Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. V. Aalok Jagga And Others (2019)

Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment addressing the validity of environmental clearances granted for large-scale construction projects in close proximity to protected wildlife sanctuaries and within ecologically sensitive catchment areas. 

• The judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 2019, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision to quash permissions granted for a high-rise residential project. 
• The case establishes important precedents regarding buffer zones around wildlife sanctuaries, the application of the Public Trust Doctrine, and the State's constitutional duty to protect ecologically fragile areas. 

Facts 

• Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. (Tata HDCL) proposed to develop a high-rise group housing project named "CAMELOT" in Kansal village, District Mohali, Punjab, spanning 52.66 acres with a built-up area of 4,63,144.54 sq.m. and maximum height of 92.65 meters. 
• The company obtained building permission from Nagar Panchayat, Naya Gaon on 05.07.2013 and Environmental Clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Punjab on 17.09.2013. 
• A site inspection report dated 10.01.2011 confirmed that the project site fell within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake as per the Survey of India Map dated 21.09.2004. 
• The project boundary was located merely 123 meters from Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary on the northern side and 185 meters on the eastern side. 
• The project was challenged by petitioners including Aalok Jagga and the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration for violations of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 
• It was alleged that the project originated with the 'Punjab MLA Society' with approximately 95 Members of Legislative Assembly as potential beneficiaries, suggesting improper exercise of power by the State. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the Environmental Clearance granted by SEIAA, Punjab and the building permission granted by Nagar Panchayat were valid considering the project's proximity to Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and its location within the Sukhna Lake catchment area? 
• Whether the State of Punjab failed in its constitutional and statutory duty to protect ecologically sensitive areas, particularly regarding the declaration of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)? 
• Whether construction activities, particularly high-rise buildings, are permissible at a distance of only 123 meters from a protected Wildlife Sanctuary? 

Court’s Observations 

• The Court held that the Survey of India map dated 21.09.2004 was the only available and binding document for demarcating the Sukhna Lake catchment area, and since the project fell within this designated area, the local permissions were invalid. 
• The Court noted that the Central Government's MoEF Notification dated 18.01.2017 (issued under Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the E.P. Act) declared an Eco-Sensitive Zone around Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, explicitly prohibiting new commercial construction within 0.5 km (Zone-I) of the protected area boundary. 
• The Court observed that the State of Punjab's proposal to restrict the Buffer Zone to merely 100 meters was rejected by MoEF, which had sought a proposal for at least 1 km, demonstrating the State's failure to comply with environmental protection norms. 
• The Court held that the State's failure to establish an adequate buffer zone, coupled with the involvement of 95 MLAs as beneficiaries, demonstrated that the State was not acting in furtherance of the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates government protection of vital natural resources for public good rather than private or commercial gain. 
• The Court emphasized that Article 48A (Directive Principles) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties) impose a constitutional mandate to protect and safeguard the environment and wildlife, and courts must intervene when authorities fail to fulfill these duties. 
• The Court ruled that the entire clearance process "smacks of arbitrariness" on the part of the Government and its functionaries and must be quashed entirely. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. and upheld the High Court's decision to quash all permissions granted for the project. 
• The judgment establishes that construction projects cannot be permitted within prohibited distances from wildlife sanctuaries, particularly when located merely 123 meters from a protected area and within critical catchment zones. 
• This landmark judgment reinforces the principles of environmental governance, sustainable development, and the strict application of the Public Trust Doctrine in preserving ecologically sensitive areas from encroaching urban development. 
• The case sets an important precedent that the State cannot abdicate its constitutional responsibility to protect the environment, and any failure to do so warrants judicial intervention to safeguard public natural resources.