Dismissed

Sri C P Subash v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022WP/8882/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Villagers challenged the No Objection Certificate granted for conversion of about 105 acres of coffee plantation land into a World Environment School. The court held the committee had considered the Geological Survey of India and Forest Department reports, that the absence of two members was inconsequential, and dismissed the petition, directing that the GSI conditions be incorporated while granti

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondent No.2 directed, while granting conversion, to incorporate all conditions in the Geological Survey of India report and the precautions undertaken in the project repor

Sri C P Subash Vs the State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8882 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. C.P. SUBASH S/O LATE C.G. POONACHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT FAIRFIELD ESTATE HOSAKERI VILLAGE, AREKAD POST, SIDDAPURA, KODAGU DISTRICT-571253

¶8

SRI. B.N. APPAIAH S/O B.A. NANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOSAKERI VILLAGE, ARECAD POST, KODAGU DISTRICT-571253

¶9

SRI. B.P. KAVERAPPA S/O B.A. POOVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HOSAKERI VILLAGE, ARECAD POST, VIA SIDDAPUR, KODAGU DISTRICT-571253.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,

¶14

¶15

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-570001

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI-571201

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201

¶19

THE HOSAKERI GRAM PANCHAYATH BY ITS PRESIDENT, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HOSAKERI AND AREKAD, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201

¶21

M/S RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., VERA THOTA, HOSAKERI VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU. ALSO AT: 4^TH FLOOR, PUJNABI BHAVAN, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110002

¶22

THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR CONVERSIONS OF LAND, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, 2 AND 8; SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7;

¶25

¶26

SRI. AJITH ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 6)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOC DATED 06.04.2022 BEARING No.BHUPARI/235/202021, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 7^TH RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-W AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.07.2022 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioners being residents of Hoskeri village, Kodagu district have filed this writ petition challenging the 'No Objection Certificate' (henceforth referred to as 'NOC') dated 06.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 for conversion of the land in various survey numbers of Hoskeri village, Arekad, Madikeri, Kodagu District. They contemporaneously challenged a decision/recommendation taken by the respondent No.8 recommending the grant of NOC for conversion of the land in question.

¶31

The petitioners claim that the respondent No.7

¶32

had purchased more than 100 acres of agricultural land in various survey numbers of Hoskeri village, Kodagu District.

¶33

¶34

The petitioners apprehending that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 may grant permission for commercial conversion of the land, submitted a representation dated 12.01.2017 before the respondent Nos.5 and 6 requesting them to hear the objections of the villagers before taking any decision to grant 'No Objection' for conversion of the land. This was followed by another representation dated 22.12.2017 before the respondent No.2 objecting the grant of 'No Objection' for conversion of the land. Later, the respondent No.7 submitted an application dated 12.07.2018 before the respondent Nos.5 and 6 seeking 'No Objection' for conversion of the land for commercial purposes to establish an International Environment Residential School. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 convened a meeting on 19.07.2018 and decided to issue NOC in favour of the respondent No.7, if the documents submitted by it was in order. It also resolved to invite objections from the villagers, consequent to which the petitioners submitted their objections on 27.07.2018. On 14.08.2018, the respondent No.5 convened a meeting, where it decided

¶35

¶36

to issue the NOC claiming that there was no objection received from any villagers. Following this, a NOC was issued on 11.10.2018. The petitioners and other villagers sought cancellation of the NOC by addressing a letter to the respondent No.3 on 10.12.2018. The respondent No.3 instructed the respondent No.4 to inspect the survey numbers and submit a report. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No.4 without conducting any physical inspection submitted a report dated 21.03.2019 stating that the villagers had not submitted any objections within the prescribed time and that the NOC was issued as per the resolution dated 14.08.2018. Since there were serious protest by the villagers as well as the petitioners, a special general meeting was held by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 17.12.2018. However, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not take any decision to cancel the NOC or consider the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners and other villagers submitted a representation on 12.04.2019 before the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and sought cancellation of the NOC. The respondent No.3 constituted a committee

¶37

¶38

to inspect the ground reality of the land proposed to be converted. The committee submitted its report to the respondent No.3 on 05.08.2019, following which, the respondent No.3 directed the respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to issue the NOC for the project without taking his prior permission and the permission of the Forest Department. The petitioners also lodged the complaint on 01.02.2019 before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Madikeri. Again, the petitioners and other villagers lodged the complaint before the Department of Forest, consequent to which, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, through his officers, directed the Range Forest Officer to submit a report. The Range Forest Officer is stated to have submitted a report indicating that the land in question is situate on a high range and cutting of trees would cause land slides. The petitioners alleged that when the respondent No.7 moved an application before the respondent No.2 for conversion of the land, the respondent No.2 referred it to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Geological Survey of India, which forwarded its report on 19.11.2020.

¶39

¶40

When things stood thus, one of the villagers submitted a complaint before the Lokayukta against the President of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. In view of the complaint, Lokayukta constituted an Investigation Team. Based on all these records, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 30.11.2019 to the Lokayukta. In the meanwhile, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court in W.P.No.19665/2019 for a direction to the respondent No.2 not to issue the order of conversion in favour of the respondent No.7. This Court in terms of the order dated 10.06.2019, directed the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.5 to hear the grievance of the petitioners therein. Consequent to this order, the respondent No.1 constituted a committee consisting of five members namely, (1) respondent No.2-Chairman; (2) Scientist from Indian Land Scientific Survey DepartmentMember; (3) Deputy Director, Land Records, Kodagu District-Member; (4) Assistant Director, Urban and Rural Planning Department, Madikeri-Member and (5) concerned Tahsildar - Member Secretary, to consider the issuance of

¶41

¶42

NOC for the conversion of land in Kodagu District. The petitioners alleged that the committee was supposed to examine the situation on the ground before issuing NOC for conversion. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No.1 adopted this mechanism keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the land in Kodagu and the havoc wreaked by nature in the year 2018.

¶43

The petitioner No.1 aggrieved by the NOC issued by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P.No.18210/2021 and sought annulment of the decision taken by the respondent No.5 at the meeting dated 19.07.2018 and 14.08.2018. This Court in terms of the order dated 16.11.2021, directed the respondent No.8 to take a holistic view by considering the objections and pass appropriate orders. The respondent No.8 thereafter issued a notice to all the stake-holders including the petitioners to attend a public hearing on 31.01.2022 and 10.02.2022. The petitioner No.1 alleged that he did not receive the notice of the meeting held on 31.01.2022, while the others

¶44

¶45

had received a notice on 29.01.2022. Therefore, at their request, the meeting was adjourned to 10.02.2022, on which day the petitioners filed their objections against grant of NOC in favour of respondent No.7. Again proceedings were conducted on 06.04.2022, where only the respondent No.2, Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Kodagu and the Tahsildar were present and they took a decision to issue NOC in favour of the respondent No.7. Consequently, on 06.04.2022 a NOC was issued in favour of the respondent No.7. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶46

It is contended that the consideration of the objections of the petitioners by the respondent No.8 was half-hearted in as much as the two other members were not present at the time of consideration. It is further contended that the committee ignored the reports of the Geological Survey of India, Forest Department, Department of Mines and Geology and Department of Education. It is also contended that allowing commercial

¶47

¶48

use of land in question would lead to a rapid decline of the environment in Hoskeri village and also affect the biodiversity. It is also contended that the respondent No.8 did not apply its mind to the objections raised by the petitioners and other villagers. It is contended that as against the five members, who constituted the respondent No.8, the hearing of the objections was conducted only by the respondent No.2, Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Kodagu and the Tahsildar, which defeated the very purpose for which the respondent No.8 was constituted. Besides this, the petitioners have alleged that the respondent No.8 has predetermined the issue and has allowed a behemoth project to come up on the slopes of a hill which would catalyze further depredation of the environment and hasten land slides.

¶49

The respondent No.7 being the contesting respondent has objected to the writ petition and contended that in partnership with Mobius Foundation, it has proposed to establish a unique World Environmental

¶50

¶51

School for promotion of global citizenship and sustainable development. The respondent No.7 claims that in order to establish such a school, an ideal location and atmosphere is required. In this regard, a Trust was constituted under the name and style "Coorg Environment School Trust". The respondent No.7 sought conversion of land belonging to it for non-agricultural purpose and sought NOC from the respondent No.8 which was granted on 06.04.2022. The respondent No.7 alleged that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition to challenge the grant of NOC dated 06.04.2022. It further contended that the application filed by it seeking conversion of the land was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It also accused of petitioners of abusing the law by filing the present petition. The respondent No.7 claimed that it had obtained reports from a private risk assessing company to assess the impact on the environment and that the Geological Survey of India had conducted an inspection and submitted its report. Likewise, it had obtained Geo-Technical report from

¶52

¶53

a private entity and a Subject-Experts report from an expert. The respondent No.7 alleged that the petitioners are busy bodies in the village and the present petition as well as the Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.19665/2019 and a writ petition in W.P.No.18210/2021 were filed to lay obstacles and obstructions in the implementation of the project. It claimed that in view of the natural calamity during the year 2018 in Coorg District, the conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes was regulated by a Government Order dated 04.06.2020, by which, a Technical Committee was constituted. The respondent No.2 and the Tahsildar inspected the property in question on 05.09.2020, 19.07.2021 and 31.01.2022, while the Geological Survey of India had visited the property during September-2020 and submitted a report on 19.11.2020. The committee considered the report of the Geological Survey of India and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 granting NOC to the respondent No.7. It contended that though the impugned order reflects that the member from the Geological Survey of India was not

¶54

¶55

present on the date of the meeting, however since the report of the Geological Survey of India was already submitted, the same was taken into account while passing the impugned order. The respondent No.7 contended that the way in which the petitioners and other villagers have acted against the project indicates their oblique intent. He submits that the petitioners are not experts in the field and therefore cannot assail the report of the experts, who were members of respondent No.8. It is further contended that the petitioners are forcing the respondent Nos.2 and 8 to adopt a new process and method for conversion of land in question, which is clearly contrary to the procedure set out in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶56

The respondent No.2 has filed its objections contending that the notification constituting the respondent No.8 vide Government Order dated 04.06.2020 was in pursuance of the direction issued in W.P.No.19665/2019. In view of the direction in W.P.No.18210/2021, the respondent No.8 considered the

¶57

¶58

objections of the petitioners and other villagers and after taking a holistic view of all the circumstances, issued the NOC on 06.04.2022. It contended that the petitioners as well as other villagers were heard from 14.12.2020 to 29.09.2021 on four different dates while another public hearing was conducted at Bharathi Junior College, Hoskeri in the presence of the petitioners and other villagers and project proponents on 31.01.2022 and 10.02.2022. It therefore contended that the NOC issued is valid in the eye

¶59

of law as all precautionary measures to protect the environment, landscape were taken into account. It contended that the report of the Geological Survey of India and the report of the Department of Forest were also considered before grant of the NOC. In so far as the absence of two members in the Committee, it stated that the report of Geological Survey of India was already on record and the report of the Environment Impact Assessment was also on record. It contended that as per the report of the Geological Survey of India, Hoskeri village lay within the low susceptible area in the Landslide

¶60

¶61

Susceptibility Map prepared by the Geological Survey of India after the landslides in the District in the year 2018. It also claimed that there was no need for an environment impact assessment in respect of schools as the same is exempted. It also contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the NOC as the respondent No.2 is yet to consider the same for conversion of the land. It claimed that the property in question is a private property and all the departments of the Government had concurred to grant the NOC in favour of the respondent No.7.

¶62

During the course of this writ petition, this Court tried to ascertain whether the notice dated 04.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 to the Director of Geological Survey of India and the Additional Director of Land Records and Senior Geologist, Madikeri was served upon them and whether any communication was received by the office of the Deputy Commissioner from the respective offices indicating their inability to participate in the meeting of the Technical Committee on 06.04.2022.

¶63

¶64

In compliance with the said order, an affidavit

¶65

is filed by the respondent No.2 on 12.07.2022, where it is stated that the respondent No.2 had issued communication to all the members of the respondent No.8 to attend the meeting on 06.04.2022. The meeting was attended by respondent No.2, the Tahsildar and Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning. The expert from Geological Survey of India was absent but he sent the report of the spot inspection of the property which indicated " no landslide and/or surface crack has been reported in the proposed site and given some instructions for the construction" . The respondent No.2 took into this report for consideration of the NOC. Likewise, he stated that Deputy Director of Land Records was absent as he was on leave on that day.

¶66

The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the purpose of the respondent No.8 was to consider the objections of the petitioners objectively. But in the present case, the respondent No.8

¶67

¶68

has acted in complete violation of the mandate of its constitution. He submitted that when five members of the committee was supposed to put their heads together, they could not have relied upon a report of the Geological Survey of India conducted in the year 2020. He further submitted that Coorg now sits on a timebomb as every other developer intends to level the slopes and use it for recreational and other purposes without least regard to the impact that such development brings about on the environment. The learned Senior counsel invited the attention of the Court to the report of the Geological Survey of India dated 19.11.2020 and stated that it was an incomplete report as the inspection conducted by the geological team of District authority was not attached to the proposal for conversion during September 2020. He submitted that there were three streams running in the proposed area. Therefore, the same could not be blocked by any means and should not be reserved for harvesting, which could affect their free runoff. He submitted that none of the safeguards that were pointed by the Geological

¶69

¶70

Survey of India in the report dated 19.11.2020 were taken care of while issuing the NOC. He submitted that the members of the respondent No.8 were required to independently assess the proposal and absence of any member in the committee would result in the invalidation of the decision. He relied upon the Judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Dr. Mohanjit Singh and another [1988 (Supp) SCC 562].

¶71

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 reiterated its contentions in the statement of objections. He submitted that the respondent No.8 is the Committee constituted by the respondent No.1 in the light of the landslides that occurred in the District during the year 2018. He submitted that after such constitution, when the proposal of the respondent No.7 was placed before the Committee, a detailed inspection was conducted by Geological Survey of India, which indicate that the proposed project does not lay in the seismic zone and the angle of the slope is less than 45

¶72

¶73

degrees and therefore, it would not cause any landslides or shifting of the soil. He contended that the safeguards pointed out by the Geological Survey of India in its report could very well be incorporated in the order granting conversion but, there is no case made out by the petitioners to intervene at this premature stage when a mere NOC issued to grant a conversion of land in question. He further submitted that the respondent No.7 intends to establish a World Environment School and therefore, it would ensure that its campus would be environmental friendly. The learned counsel relied upon the following Judgments:

¶74

(i) D.L.F. Universal Ltd., vs Prof. A. Lakshmi Sagar and others [1998) 7 SCC 1]

¶75

(ii) S.N. Chandrashekar and another vs. State of Karnataka and others [Civil Appeal No.938/2006)

¶76

(iii) Smt. Areyada S. Akkavva vs. State of Karnataka and another [W.P.No.24638 of 2019 and other connected cases of High Court of Karnataka]

¶77

(iv) Special Deputy Commissioner vs Bhargavi Madhavan [ILR 1991 KAR 479]

¶78

¶79

(v) Sri. T. Murthy and another vs. The Municipal Director and Ors. [W.P.Nos.9459-60/2009 of High Court of Karnataka]

¶80

(vi) The State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari and another [(1976) 1 SCC 719]

¶81

(vii) Shri Ishwar Chandra vs Shri Satyanarain and others [(1972) 3 SCC 383]

¶82

(viii) Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L.Ramesh and others [(2010) 8 SCC 372]

¶83

He also relied upon the judgment in T.N.

¶84

Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and others [W.P.(Civil) No.202/1995 dated 03.06.2022]

¶85

as well as the Judgment in Rajeev Suri vs Delhi Development Authority and others [Transferred Case (Civil) No.229/2020] relating to the e-vista project and contended that the principles of natural justice is not a unruly horse and the right of personal hearing cannot be used as a tool to substitute an opinion out of convenience

¶86

or out of uncontrolled exercise of power. He submitted that huge projects are bound to invite large criticism and the

¶87

¶88

Court must be guarded against allowing the process of the Court to be misused.

¶89

Since the notification dated 04.06.2020 constituting the respondent No.8 is not challenged in this writ petition, the writ petition is taken up for consideration on the basis that the said notification is legal and valid. The Notification dated 04.06.2020 reads as follows:

¶90

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: Dgïr 24 J¯ïfN 2018, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04.06.2020

¶91

PÉÆqÀUÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ªÉÊeÁÕ¤PÀ ¸ÀªÉÃðPÀëuÁ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ CzsÀåAiÀÄ£ÀzÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀ 10% wÃªÀæ C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁj ¨sÀÆ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2018 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2019£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ¨sÀÆ PÀÄ¹vÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁzÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±À, ºÀ¼Àî-PÉÆ¼Àî, £À¢ ¥ÁvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, E£ÀÄß½zÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À°è PÀÈ¶ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÈ¶AiÉÄÃvÀgÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀUÀ½UÁV CAzÀgÉ ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÁtÂdå PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, ±Á¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, gÉ¸ÁmïðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APïUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ SÁ¸ÀV GzÀåªÀÄUÀ½UÁV ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjªÀwð¸À®Ä ¤gÁPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÁÌV F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ vÁAwæPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÉÆAzÀ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À¯ÁVzÉ:

¶92

1.	f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆqÀUÀÄ f¯Éè, ªÀÄrPÉÃj	- CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ
2.	¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ªÉÊeÁÕ¤PÀ ¸ÀªÉÃðPÀëuÁ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ vÀdÕgÀÄ	- ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ

¶93

¶94

G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆqÀUÀÄ - ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ
f¯Éè
4. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ - ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ
UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀÄrPÉÃj
5. ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï - ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå
PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð

¶95

The committee so constituted is for the

¶96

purpose of granting NOC for conversion of land for nonagricultural use in Kodagu District. Based on the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.19665/2019, the objections of the petitioners as well as other villagers against grant of NOC to respondent No.7, was brought up before the respondent No.8. The detailed project report of the respondent No.7 indicates that the project is spread over 105 acres of coffee plantation with approximately 125 to 150 trees in one acre of coffee estate. The report indicates that there is no forest land within the project site and a detailed environmental and social assessment study was conducted by the respondent No.7. The summary of the project is as follows:

¶97

¶98

Proposed Project will be developed in a sustainable way based on the guidelines of Indian Green Building Council, US Green Building Council, LEED to optimize the usage of natural resources and to build water & energy efficient buildings using integrated design approach.

¶99

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability will be considered during the construction and operation phase of the project to manage environmental and social risks.

¶100

The proposed school will be called as "World Environment School" due to its vision of providing education and learning atmosphere to the students in consideration with Environmental improvement and sustainability.

¶101

The school will be developed within the dense ecological environment surrounding the coffee plantation, thus providing the privilege to the students coming from cities to experience a completely different dimension with respect to environment.

¶102

Coffee plantation area in and around the project site consists of mixed farming including endemic and non-endemic trees, pepper, arecanut trees etc.

¶103

Out of the total project site area of 105 acres of coffee plantation area, about 18 acres of land will

¶104

¶105

be utilized for development and thus roughly about 3000 trees shall be cut during the land clearing process. Thus it is proposed that, for every tree cut, 3 plants will be planted in the nearby Government Schools as a part of carbon sequestration plan.

¶106

Dedicated land of about 5 acres shall be developed as " Devarakadu " that will include more than 45 endemic species of fruits from the native Western Ghats and various other species of medicinal plants.

¶107

Construction phase impacts on the surrounding social environment will be minimal due to the presence of vegetation surrounding the project site and boundary which acts as a barrier to the noise/dust generated during the activities.

¶108

There are about 5 ponds artificially constructed in the low lying area of the project site collecting storm water run off and the same will be the source of water during the construction phase.

¶109

The proposed school shall not have HVAC systems(except library and auditorium) due to the adoption of Green Building concept during the design stage hence reduces energy consumption.

¶110

The entire campus will be aimed for " zero energy ". Renewable energy resources such as solar, wind power will be utilized based on the

¶111

¶112

feasibility of the technology. Installation of bio gas plant is proposed to utilize the biomass waste for bio gas generation.

¶113

The entire sewage generated will be treated appropriately so that no sewage will be discharged to any water body. Technologies such as MBBR are proposed to obtain high quality treated sewage which can be reused for land irrigation.

¶114

" Zero waste " disposal system will be adopted and thus all the necessary measures will be adopted to follow 5 Rs of Waste Management (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recover, and Recycle). The entire campus will be " plastic free ".

¶115

No traffic zones shall be developed inside the campus area and covered pathways shall be provided for bicyclers to promote the usage of bicycles, thus controlling air pollution due to vehicular movement. Electric vehicles will be used as a means of transportation within the campus.

¶116

� As per the traffic impact assessment, the increase in traffic envisaged during the operation phase will be insignificant as the major inflow of traffic (Vehicles of parents) will be observed not more than six times a year at various occasions of the proposed residential school.

¶117

Impact due to noise generated from school on the surrounding social environment will be minimal due

¶118

¶119

to the adoption of noise management plan and also for the fact that the plantation around the project boundary will be kept untouched and the proposed school will be located in the interiors of the location away from surrounding settlements.

¶120

The entire campus will be " water independent ". Two new reservoirs are proposed as a part of rain water harvesting plan.

¶121

Thus, due to the above summary points it can be concluded that the proposed project of developed Green School at Kodagu is environmental friendly.

¶122

Soon after a proposal for conversion of the land in question was placed before the respondent No.2, he sought an opinion regarding the geological impact due to such conversion. A field inspection visit was carried out by the Geological Survey of India officer who was accompanied by the District Authorities in September2020. Later, a detailed deliberation was carried out by the Geological Survey of India experts. In the preliminary study, the following observations and recommendations were made:

¶123

¶124

"A land conversion proposal in Kodagu district has been received from the Deputy Commissioner. Kodagu office for necessary opinion/suggestions. Consequent upon a field inspection visit has been carried out by GSI officer accompanied with the district authorities in September 2020. Later detailed deliberations have been carried out by GSI experts. The nature of this geological study is preliminary level based on preliminary report and field inputs. During the course of said preliminary study following observations and recommendations have been made which should be given due consideration;

¶125

The geological check list of field inspection visit carried out by geological team of district authority before GSI officer field visit was not attached to said proposal hence the observations and suggestions made in the geological check list of said proposal were not taken into consideration. It is suggested that the observations and suggestions made in geological check list of said proposal by geological team of district authority should be given due care.

¶126

The AsterDEM (30m resolution) derived slope angle map shows that slope angle varies from 0-25.5 degrees which comes under low to moderate slope angle class. Although the said slope angle class would be feasible but it is suggested that slope angle for each slope facet (slope face) should be

¶127

¶128

measured on ground before initiating any slope modification. The slope angle >45° is not recommended for any type of modification without detailed geological/geotechnical study.

¶129

Prominently there are three first order streams developed in the proposed area. Facing towards North the First left side one is trending in N20°W direction, the second one is trending in N60°W direction and third one is trending in S55°W direction. Besides, a third order stream is crossing in NE corner of proposed area which is trending in N50 W direction and several water ponds are existing along this stream. It is suggested that these above mentioned stream orders and/or other streams of any order, developed in and around the proposed site should not be blocked by any means or should not be reserved for harvesting rainfall waters which may affect the free runoff (surface water flow) of rainfall waters. As this was found in landslide study carried out by GSI, Bangalore office in year 2018-19 in parts of Madikeri taluk that the 2018 landslides have occurred due to poor performance of drainage network (streams) having several natural as well as anthropogenic interferences.

¶130

The vegetation cover is adding the shear strength to thick soil cover and is able to balance the moisture content in it which are essential for

¶131

¶132

sustained slope stability. Therefore, it is recommended that vegetation cover should not be removed. For developmental and constructional purpose, the removal of vegetation cover should be carry out in site specific mode and not in bulk mode after detailed assessment of reduction in shear strength which would be compensated by giving appropriate reinforcement measures.

¶133

The cut slopes already developed or to be developed during road construction and building foundation should be reinforced by appropriate measures along with adequate weep holes.

¶134

The culverts on each stream should be given by taking the catchment area of stream in consideration and in arc type so that the water with transported debris would escape easily without blocking the stream flow.

¶135

It is suggested that proper lined drainage network arrangements should be given along roads and modified slopes to minimize the infiltration and to drain the runoff waters quickly.

¶136

No landslide and/or surface crack has been reported in the proposed site.

¶137

The foundation of any building should be laid after the detailed geotechnical assessment of slope forming material (both rock and/or soil) and it is

¶138

¶139

suggested that the building frequency should not be dense and should be restrained to single story.

¶140

10.The geotechnical report of study carried out by a private consultancy for the proposed site is not scrutinised by GSI, Bangalore office because GSI is not mandated to scrutinise the reports other than GSI without taking permission from the ADG & HOD, GSI, Southern Region. Hyderabad.

¶141

16. The petitioners and many objectors who have

¶142

opposed the project of the respondent No.7 have raised the following concerns that may befall the area:

¶143

(i) Massive tree felling/ deforestation

¶144

(ii) Depletion of underground water table

¶145

(iii) Large scale destruction

¶146

(iv) Prone for land slide.

¶147

(v) Environmental impact assessment is not done

¶148

(vi) Air, water and noise pollution

¶149

(vii) Corridor for movement of Wild Life is blocked

¶150

(viii) Damage to Flora and Fauna, Ecologically not sustainable

¶151

(ix) Damage the Culture and security of local inhabitants

¶152

(x) Not of use for localites in terms of admission and employment

¶153

¶154

(xi) Traffic congestion

¶155

(xii) Blasting of rocky structures

¶156

In response to the above, the respondent No.7

¶157

has stated in its detailed project report that out of the total project site area of 105 acres of Coffee Plantation, an area of 18 acres would be utilized for development and that about 3000 trees would be cut during the land clearing process. It has undertaken to plant 3 plants for every tree cut. It has also undertaken to dedicate 5 acres of land within the project site which would be developed as “Devara Kadu”. It is also stated that the school will not have HVAC systems except in the library and auditorium and renewable energy and biogas would be utilised. It has also undertaken to have appropriate sewage treatment plant and the treated water would be re-used for irrigation . It has undertaken that its project would be plastic free and “Zero waste” disposal system would be adopted. In so far as the apprehension of the petitioners and other objectors that development of a project on a slope may hasten landslides, is well taken care of in the report of the

¶158

¶159

Geological Survey of India, where they have suggested that the streams running through the project area shall not be blocked or harvested which may affect the free runoff of rainfall water. It has also recommended that vegetation cover can be removed in specific sites and not in bulk, that too only after detailed assessment of the reduction of shear strength and after compensating by providing adequate reinforcement measures. It has also recommended that the cut slopes developed or to be developed should be reinforced with adequate weep holes. The culverts on each stream are to be in arc type so that the debris escape without blocking the flow of the stream. It has also recommended that the project should be provided to reduce and modify the slopes to allow runoff water to drain quickly. It has also specifically recommended that the foundation of any building should be laid after a detailed geotechnical assessment of slope forming material and that the building frequency should be restrained to a single storey.

¶160

¶161

The apprehension that the project blocks movement of wild life, is substantially answered by the Department of Forest, who have stated that there are no recorded animal corridor within the project. As far as other concerns raised, the same are not sufficiently justified but is a clear case of unfound apprehension.

¶162

The respondent No.2 and two other members after obtaining the concurrence from the Department of Forest, took into account the recommendations made by the Geological Survey of India and issued a conditional ‘No Objection Certificate’, which is subject to the recommendations of the Geological Survey of India, as stated above and also subject to compliance of all norms prescribed under the provisions of Air and Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as other conditions prescribed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶163

¶164

It is not the case of the petitioners that they

¶165

were not heard by the respondent No.8 but they are aggrieved by the absence of the officials of the Geological Survey of India and the Deputy Director of Land Records at the meeting held on 06.04.2022. They claim that such absence rendered the decision to grant NOC invalid. Though at first blush, this contention appears genuine and probable, yet, it is to be noticed that the authorities of Geological Survey of India claimed that they had nothing else to add to the report submitted on 19.11.2020. The absence of the Deputy Director of Land Records was inconsequential since there was no dispute regarding the boundaries of the project site or regarding any survey marks. The respondent No.2 being the President of the respondent No.8 has taken into consideration the report of the Department of Forest as well as the report of the Geological Survey of India and has issued NOC subject to various conditions. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.7, the petitioners are laymen, who have no expertise to comment upon the

¶166

¶167

geological changes that the project can bring about. Hence, to contend that any development would cause destruction, is purely prophetic and has no basis. The respondent No.8 has analysed the objections and clarifications and has rightly concluded to grant NOC. The petitioners cannot raise any objections against grant of NOC as there is no embargo in law for conversion of the land in question for non-agricultural purposes. They also cannot hold up the respondent No.7 on the grounds that are ex-facie extraneous for the purpose of granting conversion. Even otherwise, the grant of NOC does not result in an automatic conversion of the land and petitioners can also assail the legality of the conversion, if it is not in accordance with law.

¶168

In that view of the matter, this writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed . However, it is made clear that the respondent No.2 while granting the conversion of the land in question shall ensure to incorporate all the conditions set out in the report of the

¶169

¶170

Geological Survey of India as well as the precautions that the respondent No.8 has agreed to undertaken in its detailed project report.

¶171

Sd/JUDGE

¶172

PMR

Sri C P Subash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C P Subash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. Vs M/S Anupama Wine Distributors

Mrs. Usha Narayana Rao Vs M/S Vinod Brothers

Mrs. Usha Narayana Rao Vs M/S Vinod Brothers

M/S Ashed Valmark Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G.Nagappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka