provides that 30 meters buffer zone

is to be created around the lakes and 50 meters buffer zone to be

created on either side of the Rajakaluves. It was also pleaded that

respondent No. 9 had obtained the NOC from BWSSB only with regard

to residential units and not for the entire project and that the

Environmental Clearance obtained by respondent No.9 is based upon

the partial NOC issued by BWSSB which itself is a misrepresentation.

It was contended that the projects are bound to create water scarcity

as the requirement of the project of respondent No. 9 alone is

approximately 4.5 million liters per day, i.e. 135 million liters per

month, which is more than what the BWSSB supplies to the entire

Agaram Ward. The construction of respective projects by respondent

Nos.9 and 10 respectively, besides having commenced without 9

permission from the authorities and being in violation of the

conditions imposed for grant of permission/consent, is bound to

damage the environment, resulting in change in the topography of the

area, posing potential threat of extinction of the Bellandur lake,

causing traffic congestion, shortening and wiping out the wetlands,

extinction of Rajakaluves and causing serious and potential threat of

flooding and massive scarcity of water in the city of Bangalore,

particularly the areas located near the water bodies.

11. Respondent No.9 in its objections contended that it was

incorporated with the objective of establishing an Information

Technology Park and R & D Centre with facilities such as residential

complexes, parks, education centres and other allied infrastructure

within a single compound. It had submitted the proposal to establish

such Information Technology Park and other facilities to the State

Government and requested for allotment of land for the project. Its

proposal was considered in 78th High Level Committee meeting held on

21.06.2000 and after examining the proposal, it was approved by the

Government on 06.07.2000. Before the State High Level Committee, it

had informed that its requirement was 110 acres of land, 25 MW of

power from the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

(for short the ‘KPTCL’), and four lakh litres of water per day from

BWSSB. The lands for the project were initially notified vide 10

Notification dated 10.02.2004. Subsequently, the lands were allotted

vide letter dated 28.06.2007 for which Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was

signed on 30.06.2007. Considering the overall development of the

State of Bangalore, this respondent proposed a Mixed Use

Development Project consisting of an Information Technology Park,

residential apartments, retail, hotel and office buildings with a total

built up area of 13,50,454.98 sq mtrs. The Project was conceived as a

zero waste discharge project. The project is located one and a half

kms. away from the southern-side of the Bellandur Lake. Towards the

North, adjacent to the Project, lies vast stretches of lands belonging to

the Defence and towards the East, lies the Project of respondent No.

10 and another developer is also developing a project on the western

side. It has obtained sanction plan on 04.07.2007 which was renewed

from time to time.

12. Respondent No. 9 claims that it has obtained NOC from Airport

Authority of India on 09.04.2010. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, vide its

communication dated 16.04.2010, granted clearance for the project

construction. BWSSB, vide its communication dated 26.04.2011

issued NOC for portion of the proposed construction to be built. The

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. also granted NOC for

arranging power supply to the proposed residential and commercial

building in its favour. Environmental Clearance was granted by 11

SEIAA vide communication dated 17.04.2012. The Director General of

Police has issued NOC and KSPCB vide order dated 04.09.2012

accorded its consent for construction of the said project subject to the

conditions stated therein. It was further stated 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 approved by

KIADB vide its letter dated 30.08.2012, which was valid up to

10.08.2014. It started the construction of the project in November

2012, taking all precautions as per terms and conditions of the orders

issued by the competent authorities. It was also submitted that it has

raised the constructions in accordance with the plans and conditions

of the Environmental Clearance and consent orders and that it has

not violated any of the conditions and has not caused any adverse

impact on the ecology and environment of the area. It has denied the

contention that its construction activity has blocked the Rajakaluves

and has adversely affected the lake. It has already spent a sum of Rs

306.73 crores on the project towards procurement of men and

materials, machinery, infrastructure, medical and sanitary facilities,

etc. and that it has availed financial assistance from various banks

and financial institutions towards the construction and execution of 12

the project and that various contracts have been signed with the third

parties. It is specifically pleaded that the petition is barred by time and

suffers from defects and laches.

14. Respondent No.10 pleaded that the applicants raised

multifarious proceedings against it which is an abuse of the process of

law and mala fide. It had submitted a revised proposal in respect of

its project in question and to obtain fresh clearance on 31.08.2007

with an investment of Rs. 179.22 crores. The State High Level

Committee had cleared the project which was communicated to it on

25.01.2008. Its properties are located in between Bellandur Lake and

Agara Lake but there are no primary storm water drains and

secondary storm water drains that exist in its properties. It has

clearances from various authorities, including Environmental

Clearance and consent for establishment.

15. KIADB stated that after possession of the land was handed over

to respondent Nos. 9 and 10, one year time was granted for the

implementation of the project which was extended from time to time.

The building drawings were approved on 04.07.2007, and the modified

building drawings were approved on 26.04.2011 and 30.08.2012 with

specific conditions. In its meeting held on 16.07.2013, it was resolved

to inform respondent No. 9 to fully comply with the Ecology and

Environment Rules and to obtain approvals from the LDA and KSPCB. 13

LDA vide its letter dated 24.09.2013, had informed KIADB that the

construction activity in the catchment area in the Bellandur Lake

could drastically impact the Lake with deleterious effects and asked it

to stop construction activity of respondent Nos. 9 and 10. However,

the validity of the building drawings was again extended up to

10.08.2014. The Lokayukta on 17.12.2013 had written a letter in

respect of complaint filed by the South East Forum for Sustainable

Development where it had been averred that the decision had been

taken by the Board on 21.12.2013 to keep in abeyance the approval

accorded and even the re-validations of plans. This was also informed

to respondent No.9. The Board took a decision which was

communicated to respondent No.9 on 02.01.2014, wherein it asked

the respondent No.9 to stop all construction activities on the allotted

lands. The said communication was challenged by respondent No. 9

and on the stop-work notice, stay was granted by the High Court of

Karnataka. The stop-work notice dated 23.12.2013 issued by Bruhat

Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP') was also stayed vide

order dated 21.01.2014. The proposal submitted by 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 any

Rajakaluves.

14

16. The LDA took a stand that it was not at all aware of the project

initiated by KIADB. It came to know about the entire project only when

certain newspaper reports surfaced during the month of June, 2013

and till that time it was in the dark. After the complaints, it inspected

the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake on 12.06.2013 and prepared

an inspection report. In the report, it was noticed that large scale

construction activities were going on in the catchment area of

Bellandur Lake and that there was a change in the land use, which in

turn has directly affected the catchment of Bellandur Lake. The

wetland area of Agara Lake had also shrunk, which originally formed

the irrigation area for the adjoining agricultural lands. Therefore, it

had questioned the decision of KIADB vide letter dated 06.07.2013

and even requested it to stop the construction activity and to

re-classify the land as non-SEZ area. It was thereafter on 31.08.2013,

that respondent No. 9 wrote a letter for according approval for the

proposed development projects. However, vide its letter dated

23.09.2013, LDA informed KIADB that it had no authority to grant or

deny construction projects, but it also communicated its objections to

KIADB mentioning that construction activity would be in

contravention of the directions of the Supreme Court. Despite these

warnings, KIADB granted approval to the extension of the building

drawings of the project in favour of the project proponents with certain 15

conditions, like ensuring that all natural valleys, valley zone, irrigation

tanks and existing roads leading to villages in the said land should not

be disturbed. Further, the natural sloping pattern of the project site

was not to be altered and the lakes and other water bodies within

and/or at the vicinity of the project area should be protected and

conserved. Despite the objections, the plans were approved and

approvals were extended from time to time. It has taken a categorical

stand that the projects as approved by the KIADB would have adverse

impact on Bellandur and Agara Lakes.

17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed

the following questions for consideration and determination:

1. Whether the application filed by the applicants and supported by respondent Nos. 11 and 12, is barred by time and thus, not maintainable?

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

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

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

5. What relief, if any, are the applicants entitled to? Should 16

or not the Tribunal, in the interest of environment and ecology issue any 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 progress and/or demolition of the project or any part thereof at this stage. However, we constitute the following Committee to inspect the projects in question and submit a report to the Tribunal inter alia but specifically on the issues stated hereinafter:

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

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

c) Chief Town Planner of BBMP, Bangalore.

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

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 Control Board shall act as the Convener of the Committee and would submit the final report to the Tribunal.

3) The Committee shall inspect not only the sites where the projects in question are located but even other areas of Bangalore which the Committee in its wisdom may consider 17

appropriate, in order to examine the interconnectivity of lakes and impact of such activities upon the water bodies with particular reference to lakes. 4) The Committee shall submit whether the projects in question have encroached upon or are constructed on the wetlands and Rajakaluves. If so, are there any adverse environmental and ecological impact of these projects on the lake, particularly Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake, as well the Rajakaluves.

The report should specify, if any Rajakaluves have been covered by the construction activities of respondent 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 have any adverse impacts upon the surrounding ecology and environment, with particular reference to lakes and wetlands. If yes, then whether any part of the project is required to be demolished. If so, details thereof along with reasons.

6) The Committee shall substantially notice if any of the conditions of the Environmental Clearance order in each case of respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have been violated. If so, to what extent and suggest remedial measures in that behalf to restore the ecology of the area. 7) The Committee would also recommend what should be the buffer zone around the lake(s) and interconnecting passages and wetlands. The Committee shall also report, whether activities of multipurpose projects which have serious repercussions on traffic, air pollution, environment and allied subjects should be permitted any further or not, 18

particularly, in wetlands and catchment areas of water bodies.

8) Recommendations should be made with regard to the steps and measures that should be taken for restoration of lakes, particularly in the city of Bangalore. 9) The Committee shall also find out that whether the construction of the projects is in accordance with the sanctioned drawings and bye-laws in accordance with the letters dated 4th July, 2007 and 22nd April, 2008 respectively. Further, the Committee would also report whether both respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have installed ETP/STP and have taken full measures for recycling of used water for washing and flushing, etc. in terms of letters dated 11 th October, 2013 and 3rd January, 2013, issued by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 respectively.

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

11) Till the submission of the report by the Committee and directions passed by the Tribunal in that regard, both respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are hereby restrained from creating any 3rd party interests or part with the possession of the property in question or any part thereof, in favour of any person.

12) The Committee shall submit its report to MoEF and to this Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and in any case 19

not later than three months from today. During that period we restrain MoEF, SEIAA and/or any public authority from sanctioning any construction project on the wetlands and catchment areas of the water bodies in the city of Bangalore.

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

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

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

20

19. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 9 and 10

filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4829 and 4823 of 2015 before this Court. This

Court by its Order dated 20th May, 2015 passed the following order:

"One of the main contentions raised by the Appellants in these Appeals is that though the Tribunal had heard the matter only on preliminary issues and no arguments on merit were advanced, final judgment decides the merits of the disputes as well and above all a penalty of Rs.117.35 crores against the original Respondent No.9 (the Appellant in C.A. No. 4832 of 2015) and Rs. 22.5 crores against Original Respondent No. 10 (the appellant in C.A. No. 4829/2015) is imposed.

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

With the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioners, the appeals are disposed of. Certain preliminary issues are decided against the appellants which are also the subject matter of challenge. However, it is not necessary to deal with the same this stage. We make it clear that in case the said application is decided against the 21

appellants or if ultimately on merits, it would be open to the appellants to challenge those orders by filing the appeal and in that appeal all the issues which are decided in the impugned judgment can also be raised.

The counsel for the appellants state that they would file the requisite application within one week. Till the said application is decided by the Tribunal, there shall be stay of the direction pertaining the payment of aforesaid penalty. Mr. Raj Panjwani points out that the Tribunal has allowed the appellants to proceed with the construction only on the payment of the aforesaid fine/penalty. We leave it to the Tribunal to pass whatever orders it deems fit in this behalf, after hearing the parties."

20. In relation to Issue No.5, an opportunity of hearing was granted

to the respondents. The Tribunal passed order dated 06.04.2016 on

these applications 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 details in view of the directions that we propose to issue in this case.

Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to just 22

exception we would hear the parties in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India primarily on the question of imposition of Environmental Compensation and merits attached in relation thereto. Parties are given liberty to address their submissions on that behalf.

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."

21. It is evident from the above orders that the Tribunal had granted

opportunity to the parties to address it "limited question", as

aforementioned. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an

order dated 04.05.2016 as under:

“General Conditions or directions:

1. In view of our discussion in the main Judgment, we are of the considered view that the fixation of distance from water bodies (lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt contradiction, legal infirmity and is without any scientific justification. The RMP – 2015 provides 50m from middle of the Rajkalewas as buffer zone in the case of primary Rajkalewas, 25m in the case of secondary Rajkulewas and 15m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in contradiction to the 30m in the case of lake which is certainly much bigger 23

water body and its utility as a water body/wetland is well known certainly part of wet land. Thus, we direct that the distance in the case of Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 from Rajkulewas, Waterbodies and wetlands shall be maintained as below:-

(i) In the case of Lakes, 75m from the periphery of water body to be maintained as green belt and buffer zone for all the existing 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 construction zone for all intent and purposes.

This is absolutely essential for the purposes of sustainable development particularly keeping in mind 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 demolished which falls within such areas. Wherever necessary dredging operations are required, the same should be carried out to restore the original capacity of the water spread area and/or wetlands. Not only the 24

existing construction would be removed but also none of these Respondents - Project Proponent would be permitted to raise any construction in this zone.

All authorities particularly Lake development Authority shall carry out this

operation in respect of all the water bodies/ lakes of Bangalore.

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

3. Bangalore city receives treated potable water of 1360 MLD from river Cauvery whereas the requirement is for another 750 MLD and the entire area falls in critical zone in terms of ground water exploitation. Information reveals that only one million litre per month of STP treated water is used by builders for construction purposes. For this reason, the BWSSB issues partial NOC to various residential and commercial projects in respect of supply of potable water. In this context, following directions need to be issued:

i. At the time of grant of EC, the water requirement for the construction phase 25

and operation phase should be considered separately. Due consideration should also be given for

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

ii. All the project proponents should necessarily use only treated sewage water for construction purpose and this should be reflected in EC as a condition for construction phase.

iii. Wherever the quality of treated sewage water does not conform to the quality needed for construction, necessary upgradation in STP should be undertaken immediately.

Specific Conditions/ Directions for Respondent 9; In addition to the above directions which

should be equally part of EC condition in respect of respondents nos. 9 & 10, following specific conditions shall apply to respondent no. 9:

i. Reclaimed area of the lake to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in survey No. 43 should be restored to its original condition at the cost of project proponent. The possession of this area should be restored by Respondent No. 9 to the concerned Authorities 26

immediately. In addition, a buffer zone of 75 m should be provided between the lake and the project area and this should be maintained as green area.

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

iii. Several irrigation canals or tertiary rajkalewas taking off from the Agara tank were passing through the area of respondent No. 9, and serve the dual purpose of irrigating paddy fields and disposal of surface run off (storm water drains) during rainy season. However on account of the activities of the project, these drains have been totally obliterated. For the purpose of proper disposal of storm runoff from the entire area falling between the Agara lake and the Belandur Lake, respondent No. 9 must provide required number of storm water drains based on proper hydrological study. These storm drains should have a buffer zone of 15 m on either bank maintained as green belt.

27

iv. The cumulative quantity of earth excavated for the construction of project is around 4 lakhs cubic meters in the depth range of 0 to 9 meters.

This has created huge hillock like structure obstructing the natural flow pattern of surface runoff from Agara Lake side to Balendur Lake side or primary Rajkalewas. For this purpose, during construction phase garland drain should be constructed around the existing dumping site for safe disposal of runoff to the Rajkalewas.

For the disposal of excavated material, a proper muck disposal plan duly approved by SIEAA shall be prepared.

In any case the plan should ensure that no muck/sediment flows into Rajkalewas and/or Belandur lake.

v. The Kharab land identified by Revenue Dept. admeasuring 1 acre 2 guntas should be demarcated and maintained separately as green belt.

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

28

vii. In view of the heavy traffic load in the adjoining Sarjapur road, a proper study on the basis of traffic density,foot falls expected, etc., a proper plan needs to be prepared and the concept of service road exclusively for the project needs to be worked out and additional parking space created within the project area and incorporated as a part of the overall project layout, 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 provided re-hearing to the parties on all issues with emphasis on imposition of environmental compensation including the quantum. Upon hearing, we are of the considered view that environmental compensation imposed upon Respondent No. 9 calls for no variation and the Respondent No. 9 should be called upon to pay the said amount of Rs. 117.35 Crores determined under the Judgment prior to commencement of any project activity at the site. Respondent No. 10 has not commenced any actual construction activity but has carried out various preparatory steps including excavation and deposition of huge 29

earth by creating a hillock at the premises in question and a site office.

Thus, considering cumulative effect on environment and ecology due to various breaches in that behalf by Respondent No. 10 and the fact that the remedial measures can more effectively be taken by the Respondent No.10, we reduce environmental compensation payable by Respondent No. 10 to Rs. 13.5 crores (3% of the stated project cost instead of 5% as imposed in the original judgment). General Directions:

1. We direct SEIAA, Karnataka to issue amended order granting Environmental Clearance within four weeks from today incorporating all the conditions stated in this judgement and such other conditions as it may deem appropriate in light of this judgment and Inspection Note of the Expert Members. The Project Proponents would be permitted to commence activity only after issuance of amended Environmental Clearance order.

2. SEIAA Karnataka and MoEF shall ensure regular supervision and monitoring of the project and during the construction and even upon completion to ensure that activity is carried out strictly in accordance with the conditions of the order granting Environmental Clearance, this Judgment, Notification of 2006 and other laws in force.

30 3. The distances in respect of buffer zone specified in this judgment shall be made applicable to all the projects and all the Authorities concerned are directed to incorporate such conditions in the projects to whom Environmental Clearance and other permissions are now granted not only around Belandur Lake, Rajkulewas, Agara Lake, but also all other Lakes/wetlands in the city of Bengluru.

4. We hereby direct the State of Karnataka to submit a proposal to the MoEF for demarcating wetlands in terms of Wetland Rules 2010 as revised from time to time. Such proposal shall be submitted by the State within four weeks from today and the MoEF shall consider the same in accordance with law and grant its approval or otherwise within four weeks thereafter. After such approval is granted by MoEF, the State would issue notification notifying such areas immediately thereafter in accordance with Rules and law.

5. Both the Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 shall ensure that debris or any construction material that has been dumped into the Rajkulewas, or on their Banks and on the buffer zone of wetlands should be removed within four weeks from today.

In the event they fail to do so, the same shall be removed by the Lake Development Authority 31

along with the State Administration and recover charges thereof from the said Respondents.

6. There is a serious discrepancy even in regard to the measurement of land as far as Respondent No. 9 is concerned. Admittedly the Respondent has been allotted and is in possession of land admeasuring 63.94 acres, though Environmental Clearance has been granted for 2,92,636.03 Sq. Meters which is equivalent to 72.22 acres. For this reason alone, Environmental Clearance cannot be given effect to. While issuing the amended Environmental Clearance, SEIAA Karnataka shall take into consideration all these aspects and, if necessary, would require Respondent No. 9 to submit a fresh layout plant and the entire project may be revised in accordance with law.

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

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

With the above directions, the Original Application No. 222 of 2014 and Misc.

Applications Nos. 596/2016 and 603/2016 are 32

finally disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

22. Appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.5016 of 2016, Shri Mukul

Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the State

Government in exercise of the power conferred under the Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act (for short 'KIAD Act') declared the

land in question as an industrial area. Thereafter, the land in

question has been acquired by the State Government in the year 2004.

Following the acquisition, on 28.06.2007, the land was allotted to the

appellant by the KIADB. The SEIAA granted environmental clearance

which was followed by public notice concerning clearance on

14.03.2012. Neither the allotment of land nor the environmental

clearance was challenged before the Tribunal. Thus, none of the

statutory decisions or processes, are the cause of action for the

purpose of the application. The averments made in the original

application does not satisfy or meet the requirements of Section 14(1)

and (3) of the NGT Act and the original application does not spell out

the cause of action relevant for the purpose of said provision. Since

the statutory processes and clearances could not have been

challenged for being hit by Section 14(3), the construction activities

which were the alleged cause of action could not have been 33

challenged. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the

application was not maintainable.

23. Further the application is barred by limitation. Though

environmental clearance was granted on 17.02.2012 and it was

published in two leading newspapers on 12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012,

modified plan was approved by the KIADB on 30.08.2012, the

application ought to have been filed within six months from the date

on which cause of action for the dispute first arose in terms of Section

14 of the NGT Act. The present application has been filed in March,

2014 which was much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. No

application seeking condonation of delay has been filed accompanying

the application. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the

application on the ground that as it is barred by time.

24. It was also argued that buffer zone laid down by the NGT is

substantially higher as compared to buffer zone which is required to

be maintained as per the Revised Master Plan, 2015 issued on

22.06.2007. This is contrary to the Karnataka Town and Country

Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Planning Act').

25. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Shri R.Venkataramani, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants, in this case have also

made similar submissions. It was argued that the direction imposing

penalty/compensation is illegal on the ground that the applicants did 34

not allege that the construction work of the project has caused

environmental wrong. No wrong or injury either to Bellandur lake

water body or to Bellandur lake area, has been alleged and

established. As such, there is no question of any enquiry relating to

imposition of penalty or any compensation.

26. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellants, in C.A. Nos.5016 and 10995 of 2016, while supporting the

submissions made by Shri Rohatgi, has submitted that the appellant

has obtained sanction and approvals for the project from the

competent authorities. It could not start construction despite grant of

all the permissions, including environmental clearance as early as

possible i.e. 30.09.2013. Hence, imposing penalty/compensation is

entirely unsustainable.

27. Learned Advocate General, Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the

appellant-State of Karnataka in C.A.Nos.4923-4924 of 2017, has

submitted that the State of Karnataka is also aggrieved by the order of

the NGT to the extent of setting aside the buffer zone in respect of

water 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 35

authorities to demolish all the offending constructions raised/built in

the buffer zone, which will result in demolition of 95% of the buildings

in Bengaluru. It is submitted that the Revised Master Plan is

statutory in nature and NGT has no power, competence or jurisdiction

to consider the validity or vires of any statutory provision/regulation.

Therefore, the order of the NGT to that extent is liable to be set aside.

28. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in other

cases, have also supported the arguments of the learned Advocate

General. It was contended that the Revised Master Plan provides for a

30 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 the impugned judgment, the NGT has revised these buffer

zones and has directed that the buffer zone be maintained for

75 meters around the lake and 50, 35 and 25 meters respectively from

the primary, secondary and tertiary drain, respectively. Variation of

buffer zone, as directed by the NGT is without any legal and scientific

basis and has the effect of amending the Revised Master Plan, 2015,

without there being any challenge to the same or any relief sought

with respect to the said Revised Master Plan.

29. On the other hand, Shri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel,

appearing for the applicants, has fairly submitted that the applications 36

were filed only against the appellants in C.A Nos. 5016 of 2016 and

8002-8003 of 2016 (respondent Nos. 9 & 10). He has no objection to

set aside the order in so far as the appellants in other appeals

including the State of Karnataka are concerned. He has also no

objection to set aside the general conditions and directions of the NGT

in paragraph (1) of the order dated 04.05.2016 except the directions

issued against respondent Nos. 9 and 10. In view of the above, it is

not necessary to examine the contentions of the learned Advocate

General in Civil Appeal Nos. 4923-4924 of 2017. It is also not

necessary to consider the contentions urged in the other civil appeals

except the appeals filed by respondents Nos. 9 and 10.

30. Shri Poovayya has strongly opposed the submissions made by

the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.

5016 of 2016 and C.A. Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016. It is submitted that

the Tribunal is a specialized body for effective and expeditious disposal

of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of

forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal

right relating to environment. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is

provided under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act. Section 14

provides for the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial

question relating to environment is involved. However, such question

should arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in 37

Schedule I. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of

the NGT Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of

pollution and other environmental damage arising under the

enactments specified in Schedule I. Under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)

(c), the Tribunal can provide for restitution of property damaged and

for restitution of the environment for such area 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 of the Act. Section

15(1)(c) is an entire island of power and jurisdiction read with Section

21 of the Act. He submits that whenever ecology is being

compromised and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for

taking restorative measures in the interest of environment. The

limitation provided in Section 14 is period of six months from the date

on which 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 33 shall

have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in

any other law for the time being in force. This gives the Tribunal

overriding powers over anything inconsistently contained in KIAD Act,

Planning Act, Revised Master Plan of Bangalore, 2015 and Karnataka

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'KMC Act'). Therefore, the

Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area can 38

specify buffer zone around specific lakes and water bodies in

contravention with zoning regulation.

32. Regarding limitation, he has submitted that the application filed

by respondents 1 to 3 was not an application simplicitor under Section

14 of the Act. It was an application where a specific prayer has been

made with reference to Lake Development Authority's report dated

12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate

Change Monitoring Committee report dated 14.08.2013 for restoration

of ecologically sensitive land and for maintaining sensitive area in its

natural condition 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 within five years from the date on which the cause for

such compensation or relief first arose.

33. It was further submitted that right to appeal under Section 22 is

not a vested right unless provided by statute. Exercise of Appellate

Jurisdiction without the fulfillment of statutory mandate would be

without jurisdiction. Section 22 of the Act provides for an appeal on

the ground specified 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 only on the ground that the case involves a substantial

question of law as may be framed by the Appellate Court. In the

instant case, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of 39

law hence it has to be dismissed in limine. He has taken us through

various materials placed on record in order to substantiate that the

direction passed and penalty imposed by the Tribunal upon to project

proponents are sustainable. He prays for dismissal of the appeals.

34. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel of the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

35. Before considering the other contentions of the learned counsel

for the parties, let us first consider the scope of enquiry in appeals

filed under Section 22, which is as under:

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

Provided that the Supreme Court may, entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficience cause from preferring the appeal."

36. It is settled that there is no vested right of appeal unless the

statute so provides. Further, if a statute provides for a condition

subject to which the appropriate Appellate Court can exercise

jurisdiction, the Court is under an obligation to satisfy itself whether 40

the condition prescribed is fulfilled. Exercise of appellate jurisdiction

without the fulfillment of statutory mandate would be without

jurisdiction. Therefore, the right of appeal provided under Section 22

is to be read subject to the conditions provided therein.

37. Section 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on the

grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC. Under Section 100 CPC,

an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case involves a

substantial question of law as may be framed by the Appellate Court.

The scope of appeal under Section 22, therefore, is restricted to

substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the Tribunal.

The test to determine whether the question is substantial question of

law or not was laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sir

Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and

Manufacturing, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 549. This Court has laid down

the test as under:

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is 41

palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."

38. It is equally settled that merely because the remedy of appeal is

provided against the decision of the Tribunal on a substantial question

of law alone, that does not ipso facto permit the appellants to agitate

their appeal to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire

matter. The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to

seek wholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix that

has been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible under

Section 22. There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of

facts and evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision.

39. The first question raised by the learned counsel is in relation to

the maintainability of the application before the Tribunal.

40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional

mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the Constitution of

India, to implement the decision taken at the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development. The Tribunal is a

specialized judicial body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases

relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and

other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right

relating to environment. The right to healthy environment has been

construed as a part of the right to life under Article 21 by way of 42

judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal has special

jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights.

41. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under Sections 14, 15

and 16 of the Act. Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all civil

cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including

enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved.

However, such question should arise out of implementation of the

enactments specified in Schedule I.

42. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the

Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and

other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in

Schedule I. Further, under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) the Tribunal

can provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of

the environment for such area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit.

It is noteworthy that Section 15(1)(b) & (c) have not been made

relatable to Schedule I enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a

glimpse into the wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been

cloaked with respect to restoration of the environment.

43. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and

jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles of

sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays,

propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial 43

pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of

environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore, wherever

the environment and ecology are being compromised and jeopardized,

the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative measures in

the interest of the environment.

44. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed

upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation

which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader

reading. (See Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State

Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579, para 17). The existence of the

Tribunal 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 Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns.

The Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as

with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to

provide for preventive and restorative 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) juxtaposed with Section

15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications

before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply 44

demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these

Sections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The

limitation provided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date

on which the 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 self contained jurisdictions.

46. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file

applications each under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, it

cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal

while Section 15 merely supplements the same with powers. As stated

supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth of powers as

provided under the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the

Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves no manner of doubt that

the only tenable interpretation to these provisions would be to read

the provisions broadly in favour of cloaking the Tribunal with effective

authority. An interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction

should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction.

47. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the

provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any

other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other

than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over anything

inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, Planning Act, Karnataka 45 Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act”); and the Revised Master

Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 (“RMP”). A Central legislation enacted under

Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India will have

the overriding effect over State legislations. The corollary is that the

Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area, can

specify buffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in

contradiction with zoning regulations under these statutes or the

RMP.

48. The second question raised by the appellants is that the petition

is barred by time. According to appellants, environmental clearance

was granted to the respondent No. 9 on 17.02.2012 for which notice

was published in the leading newspaper on 12.03.2012 and

14.03.2012. Modified building plan was approved on 30.08.2012,

which was followed up to 10.08.2014. Similar events had taken place

in regard to the project of respondent No. 10

who had been granted environmental clearance on 30.09.2013. The

application had to be filed within a period of six months from the date

on which cause of action for such dispute has first arisen in terms of

Section 14 of the NGT Act. Admittedly, the present application has

been filed in March, 2014 and according to them, it is much beyond

the prescribed period of limitation. Also, there is no application for 46

condonation of delay accompanying the main application. Therefore,

the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay.

49. The OA No. 222 of 2014 was not an application simpliciter under

Section 14 of the Act. It was an application where a specific prayer

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 Report dated

14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically sensitive land and for main-

taining the sensitive in its natural condition so that the ecological bal-

ance of the area is not disturbed. It is clear from the documentary evi-

dence supported by data, that the project proponents have committed

breaches and the implementation of the project is bound to have seri-

ous adverse impact on the ecology, hydrology and the environment in

the catchment area of Bellandur Lake. The environmental degradation

as established from the documents would give rise to an independent

cause of action. Therefore, this was a petition under Section 15 of the

Act and thus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which

the cause for such compensation or relief first arose.

50. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal there was

no mention of the provision under which it was being filed. It is well

settled principle of law that non-mention of or erroneous mention of

the provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the 47

requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. It would be a mere irregularity

and would not vitiate the application or the judicial order of the Tri-

bunal.

51. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, appearing for the

appellant in CA No.5016 of 2016 has submitted that the constructions

had not commenced before the grant of environment clearance. The

inspection report dated 11.01.2012 of the Chairman of the KSPCB

observes that "no construction" had commenced on the date of

inspection. This report cannot be overlooked on the basis of some

dumping of debris which could not be attributed to the appellant. He

has pointed out the report of the Committee appointed by the Tribunal

in the month of August 2015, wherein it was stated that "it started

construction after obtaining clearance". In this regard he has also

taken us through various documents placed on record and submits

that there is absolutely no justification in imposing monitoring

penalty/compensation without assessment of impact.

52. The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of the Committee

report of August 2015, that the appellant had encroached 3 acres 10

guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundary wall has been raised around

the said land. The Tribunal has also found that the project

proponents have violated the Master Plan. They have not obtained the

mandatory clearance from the Sensitive Zone Committee constituted 48

by the Government of Karnataka. It is also clear from the materials on

record that there are several other violations by the project

proponents. The Tribunal has discussed all these issues from para 52

onwards. It is also clear from the materials on record that there is a

definite possibility of environment, ecology, lakes, and wetland being

adversely affected by these projects. That is why, the Tribunal has

observed as under:

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

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

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

3) Revenue Map images shows multiple Rajakaluves flowing through the project(s) in question. The images further show encroachment on Rajakaluves.

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

5) Google Satellite images retrieved from Google archives clearly reflect two distinct features.

Firstly, change in the wetland area between the period of 13th November, 2000 and 23rd November, 2010. Secondly, it reveals the excavation work carried out by Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 commenced prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance.

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

7) The conditions with regard to the natural slopping pattern of the project site to remain unaltered and natural hydrology of the area to be maintained as it is, to ensure natural flow of storm water as well as in relation to Lakes and other water bodies within and/or at the vicinity of the project area to be protected and conserved:

The inspection report by the MoEF clearly notes that condition nos. (xxxix) and (xl) in the Environmental Clearance of respondent no. 9 cannot be complied with as it will necessarily result in some alteration of the natural slopping pattern of the project site and the natural hydrology of the area. It noted that the project 50

area is located in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake and the project authorities have informed that they will take all precautionary measures to ensure that the lake will not be affected by project activities either during construction or operation phase."

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

"81. …………Another very important aspect which cannot be overlooked by the Tribunal is with regard to the respondent nos. 9 & 10 carrying on their project activity fully knowing that they were incapable of or it was not possible for them to comply with condition no. xxxix and xl (or alike conditions) in the order granting the Environmental Clearance. This has even been noticed by the MoEF in its monitoring report dated 14th August, 2013. These respondents never applied for variation or amendment of these conditions and continued with their construction activities. This renders these respondents entirely liable for environmental and ecological damage and the restoration and restitution thereof."

54. In our view, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not only

based on the documents that were available on record but also on the

pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the

Committee's report and the inspection note of the Expert Members. 51

Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty imposed by the

Tribunal on both project proponents are valid and sustainable and do

not suffer from any perversity.

55. We are also of the view that it is impermissible for the appellants

to seek a factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation of

factual matrix by this Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act.

56. Shri R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel has also raised a

subsidiary issue relating to res judicata. According to him, respondent

Nos. 12 and 13 filed Writ Petition Nos.3656-57/2013 seeking similar

reliefs in a representative capacity. The issues raised therein are same

as those canvassed in the application before the Tribunal. The reliefs

sought for are essentially the same. Hence, the applications are barred

by the principle of res judicata.

57. The Tribunal has answered this issue in paragraphs 47 to 51 of

the order. There was no dispute in so far as filing of the writ petitions

is concerned. However, the parties are not common nor the issues in

application and the writ petitions are directly and substantially the

same. After examination of the pleadings, the

Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there is no commonality

of a cause of action or likelihood of a conflict between the judgments.

The prayers and the geneses of the respective proceedings are entirely

distinct and different in their scope and relief. The issues before the 52

Tribunal would essentially relate to environment ecology and its

restoration while the proceedings before the High Court relate to

entirely different issues with acquisition of land, its allotment and

transfer to the third party. These issues in both the proceedings are

neither substantial nor materially identical.

58. After elaborately considering this question, the Tribunal has

concluded as under:

"51. ….For these reasons, we find no merit in this contention of respondent Nos. 9 and 10. The purpose of the doctrine of res judicata is to provide finality and conclusiveness to the judicial decisions as well as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the present case, the question of re-agitating the issues or agitating similar issues in two different proceedings does not arise. The ambit and scope of jurisdiction is clearly decipherable. The jurisdictions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and this Tribunal are operating in distinct fields and have no commonality in so far as the issues which are raised directly and substantially in these petitions, as well as the reliefs that have been prayed for before the Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunal are concerned. There is no commonality in parties before the Tribunal and the High Court. The ‘cause of action’ in both proceedings is different and distinct. The matters 53

substantially and materially in issue in one proceedings are not the same in the other proceeding. There is hardly any likelihood of conflicting judgments being pronounced by the Tribunal on the one hand and the High Court on the other. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present applications are neither hit by the principles of res judicata nor constructive res judicata. We also hold that culmination of proceedings before the Tribunal into a final judgment would not offend the principle of ‘judicial propriety’, because of the Writ Petitions pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka."

59. We do not find any error in the aforesaid conclusion of the

Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding

that the objections taken by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 do not

satisfy the basic ingredients to attract the application of res judicata or

constructive res judicata.

60. The State of Karnataka is aggrieved by the following offending

portion of the order dated 04.05.2016:

"1. In view of our discussion in the main Judgment, we are of the considered view that the fixation of distance from water bodies (lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt contradiction, legal infirmity and is without any 54

scientific justification. The RMP – 2015 provides 50m from middle of the Rajkalewas as buffer zone in the case of primary Rajkalewas, 25m in the case of secondary Rajkulewas and 15m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in contradiction to the 30m in the case of lake which is certainly much bigger water body and its utility as a water body/wetland is well known certainly part of wet land. Thus, we direct that the distance in the case of Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 from Rajkulewas, Waterbodies and wetlands shall be maintained as below:-

(i) In the case of Lakes, 75m from the periphery of water body to be maintained as green belt and buffer zone for all the existing 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 construction zone for all intent and purposes.

This is absolutely essential for the purposes of sustainable development particularly keeping in mind the ecology and environment of the areas in question.

55

All the offending constructions raised by Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 of any kind including boundary wall shall be demolished which falls within such areas. Wherever necessary dredging operations are required, the same should be carried out to restore the original capacity of the water spread area and/or wetlands. Not only the existing construction would be removed but also none of these Respondents - Project Proponent would be permitted to raise any construction in this zone.

All authorities particularly Lake development Authority shall carry out this

operation in respect of all the water bodies/ lakes of Bangalore."

61. We have already noticed that Shri Poovayya has no objection to

set aside the aforesaid impugned portion of the order in so far as the

appellants in all the appeals except the appeals filed by respondent

Nos.9 and 10. The aforesaid portion of the order contains not only

general directions but also certain directions against respondent Nos.

9 and 10. Therefore, only that portion of the order which does not

pertain to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 needs to be quashed.

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

i) Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal

Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016 filed by the 56

appellants/respondent nos. 9 and 10 are hereby

dismissed. The impugned judgment and order in

so far as appellants/respondent Nos. 9 and 10

are concerned is sustained.

ii) All the other appeals are hereby allowed and the

direction/condition No. (1) in the order dated

4.5.2016 is hereby set aside except the direction

issued against respondent Nos. 9 and 10.

63. There will be no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (A.K. SIKRI)

…………………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

…………………………………J. New Delhi; (M.R. SHAH) March 5, 2019.