Hari Mohan Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Issue raised in this application is encroachment on the public land which is recorded as pond being Khasra No. 1323, 1324, 1325/1, area 29.78 hectare known as Puraniha Pond located in village Bedachh, Tehsil- Jawa, DistrictRewa, Madhya Pradesh.

¶12

It is alleged that the area of the pond is being regularly subject of encroachment by different persons in the village and various applications have been moved before the competent authorities for taking action and removal of encroachment but nothing has been done and the land of the pond has been regularly subject of encroachment by the violators of law.

¶13

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and a committee was constituted to submit the factual and action taken report. The State Pollution Control Board was directed to submit the report.

¶14

The State PCB has filed the report with the facts that there are several encroachments and Tehsildar has issued notices to the encroachers and initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh

¶15

1

¶16

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶17

Land Revenue Code 1959. Details of the encroachments and the area of the water body has been narrated in para 8 of the report, which is as follows :

¶18

यह य य ह प य य . 1323 1.388 ह य . . , . 1324 4. 501 ह य . . . 1325/1 6.123 ह य . . य ह य य .1324 ह , . 1323 20 य य 05 प प . , 15 प . 1325/1 04 य 02 प प . . य 02 प 03 प य य ह इ 26 प य य ह ह 248 प 248 प ह य य ह ह ह ( य प . 201/ . ./2024 15. 01.2024 ह ह )

¶19

A further report has been called from the Collector, District Rewa and vide report dated 04.07.2024 it has been narrated that there are encroachments by some of the persons on the plot area 1323 area 1.388 hectare, plot no.1324 area4.501 hectare and plot no. 1325/1 area 6.123 hectare. Area no. 1324 has no encroachments while on area no. 1323 and 1325/1 there are certain encroachments. The administration has initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasva Sanhita 1959 and proceedings of have been initiated. It is further reported that from Araji No. 1323 the encroachments of 4 persons and from Araji no. 1325/1 the encroachment by 4 violators have been removed and for rest of the persons the proceedings have been initiated.

¶20

Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and

¶21

2

¶22

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶23

preserve a specie becoming extinct, conservation and protection of environment is an inseparable part of right to life. In M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388, the Court enunciated the doctrine of "public trust", the thrust of that theory is that certain common properties such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. The resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole, that it would be totally unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The State, as a custodian of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not merely for the 2 benefit of the public, but for the best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on. The doctrine of 'public trust' has to be addressed in that perspective.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in so many decisions had directed that the heart of the public trust is that it imposes limits and obligations upon Government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations. All the property which is vested in the state is indirectly managed by the local administration on the Principle of Public Trust. It does not mean that the local administration is at liberty or at the discretion to use it in own way. We have two things, sovereignty of the State and the doctrine of public trust. We have to make a balance between the two though the State has every authority to utilize the land but Public Trust Doctrine says that the property of the public should be utilized for the public purposes and not for the private purposes. The water bodies, lake, air and land all these are the public properties and should be made available to all for maintaining the health and environment. This Doctrine of public trust and precautionary measures was discussed in public interest litigation no. 87/ 2006; Bombay Environmental Action

¶25

3

¶26

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶27

Group Vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC online bombay 2680.2019(1) Bombay CRI and it was held as follows:-

¶28

― Apex Court observed thus: ―

¶29

“2. The Indian society has, for many centuries, been aware and conscious of the necessity of protecting environment and ecology. Sages and saints of India lived in forests. Their preachings contained in vedas, upanishads, smritis, etc. are ample evidence of the society‘s respect for plants, trees, earth, sky, air, water and every form of life. The main motto of social life is to live in harmony with nature. It was regarded as a sacred duty of everyone to protect them. In those days, people worshipped trees, rivers and sea which were treated as belonging to all living creatures. The children were educated by elders of the society about the necessity of keeping the environment clean and protecting earth, rivers, sea, forests, trees, flora, fauna and every species of life.‖ ―The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the ―doctrine of the public trust‖. It was founded on the premise that certain common properties such as air, sea, water and forests are of immense importance to the people in general and they must be held by the Government as a trustee for the free and unimpeded use by the general public and it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial exploitation to satisfy the greed of a few.”

¶30

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, in paragraph 34 and 35, the

¶31

Apex Court held thus:

¶32

“34. Our legal system - based on English common law - includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is

¶33

4

¶34

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶35

the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.

¶36

35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an 24 increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.

¶37

In the case of Fomento Resorts & Hotels Limited v. Minguel Martins 4, In paragraphs 53 to 55 and 65, the Apex Court held thus:

¶38

“- The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public

¶39

5

¶40

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶41

rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof,

¶42

- The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations. For example, renewable and non-renewable resources, associated uses, ecological values or objects in which the public has a special interest (i.e. public lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the State not to impair such resources, uses or values, even if private interests are involved. The same obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and other public assets. Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article, ―The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law: Effective Judicial Intervention ‖ (1970), indicates that the public trust doctrine, of all concepts known to law, constitutes the best practical and philosophical premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and for protecting and managing resources, ecological values or objects held in trust.

¶43

- The public trust doctrine is a tool for exerting longestablished public rights over short-term public rights and private gain. Today every person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property for the long-term and enjoyment by future generations. To say it another way, a landowner or lessee 6

¶44

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶45

and a water right holder has an obligation to use such resources in a manner as not to impair or diminish the people's rights and the people's long-term interest in that property or resource, including 15 down slope lands, waters and resources.

¶46

- We reiterate that natural resources including forests, water bodies, rivers, seashores, etc. are held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the people and especially the future generations. These constitute common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot transfer public trust properties to a private party, if such a transfer interferes with the right of the public and the court can invoke the public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting the right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural ecosystems. ‖ (emphasis added) - Public at large has a right to enjoy and have a benefit of our forests including mangroves forest. The pristine glory of such forests must be protected by the State. The mangroves protect our environment. Therefore, apart from the provisions of various statutes, the doctrine of public trust which is very much applicable in India makes it obligatory duty of the State to protect and preserve mangroves. ‖

¶47

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

¶48

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 463] this Court held as under:

¶49

“The financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse effects on the public. Life, public 7

¶50

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶51

health and ecology have priority over unemployment and loss of revenue problem.” “

¶52

The ―Precautionary Principle ‖ has been accepted as a part of the law of the land. Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51- A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The ―Precautionary Principle ‖ makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation. We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes.

¶53

17. India is endowed with extraordinarily diverse and distinctive traditional water bodies found in different parts of the country, commonly known as ponds, tanks, lakes, vayalgam, ahars, bawdis, talabs and others. They play an important role in maintaining and restoring the ecological balance. They act as sources of drinking water, recharge groundwater, control floods, support biodiversity, and provide livelihood opportunities to a large number of people. Currently, a major water crisis is being faced by India, where 100 million people are on the frontlines of a nationwide water crisis and many major cities facing an acute water shortage. The situation will worsen as United Nations and Niti Ayog reports say that the demand for water will reach twice the available supply, and 40 per cent of India‘s population will not have access to clean drinking water by 2030. One of the reasons is our increasing negligence and lack of conservation of

¶54

8

¶55

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶56

waterbodies. Since independence, the government has taken control over the waterbodies and water supply. With a colonial mindset, authorities move further and further away in the quest of water supply, emphasing more on networks, infrastructure and construction of dams. This, over time, has led to the neglect of waterbodies and catchments areas. As a result, we have started valuing land more than water. In the last few decades, waterbodies have been under continuous and unrelenting stress, caused primarily by rapid urbanisation and unplanned growth. Encroachment of waterbodies has been identified as a major cause of flash floods in Mumbai (2005), Uttrakhand (2013), Jammu and Kashmir (2014) and Chennai (2015). Further, waterbodies are being polluted by untreated effluents and sewage that are continuously being dumped into them. Across the country, 86 waterbodies are critically polluted, having a chemical oxygen demand or COD concentration of more than 250 mg/l, which is the discharge standard for a polluting source such as sewage treatment plants and industrial effluent treatment plants. In urban India, the number of waterbodies is declining rapidly. For example, in the 1960s Bangalore had 262 lakes. Now, only 10 hold water Similarly, in 2001, 137 lakes were listed in Ahmedabad. However, by 2012, 65 were already destroyed and built upon. Hyderabad is another example. In the last 12 years, it has lost 3,245 hectares of its wetlands. The decline in both the quality and quantity of these waterbodies is to the extent that their potential to render various economic and environmental services has reduced drastically. Although there are sufficient polices and acts for protection and restoration of waterbodies, they remain insufficient and ineffective.

¶57

9

¶58

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶59

18. Realizing the seriousness of the problem confronting waterbodies, the Centre had launched the Repair, Renovation and Restoration of Water Bodies' scheme in 2005 with the objectives of comprehensive improvement and restoration of traditional water bodies. These included increasing tank storage capacity, ground water recharge, increased availability of drinking water, improvement of catchment areas of tank commands and others. However, in this regard, not much has been seen on the ground.

¶60

19. It is of utmost importance for meeting the rising demand for water augmentation, improving the health of waterbodies as they provide various ecosystem services that are required to manage microclimate, biodiversity and nutrient cycling. Many cities are working towards conservation of waterbodies like the steps initiated in the capital city of Delhi for instance. In turning Delhi into a city of lakes, rejuvenation of 201 waterbodies has been finalised. Of these, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) plans to revive 155 bodies while the Flood and Irrigation Department will revive 46. DJB claims that the aim is to achieve biological oxygen demand or BOD to 10ppm and total suspended solids to 10mg/l. Also the establishment of the Wetlands Authority by the Delhi government is a welcome step towards notifying and conserving natural waterbodies. In order to achieve the goal of revival of waterbodies, it is important to understand that one solution may not fit all the waterbodies. Depending on the purpose, ecological services, livelihood and socio-cultural practices, the approach will vary from one waterbody to another. However the issues with regard to lack of data and action plans, encroachments, interrupted water flow from the catchment, siltation, violations of

¶61

10

¶62

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶63

laws, solid waste deposit and polluted water, involvement of too

¶64

many agencies, etc have to be taken into consideration .

¶65

Action needs to be taken towards:

¶66

1. Attaining sustainability. Thus, emphasis on long-term goals, operation and maintenance should be included along with the allocation of budget.

¶67

2. Success of the lakes should be tested on all three fronts namely economic, environmental and social. Many studies point that a deliberate effort has to be made on the social front for which better publicity of the environmental benefits of the project and enhancing environmental awareness, especially among the local community is required.

¶68

3. Encouraging local people to collaborate with other stakeholders to successfully utilise resources and ensure the protection and conservation of waterbodies.

¶69

4. Traditionally, water was seen as a responsibility of citizens and the community collectively took the responsibility of not only building but also of maintaining the water bodies. This needs to be brought back into the system.

¶70

5. Thus, an integrated approach taking into account the longterm sustainability, starting from the planning stage where looking at every waterbody along with its catchment, is required.

¶71

The natural source of air, water and soil cannot be utilized, if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environment. There has been accelerated degradation of the environment primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and noncompliance with statutory norms. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of

¶72

11

¶73

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶74

pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The definition of sustainable development which was given more than three decades back still holds goods. The phrase covers the development that meets the need of the present without compromising the availability of future generation to meet their own needs. Sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be sustained by nature / ecology with or without mitigation. In these matters the required standards now is that the risk or harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest according to a reasonable person test. Life, public health and ecology has priority over unemployment and loss of revenue.

¶75

It is further contented by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is a condition which is squarely covered by Hinchlal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi 2001 AIR SCW 2865 followed and quoted in Jagpal Singh Vs State of M.P. (2011) 11 SCC 396. It is authoritatively reiterated in Hinchlal Tiwari and Jagpal Singh that land recorded as pond must not be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The court ordered the respondents in the case of Hinchlal Tiwari and Jagpal Singh to vacate the land they had illegally occupied after taking away the material of the house. In another case of MI Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Radheshyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 the Supreme Court ordered restoration of a park after demolition of shopping complex constructed at the cost of Rs.100 crores. 12. Both these judgments of Hinchlal Tiwari and Jagpal Singh have been appreciated by a Division Bench of the court in (2011) 2 MPLJ 618 Rinkesh Goyal Vs. State of M.P. in which under similar circumstances directions have been given that there should not be any encroachment over the land of ponds, tanks and lakes. Long period of encroachment

¶76

12

¶77

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶78

is no defence and does not give any equity. The cost of construction done after destroying a pond is also immaterial.

¶79

In the present case it is undisputed that the pond area has been converted into the cultivation of crops, construction of residential, commercial activities which is not permissible in law. The inevitable conclusion therefore is the same has to be restored .

¶80

Rule 4(v) of the Wetland Conservation and Management Rule, 2017 states that any construction of the permanent nature within specified distance of the high flood level is prohibited. It is further provided that the wet land shall be conserved and managed in accordance with the principles of wise use as determined by the wet land authority. The perusal of the report submitted by the Collector reveals that the construction of a permanent nature and inside from the edge of the full reservoir flood level which would mean it is in the water body itself. Thus the construction is in violation of Rule 4(v) Wetland Conservation and Management Rule, 2017 which expressly prohibits such construction. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Peoples united for better living in Kolkata Vs. East Kolkata Wet Land Management Authority and others reported in 2017 SCC online had directed for the removal of illegal construction within the East Kolkata Wet land in the following way.

¶81

"In view of the established fact that the Respondents No. 3 and 8 have encroached upon the protected East Kolkata Wetland, we leave it upon the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate steps to remove all illegal 235 structures in exercise of its powers vested in it under clauses (b) and (c) of Sec. 4 of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 and further to consider imposition of appropriate penalty upon the Respondents No. 8 & 3 31 under Sec. 18 of the Act. However, we

¶82

13

¶83

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶84

make it clear that the EKWMA while taking such steps shall follow the due process of law.

¶85

The entire process for removal of illegal structures of the Respondents No. 3 and 8 shall be completed within three

¶86

months without fail."

¶87

14. That furthermore, the Hon ‟ ble Supreme Court in M/s Vaamika Island v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 760 upheld the order of the High Court of Kerala directing for demolition of structures in the Vembanad Backwater, which is the second largest wetland in India and held that any violation of notifications for the protection of the environment cannot be condoned:

¶88

We are of the considered view that the above direction was issued by the High Court taking into consideration the larger public interest and to save the Vembanad Lake which is an ecologically sensitive area, so proclaimed nationally and internationally. The Vembanad Lake is presently undergoing severe environmental degradation due to increased human intervention and, as already indicated, recognizing the socioeconomic importance of this waterbody, it has recently been scheduled under ―vulnerable wetlands to be protected ‖ and declared as CVCA. We are of the view that the directions given by the High Court are perfectly in order in the above mentioned perspective.

¶89

Further, the directions given by the High Court in directing demolition of illegal construction effected during the currency of CRZ Notifications 1991 and 2011 are perfectly in tune with the decision of this Court in Piedade Filomena Gonsalves v. State of Goa and Others (2004) 3 SCC 445, wherein this Court has held that such notifications have been issued in the interest of

¶90

14

¶91

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶92

protecting environment and ecology in the coastal area and the construction raised in violation of such regulations cannot be lightly condoned." (emphasis supplied)

¶93

That further, this Tribunal in a recent order dated 27.08.2020 passed in O.A. No. 351/2019 titled Raja Muzaffar Bhat v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. has also held that there is an inadequacy of monitoring of action of restoration of wetlands which is necessary to be executed for public health and strengthening the environment rule of law

¶94

Conservation of wetlands in general and Ramsar sites in particular is a significant aspect of protection of environment. To give effect to the Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principles, which have been held to be part of right to life and are to be statutorily enforced by this Tribunal under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, effective action plan and its execution is imperative. There is discussion in the media about inadequacy of monitoring of action for restoration of lakes, wetlands and ponds which is certainly necessary for strengthening the rule of law and protection of public health and environment.

¶95

Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 contain elaborate provisions for protection of Wetlands and National and State Wetland Authorities have been set up. However, the fact remain that the wetlands are facing serious challenge of conservation as shown by the present case and other cases which are the Tribunal dealing with from time to time.

¶96

The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors v. Union of India and Ors reported in (2017) 7 SCC 810 has specifically directed for the application of the principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 for

¶97

15

¶98

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶99

all 2,01,503 wetlands identified in the ―National Wetland Inventory & Assessment ‖ and held that no construction of a permanent nature will be allowed:

¶100

23. Accordingly, we direct the application of the principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to these 2,01,503 wetlands that have been mapped by the Union of India. The Union of India will identify and inventories all these 2,01,503 wetlands with the assistance of the State Governments which will also bind the State Governments to the effect that these identified 2,01,503 wetlands are subject to the principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, that is to say:

¶101

4.(1)(i) reclamation of wetlands;

¶102

.. (vi) any construction of a permanent nature except for boat jetties within fifty meters from the mean high flood level observed in the past ten years calculated from the date of commencement of these Rules. Thus, the present construction took place in 20152016 and will be covered by this decision and must be removed.

¶103

17. In light of the above orders as well as the rules framed under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2017, it is submitted that the illegal construction within the Dhamapur wetland is therefore liable to be demolished.

¶104

Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation reportedin 2019 (18) SCC 494while directing for the demolition of illegal constructions within wetlands, had ordered for the restoration of the area to its original condition. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that this Hon‘ble Tribunal is has wide powers of restoration and all orders must be 237 governed by the principles in Section 20 for taking restorative measures for the environment: ―42. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act to provide relief and compensation to

¶105

16

¶106

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶107

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 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. … 60…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.

¶108

17

¶109

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶110

While disposing the Original Application No. 325 of 2015 vide order dated 18.11.2020, this Tribunal, while dealing with restoration of water bodies observed as follows:

¶111

“The protection of water bodies not only add to availability of water for different purposes, it also contributes to recharge of ground and maintaining e-flow in the rivers, is congenial to micro climate in sub-watersheds as well as enhancing the natural aesthetics. While the rain water harvesting is certainly important, harvesting surplus water during excessive rains from any areas of catchment needs to be optimized by enhancing the capacity of the existing ponds/water bodies, creation of water harvesting structures in the sub- watersheds to the extent possible, apart from setting up of additional water bodies/water harvesting structures wherever viable, utilizing available funds including under MGNREGA and involving the community at large at every level . Gram Panchayats can certainly play a significant role in the matter. Once adequate capacity enhancement of waterbodies takes place, excess flood/rain water can be channelized by using appropriate water harvesting techniques. This action needs to be coordinated by the District Magistrates in coordination with the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control or other concerned Departments such as Department of Rural Development / Urban Development / Local Bodies / Forests / Revenue etc. The District Magistrate may as far as possible hold a meeting of all the stakeholders for the purpose as per the District Environment Plan or Watershed Plan within one month from today. The District Magistrates may also ensure that as far as possible atleast one pond/water body must be restored in every village, apart from creation of any new pond/water body.”

¶112

Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that in view of the provision as contained in Section 57 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code the entire land of water body, minerals etc. are the property of the State Government. The State Government is the owner of the land including water bodies and the Municipal Corporation was not

¶113

18

¶114

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶115

competent to take any decision to construct commercial shops or residential buildings on and around the said water body. He has also taken reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukchain vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 20.09.2017 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1377/2016). The relevant portions are quoted as below:

¶116

“ 14. This is a case where Gram Sabha and petitioners on the strength of Article 243(A) and Sections-5(A) and 7 of the 41 Adhiniyam, trying to justify the resolution and construction of shops at the pond whereas Government's stand is that said provisions do not confer any such licence to Gram Sabha to construct the shops at the pond. This interesting conundrum can be best defined in the words of Justice K.K. Mathew:

¶117

" The major problem of human society is to combine that degree of liberty without which law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty become licence; and the difficulty has been to discover the practical means of achieving this grand objective and to find the opportunity for applying these means in the ever shifting tangle of human affairs."

¶118

[see- 'Legends in Law', Page 372, Universal Publication ] 15. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to refer the relevant portion of Sections-5-A and 7 of the Adhiniyam: Section5-A. Constitution and incorporation of Gram Sabha.-

¶119

There shall be a Gram Sabha for every village. The Gram Sabha shall be a body corporate by the name specified therefor having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued and shall subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under have power to acquire, hold and dispose of any property movable or immovable, to enter into

¶120

19

¶121

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶122

contract and to do all other things necessary for the purpose of

¶123

this Act.”

¶124

Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016.

¶125

[Section-7. Powers and functions and Annual meeting of Gram Sabha. - (1) Subject to the rules, which the State Government may make in this behalf, and subject to the general or special orders, as may be issued by the State Government from time to time, the Gram Sabha shall have the following powers and functions, namely,- (j-ii) to manage natural resources including land, water, forests within the area of the village in accordance with provisions of the Constitution and other relevant laws forthe lime being in force;

¶126

(j-iii) to advise the Gram Panchayat in the regulation and use of minor water bodies;

¶127

( l) construction, repair and maintenance of public wells, ponds and tanks and supply of water for domestic use;

¶128

(m) construction and maintenance of sources of water for bathing and washing and supply of water for domestic animal;

¶129

(o) construction, maintenance and clearing of public streets, latrines, drains, tanks, wells and other public places;

¶130

(p) filling in of disused wells, unsanitary ponds, Pools ditches and pits and conversion of step wells into sanitary wells;

¶131

16. As noticed, the constitutional provision and Sections-5-A and 7 of the Adhiniyam in no uncertain terms makes it clear that powers and functions of Gram Sabha are not absolute in nature. Such powers and functions are subject to the provisions of local laws and general instructions/orders issued by the Government. The State legislature introduced Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Registration of Coloniser Terms & Conditions) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1999'). Rule 2(i) describes 20

¶132

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶133

'Competent Authority' which means such Sub Divisional Officer who has jurisdiction over Gram Panchayat concerned. Rule 2(d) defines 'Coloniser'. This definition is wide enough to include the activity of converting any land including agricultural land into plots and action to transfer such plots to the persons desirous to construct residential or non-residential or group housing etc. The Rules of 1999 further provide the methodology for the purpose of registration etc. As per these rules, the Government has made attempt to ensure that even land situated in a Panchayat is regulated by way of statutory rules. Section-57 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code reads as under:

¶134

Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016.

¶135

" 57. State ownership in all lands.-(1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government:

¶136

[Provided that nothing, in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property.] (2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under subsection (1) such dispute shall be decided by the [State Government].

¶137

17. As per this provision, the legislature has declared that not only the lands but all such things including -(a) standing and flowing water, (b) mines, (c) quarries, (d) minerals, (e) forest reserved or not and (f) all rights in the sub-soil of any land, shall be the property of the State Government.

¶138

21

¶139

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶140

In exercise of power under Section-172 of the said Code, rules regarding diversion of land for building purposes were notified by notification No.1183-(VIII)-63, 03.05.1963. Rules 7 of these rules reads as under:

¶141

"7. If any portion of the land included in a holding is occupied by a public road or public tank for irrigation or any nistar purposes or is being used by the general public for any kind of nistar, permission to divert it to any other purpose except agriculture shall not be granted, unless the road or tank thereon has ceased to exist or to meet the convenience of the public, or the land is no longer required for a public purpose. Permission to divert the remaining portion of the holding may be granted, subject to the condition that such diversion shall not adversely affect the use and utility of the excluded portion as above. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule "Public tank" shall not include a tank which is used only for irrigation of land in the sole occupation of the Bhoomiswami in whose holding the tank lies."

¶142

18. A careful reading of this provision shows that if a public tank is being used for the purpose of nistar etc. by general public, permission for its diversion can be granted only for the purpose of agriculture. Thus, the Government has taken pains to ensure that pond/water bodies are properly preserved.

¶143

Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016.

¶144

19. Reverting back to Section-7 of the Adhiniyam, on which great emphasis was laid by Shri Trivedi, it is apposite to mention that clause (j-ii) provides that in order to manage natural resources, the necessary powers can be exercised.

¶145

22

¶146

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶147

Interestingly, we 'manage' something which is precious to us. We manage our family, finance, property, resources etc. Thus, the word 'manage' in the context it is used, shows an endeavour to keep, preserve and protect the natural resources including the pond. In Black's Law Dictionary the word 'manage' is defined as 'to control and direct', 'to administer', 'to take charge of' etc. Almost similar meaning is given to this word in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary and P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon. This is golden rule of interpretation that 'interpretation must depend on the text and the context'. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statue is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. (See 1987 (1) SCC 424 [Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited & others]). It is equally well settled that adopting the principle of literal construction of the statue alone, in all circumstances without examining the context and scheme of the statue, may not subserve the purpose of the statue. In the words of V.R.Krishna Iyer, J., such an approach would be 'to see the skin and miss the soul'. Whereas, 'the judicial key to construction is the composite perception of deha and dehi of theprovision'. (See 1977 (2) SCC 256 [The Chairman, Board of Mining Vs. Ramjee] followed in 2013 (3) SCC 489 [Ajay Maken Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta and another]). 20. Thus, in my view, the word 'manage' cannot be read in the manner suggested by the petitioners. A combined reading of aforesaid reproduced clauses of Section-7 shows that the legislative intention behind it is to preserve and protect the water bodies/tanks. I am unable to hold that Gram Sabha has any unfettered/unbridled power to 'manage' its water bodies in the manner it likes. The preservation of water bodies is the 41 constitutional mandate and the statutory duty of the Gram Sabha.

¶148

Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016.

¶149

21. On more than one occasion, the Courts have expressed their

¶150

concern for preservation of water bodies. In 2001 (6) SCC 496 [Hinch

¶151

23

¶152

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶153

Lal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi], the Apex Court considered Section-117 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. As per said provision, certain powers were given to the Gaon Sabhas and other local Authorities. While interpreting the said provision, it was held that it is difficult to sustain the order of the High Court. There exists a concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it varies in the rainy season. In such a case, no part of it could have been allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allied purposes.

¶154

22. The judgment of Hinchlal Tiwari (supra) was again considered in 2011 (11) SCC 396 [Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab]. In addition, the judgment of Madras High Court reported in 2005 (4)CTC 1 (MAD) [L. Krishnan Vs State of T.N.] was considered and it was held that the Court will pass a similar order as it was passed in Hinchlal Tiwari and L. Krishnan (supra). A Division Bench of this Court also expressed its concern about conservation of water and natural resources in 2011 (2) MPLJ 618 [Rinkesh Goyal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh]. Pertinently, it was a PIL in which necessary directions as under were issued.

¶155

"10. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶156

(1) That, in each divisional level a Committee be constituted under the chairmanship of Revenue Commissioner of the division to monitor the effective implementation of the water conservation schemes introduced by the Government for the aforesaid purpose.

¶157

(2) The Committee shall also ensure that there should not be any encroachment over the land of ponds, tanks and lakes, and if, there is any encroachment that be removed immediately.

¶158

(3) The State Government shall take effective steps in regard to water harvesting and ground water level management so the problem of reducing the level of ground water could be tackled.

¶159

(4) A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the

¶160

24

¶161

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶162

State and also the Secretary, Revenue Department of the State."

¶163

[Emphasis supplied]

¶164

Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016. 23. In 2006 (1) SCC 1 [T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & others] the Apex Court poignantly held as under: "Natural, resources are the assets of the entire nation. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the Union Government and State Governments to conserve and not waste these resources. Article 48-A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Under Article 51-A, it is the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures."

¶165

24. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court held that we are trustees of natural resources which belong to all including the 43 future generation as well. The public trust doctrine has to be used to protect the right of this as also the future generation.

¶166

25. Similarly, a Division Bench of Madras High Court presided over by Markandey Katju, CJ and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. (as their Lordships' then were) in 2005 SCC Online Mad 438 [L. Krishnan Vs. State of T.N] considered the need of protecting water bodies. After considering Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A (g) of Constitution, it was held that the State has to protect and improve the environment. It has to safeguard the forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife. The 'precautionary principles' makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack all of environmental degeneration. The Madras High Court followed the judgment reported in 1997 (3) SCC 715 [M.C.Mehta Vs Union of India] and came to hold that we have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation, it is necessary to limit the construction activity in close vicinity of lakes.

¶167

25

¶168

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶169

This finding is based on para-10 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra). In 2015 SCC Online Utt 1829 [Tahseen Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others] Alok Singh, J. held as under:-

¶170

" What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous person using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with their original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.

¶171

[Emphasis supplied]

¶172

At the cost of repetition, it is apposite to remember that the Apex Court, in no uncertain terms, clarified that construction activity even in the close vicinity of the lakes; is impermissible. Resultantly, the High Court directed the Authorities to remove encroachments and restore the water body in its original form .

¶173

In 2013 SCC Online P&H 10564 [Jagdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana and others], the High Court followed the ratio decidendi of Hinchlal Tiwari (supra) and opined that the Gram Panchayat which has a statutory obligation to ensure that water bodies are not diverted for any other use and further to ensure that these water bodies are protected, cleaned and recharged, it cannot be allowed to use a part of it for installation of a statue of a resident of the village. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in 2013 SCC Online Cal 1060 [Sandhya Barik & others Vs. State of West Bengal & others] expressed its view

¶174

26

¶175

that this is bounden duty of panchayat and other authorities to prohibit such construction and said property cannot be alienated or permitted to be destroyed in any manner. No construction can be permitted over such water body. Construction, if any, which have been made by any person, the respondent cannot claim equity. Even if any sanction is granted with regard to construction over the canal, the same is illegal and void. It was further directed that if there exists any encroachment on water body, appropriate action must be taken for clearing the encroachment made over the canal. The public trust doctrine expounded by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta was followed by Calcutta High Court in Sandhya Barik (supra).

¶176

27. Indisputably, in the instant case, the Gram Sabha took a decision to construct shops on the periphery (esM-) of the pond. In view of constitutional scheme, public trust doctrine and object engrained in Section-7 of the Adhiniyam, Gram Sabha cannot take any decision or pass resolution to raise construction either by disturbing the water body or on the periphery(esM-) of the water tank. In M.C. Mehta (supra), such action was clearly disapproved by Supreme Court. The common string in the judgments referred hereinabove is that herculean efforts should to be made to protect the water bodies. Such bodies are required to be protected from greedy politicians and persons. Ancient poet Rahim said: jfgeu ikuh jkf[k,] fcu ikuh lc lwu A ikuh x;s u mcjs ek srh] ekuq’k] pwu AA Meaning thereby:

¶177

Water is most important. As without water, there is no wealth (pearls), life or earth.

¶178

28. Interestingly, in Jagpal Singh (supra), the Apex Court with pains recorded that 'our ancestors were not fools'. They knew that in certain years, there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reasons, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which, served them for thousands of years. With great

¶179

27

¶180

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶181

concern, Apex Court emphasized that the ponds are now a day's auctioned of at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with Authorities/ Gram Panchayat Officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop. 29. In the considered opinion of this Court, neither Constitution nor the Adhiniyam gives any unbridled/unfettered power and discretion to Gram Sabha to raise construction at or on the periphery (esM-) of the pond. Thus, argument of petitioners in this regard must fail. The judgments of Rajendra Shankar Shukla and S.N. Chandrashekhar (supra) have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. Any autonomy 49 given by the Constitution or by the Adhiniyam needs to be tested on the anvil of enabling provision. When impugned action was tested on the anvil of such enabling provision, the said action was not found to be in consonance with the enabling provisions nor such action can be said to be in larger public interest. At this stage, it is apt to remember the words of Douglas, J. (in United States Vs. Winderlince [1996 L. Ed. 113:342 US 98 (1951)]) 'Law has reached its finest moments when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler.....where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered'. The Apex Court followed this principle in 2012 (10) SCC 1[Natural Resources Allocation In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012] and expressed that it is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms in Wilkes, (ER p. 334): Burr at p.2539 means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour: it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful.

¶182

Article 343-A read with Section-7 of the Adhiniyam makes it clear like noon day that law makers have taken care of this aspect and ensured that unfettered and uncanalized discretion or power is not given to Gram Sabha in the matter of exercise of

¶183

28

¶184

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶185

their power and functions. The powers and functions are subject to the provisions of law and its interpretation by the Courts. Writ Petition No.1377 of 2016.

¶186

30. The reliance was placed by petitioners on the case of 2008 (3) MPLJ 617 [Prathmik Om Sai Gramin Mahila Bahuddeshiya Sehkari Samitie Maryadit Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Baihar and other]. This judgment was relied upon to bolster the submission that if the complainants/private respondent was aggrieved by decision of Gram Sabha, the proper course was to assail the said resolution as per the procedure laid down in Section- 7(H) of the Adhiniyam. In view of relevant provision of the Constitution, Adhiniyam and Rules made under the Adhiniyam and Land Revenue Code, the Gram Sabha was not justified in taking the decision to construct shops on the periphery (esM-) of the pond. In view of settled legal position, this Court has no scintilla of doubt that the Gram Sabha has exceeded its authority while passing such resolution. In that case, it is not necessary to relegate the complainant/party to avail alternative remedy as per Section 7(H) of the Adhiniyam. Since resolution is passed by exceeding 50 jurisdiction/authority, it will not be proper to compel the complainant to go through the procedural technicalities of law. The action of Gram Sabha also runs contrary to public trust doctrine. Thus, such resolution and further action based there upon cannot be permitted to stand.

¶187

31. As noticed, in the present case, the learned Collector has taken decision on the basis of directions issued by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. It is important to note here that Punjab & Haryana, Madras and Calcutta High Courts have entertained Public Interest Litigation and issued necessary directions for preservation of water bodies. M.P. High Court in Rinkesh Goyal (supra) also entertained a PIL and issued necessary directions.

¶188

29

¶189

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶190

Since the impugned order is passed as per the directions issued in PIL, it cannot be said that said order is without jurisdiction or without authority of law.

¶191

So far the contention of the petitioners regarding two different reports of Revenue Authorities regarding (report of partwari and demarcation report) encroachment on the pond is concerned, I do not find much substance in the said argument. True it is that the order of Tehsildar is based on the report of Patwari and as per Patwari's report, the shops are being constructed by making encroachment in the pond whereas Revenue Inspector gave a different report stating that the construction has been made on the periphery (esM-) of the water body. In view of clear principles laid down in M.C. Mehta, permission of construction even in the close vicinity of water bodies is impermissible. In the present case, as per the petitioners own claim, the shops are being constructed on the periphery (esM-) of the lake. Thus, it is clearly done in the close vicinity of the lake. Thus, contradiction (if any) in the report of Patwari and Revenue Inspector is of no help to the petitioners. 33. In view of foregoing analysis, the resolution of Gram Sabha regarding construction of shops in the periphery (esM-) of pond cannot be countenanced. The said action runs contrary to the relevant provisions and law laid down by the Courts. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order.

¶192

34. Before parting with the matter, I deem it apposite to direct the State Government and the concerned Collector to ensure that all such constructions/encroachments are removed. The official respondents shall remove such constructions and encroachments and file a compliance report before this Court within 60 days. It shall be the duty of respondents to restore water pond to its original shape and condition and preserve it as per the constitutional mandate.”

¶193

30

¶194

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶195

Hon’ble the High Court while disposing the various Writ Petitions has directed the Collector to ensure that all such construction encroachments are removed. The officer respondent shall remove such constructions and encroachments and file a compliance report within Sixty days and it shall be the duty of respondent to restore water pond to its original shape and condition and preserve it as for the Constitution mandate. In view of the Constitution Provisions, Adhiniyam and the Rules and Governments Orders issued under the Adhinyam and Land Revenue Code, the Municipal Corporation is not justified in taking the decision to construct the commercial shops on the periphery of the pond. In view of settled legal position this Tribunal has scintilla of doubt that the corporation has exceeded its authority while passing such resolution. The action of Corporation runs contrary to public trust doctrine. It is to be noted that any autonomy given by the Constitution or by Adhiniyam needs to be tested on anvil of enabling provisions. When impugned action was tested on the anvil of such enabling provisions, the said action was not found to be inconsonance with the enabling provisions nor can such action be said to be in a larger public interest.

¶196

The reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Susetha vs. State of Tamilnadu decided on 08.08.2006 by Hon’ble Supreme 50 Court of India, Appeal (Civil) No. 3418 of 2006 (AIR 2006 SC 2893). The relevant portion are quoted below :

¶197

“ Drawing our attention to a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2005) Madras 311, it was argued that the State Government was enjoined with a duty to preserve the tank by taking all possible steps both by way of preventive measures as well as removal of unlawful encroachments and not to use the same for commercial purpose.”

¶198

31

¶199

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶200

“ Concededly, the water bodies are required to be retained. Such requirement is envisaged not only in view of the fact that the right to water as also quality life are envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also in view of the fact that the same has been recognized in Articles 47 and 48-A of the Constitution of India. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India furthermore makes a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life. [See Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 1071; M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 715 and Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Ors., [2006] 3 SCC 549.

¶201

Maintenance of wetlands was highlighted by the Calcutta High Court in People united for better living in Calcutta - Public and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., AIR (1993) Cal. 215, observing that the wetland acts as a benefactor to the society.

¶202

Recently, in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad (99) v. Union of India and Ors., [2006] 5 SCC 47, this Court 51 again highlighted the importance of preservation of natural lakes and in particular those which are protected under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶203

We may, however, notice that whereas natural water storage resources are not only required to be protected but also steps are required to be taken for restoring the same if it has fallen in disuse. The same principle, in our opinion, cannot be applied in relation to artificial tanks.

¶204

In L. Krishnan (supra), the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had been dealing with natural resources providing for water storage facility and in that view of the matter the State 32

¶205

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶206

was directed to take all possible steps both preventive as also removal of unlawful encroachments so as to maintain the ecological balance.

¶207

The matter has also been considered at some details by this Court in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi (supra), wherein again while dealing with natural resources, it was opined:

¶208

" This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust, Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the state holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinize such actions of the Government, the Courts must make a distinction between the government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources." [Emphasis supplied] This Courts have not, in the aforesaid decisions, laid down a law that alienation of the property held as a public trust is necessarily prohibited. What was emphasized was a higher degree of judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of sustainable development although is not an empty slogan, it is required to be implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the court.

¶209

In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors., [2006] 3 SCC 434, referring to a large number of decisions, it was stated that whereas need to protect the environment is a priority, it is also necessary to promote development stating :

¶210

33

¶211

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶212

"The harmonization of the two needs has led to the concept of sustainable development, so such that it has become the most significant and focal point of environmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations. Brundtland Report defines `sustainable development' as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs."

¶213

Treating the principle of sustainable development as a fundamental concept of Indian law, it was opined:

¶214

"The development of the doctrine of sustainable development indeed is a welcome feature but while emphasizing the need of ecological impact, a delicate balance between it and the necessity for development must be struck. Whereas it is not possible to ignore inter-generational interest, it is also not possible to ignore the dire need which the society urgently requires."

¶215

xx...............................xx..............................x...............xx

¶216

“We would, however, direct the State and Gram Panchayat to see that other tanks in or around the village are properly maintained and necessary steps are taken so that there is no water shortage and ecology is preserved.”

¶217

The philosophy of the judgment as laid-down and quoted above are very much clear that the it is the pious duty of the State and Local

¶218

34

¶219

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶220

Authorities that the tanks and ponds of the villages are properly maintained and necessary steps be taken so that there is no water shortage and ecology is preserved. It is nowhere mentioned, authorizing anybody and everybody to make encroachment on water bodies anywhere or everywhere.

¶221

In a constitutional framework which is intended to create, foster and protect a democracy committed to liberal values, the Rule of Law provides the corner stone. The Rule of Law is to be distinguished from rule by the law. The farmer comprehence the setting up of a legal regime with clearly define the rules and principles of even application, a regime of law which maintains the fundamental postulates of liberty, equality and due process. The rule of law postulates a law which is answerable to constitutional norms. The law in that sense is accountable as much as it is culpable of exacting compliance. Rule by the law on other hand can mean rule by a despotic law. It is to maintain the just quality the law and its observance of reason that Rule of Law precepts in constitutional democracy rest on constitutional foundation.

¶222

It is to be noted that the right to the people to live in the healthy environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agriculture land and undue affection of air, water and environment. It is for the Government for the Nation and not for the Court to decide whether the deposit should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consideration or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vision over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilization, that could indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advise, the Government should take a policy decision and formally implement the

¶223

35

¶224

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶225

same and for the purpose it is for the expert committee to examine as to whether the ponds and water bodies can be converted into commercial complex and can these operations be permitted on the cost of environmental damage.

¶226

On the cost of repetition we may further quote the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.D. Jayal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2004) 9 SCC 362 dealing with the matter of Tehri Dam observed as follows:

¶227

“22. Before adverting to other issues, certain aspects pertaining to the preservation of ecology and development have to be noticed. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, and in M C Mehta v. 55 Union of India, it was observed that the balance between environmental protection and developmental activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principle of' sustainable development.' This is a development strategy that caters the needs of the present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generations to satisfy their needs. The strict observance of sustainable development will put us on a path that ensures development while protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples and for all generations. It is a guarantee to the present and a bequeath to the future. All environmental related developmental activities should benefit more people while maintaining the environmental balance. This could be ensured only by the strict adherence of sustainable development without which life of coming generations will be in jeopardy .

¶228

23 . In a catena of cases we have reiterated that right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right. May be in different context, the right to development is also declared as a component of Article 21 in cases like Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh and in Madhu Kishore v. State of Bihar.

¶229

24. The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited to as a misnomer to simple construction activities. The right to 36

¶230

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶231

development encompasses much more than economic well being, and includes within its definition the guarantee of fundamental human rights. The 'development' is not related only to the growth of GNP. In the classic work – ‗Development As Freedom‘ the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen pointed out that the issue of development cannot be separated from the conceptual framework of human right‘. This idea is also part of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development. The right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples‘ well being and realization of their full potential. It is an integral part of human right. Of course, construction of a dam or a mega project is definitely an attempt to achieve the goal of wholesome development. Such works could very well be treated as integral component for development.

¶232

25. Therefore, the adherence of sustainable development principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development. Right to environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand right to development is also one. Here the right to ‗sustainable development‘ cannot be singled out. Therefore, the concept of 'sustainable development' is to be treated an integral part of 'life' under Article 21. The weighty concepts like inter-generational equity State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, public trust doctrine M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, and precautionary principle (Vellore Citizens), which we declared as inseparable ingredients of our environmental jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring sustainable development..

¶233

26. To ensure sustainable development is one of the goals of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') and this is quiet necessary to guarantee 'right to life' under Article 21. If the Act is not armed with the powers to ensure sustainable development, it will become a barren shell. In other words, sustainable development is one of the means to achieve the object and purpose of the Act as well as the protection of 'life' under Article 21. Acknowledgment of this principle will breath new life into our environmental

¶234

37

¶235

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶236

jurisprudence and constitutional resolve. Sustainable development could be achieved only by strict compliance of the directions under the Act. The object and purpose of the Act - "to provide for the protection and improvement of environment" could only be achieved by ensuring the strict compliance of its directions. The concerned authorities by exercising its powers under the Act will have to ensure the acquiescence of sustainable development. Therefore, the directions or conditions put forward by the Act need to be strictly complied with. Thus the power under the Act cannot be treated as a power simpliciter, but it is a power coupled with duty. It is the duty of the State to make sure the fulfillment of conditions or direction under the Act. Without strict compliance, right to environment under Article 21 could not be guaranteed and the purpose of the Act will also be defeated. The commitment to the conditions thereof is an obligation both under Article 21 and under the Act. The conditions glued to the environmental clearance for the Tehri Dam Project given by the Ministry of Environment vide its Order dated July 19, 1990 has to be viewed from this perspective.

¶237

137. When natural resources are exploited in a big way for big projects by State with all sincerity and good intentions for general common benefit, social conflicts arise as a natural adverse consequence. Generally the conflicts arise between marginal farmers, peasants and other landless persons who survive on natural resources and those who are better off, rich or affluent and who desire to undertake agriculture and industry. When river projects for dams are undertaken to generate electricity and improve irrigation facilities, conflicts arise between people living up-stream who have to necessarily lose their source of living and habitat and those living downstream who need water and electricity for their homes, industries and agricultural fields. When such social conflicts between different social groups i.e. upstream population and down-stream population, between rural population and urban population, between poor surviving on natural resources and others needing natural resources for further development arise what should be the

¶238

38

¶239

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶240

duty and priorities of the State and its authorities who have undertaken the projects? When such social conflicts arise between poor and more needy on one side and rich or affluent or less needy on the other, prior attention has to be paid to the former group which is both financially and politically weak. Such less advantaged group is expected to be given prior attention by Welfare State like ours which is committed and obliged by the Constitution, particularly by its provisions contained in the Preamble, Fundamental rights, Fundamental duties and Directive Principles, to take care of such deprived sections of people who are likely to lose their home and source of livelihood.

¶241

53. In the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 12 SCC 166, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:

¶242

“45. The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the statutory norms. This Court has repeatedly said that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution- free water and air for full enjoyment of life. (See Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar)

¶243

46. Further, by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 48- A was inserted in the Constitution in Part IV stipulating that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51A, inter alia, provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Article 47 which provides that it shall be the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health is also relevant in this connection. The most vital necessities,

¶244

39

¶245

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶246

namely, air, water and soil, having regard to right of life under Article 21 cannot be permitted to be misused and polluted so as to reduce the quality of life of others. Having regard to the right of the community at large it is permissible to encourage the participation of Amicus Curiae, the appointment of experts and the appointments of monitory committees. The approach of the Court has to be liberal towards ensuring social justice and protection of human rights. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, this Court held that life, public health and ecology has priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. The definition of 'sustainable development' which Brundtland gave more than 3 decades back still holds good. The phrase covers the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., this Court observed that sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In these matters, the required standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's " test. [See Chairman Barton : The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia : (Vol. 22) (1998) (Harv. Envtt. Law Review, p. 509 at p.549-A) as referred to in para 28 in AP Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayuder.

¶247

We know and can take judicial cognizance of the fact that entire country is facing a tremendous scarcity of drinking and potable water almost everywhere and, in fact, it is a global phenomenon. It is this reason which required Regulators/Statutory Authorities to act responsibly for protection of environment and ecology and in particular, wetland/water bodies. They are expected to function in a more responsible and accountable manner and deeper study ought to have been made, before allowing any construction activities in vicinity

¶248

40

¶249

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶250

of a wetland/water body, more so when 60 project site is abutting the wetland itself. Importance of water no one can deny.

¶251

It cannot be doubted that water though cover three-fourth of earth, still drinking and potable water is in great scarcity. Manmade ventures are the basic cause for this situation. Protection of wetland assumed international importance at very late stage. However, serious concern at global level is writ large from the fact that in 1991, Convention in Ramsar was held only to discuss protection of wetland. Some important wetlands across the world were identified therein. Signatory countries vowed to protect wetland by taking all necessary measures including stringent actions. This is a matter of common knowledge that people residing in urban areas had turned cities into jungles of concrete. Nature has lost its place, healthy and clean environment has been compromised in the name of development. The consequences are air pollution, scarcity of drinking water, extreme heat and cold, lack of raining etc. Earlier‘s comfortable life in such cities has become a nightmare. Resourceful people are now resorting to other areas on the outskirt or near such cities where they can enjoy proximity with nature. This attempt or desire is nothing but costing heavy to nature. It is a concerted effort by greedy elite class to cause destruction of nature in un-probed areas, which have remained untouched till date, but now are being frequently occupied by them.

¶252

These constructions near water bodies or forest areas etc. are not as a necessity to provide shelter to homeless needy people or development to economy in general but virtually a part of luxury life for those who can afford. The elite class and its greed, in the name of development, has already destroyed cities and now moving towards the areas, rich in natural flora and fauna including forests, lakes, rivers, streams i.e.,

¶253

41

¶254

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶255

different type to water bodies and wetlands. In the name of stay in the lap of nature, in reality they are causing damage and destructing nature. In fact, commercial or residential construction projects do not need vicinity of wetlands or water bodies etc., as a necessity but Promoters/PPs/Developers normally choose such sites so as to increase salability and commercial value of their projects/constructions.

¶256

Various statutory authorities which were constituted to serve as a watchdog for protection of these places, rich in natural flora and fauna, are not very sincere and serious in protection but working only technically. They are liberal in allowing these activities instead of adopting strict and stringent measures necessary for protection. We can see destruction of Aravalli Hills in National Capital Delhi itself, and disappearance of several small chains of hills in many States. When we come to the garden city of Bengaluru itself, the facts have already been noted that in the past there were hundreds of lakes in the city which are now reduced to just two figures. Most of the lakes have been reclaimed, encroached or otherwise usurped by the so called development activities.

¶257

The concept of wetlands, as we already said, is not a mere water contained water body but its interface and surrounding i.e., the catchment area/buffer zone/zone of influence etc., which, if allowed to be used for purposes other than wetland connected activities, may erode/damage or extinct the entire wetland itself. Whenever, commercial and other activities i.e., other than what can be termed as activities for protection and preservation of wetlands and its surroundings, are allowed to be taken near or abutting wetland, it has to be ensured that certain area from the periphery of wetland is 42

¶258

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶259

reserved and no commercial or development activities should be allowed thereon otherwise wetland/water bodies will suffer adversely. How much area should be reserved or be declared nondevelopment area around a wetland/ water body has to be determined looking to various aspects relating to concerned wetland/water bodies. A universal determination may not be proper. It is true that provisions may be made declaring certain minimum area within which no development activities can be allowed so as to protect wetlands/water bodies but this 62 minimum area is not the maximum and restriction over further area, if any required, will depend upon the nature of wetland/water bodies, its vegetation, flora, fauna and other activities connected therewith which may be found necessary for its protection and preservation. With that view of the matter, in Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 and 2017, instead of using the term ―Buffer Zone, the term ―Zone of Influence has been used which is obviously a wider term then ―Buffer Zone.

¶260

When we talk of maintaining greenbelt surrounding a wetland/water body, it does not mean a public recreation place like public park, open space etc. It means a place reserved for natural wetlands own activities untouched by any PP/Developer for taking it as a part of its project.

¶261

Problem of environment today is a Global phenomenon. The irresponsible and unmindful development has proved an enemy to environment. It has increased pollution everywhere compelling Global leaders to take recourse for protection of environment, if necessary, by framing strict and stringent provisions, but fact remains, that condition of environment today is extremely alarming.

¶262

43

¶263

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶264

Therefore, protection of wetlands in all seriousness is a matter of great concern. It cannot be done in a technical or formal manner but require sincere, wholesome and comprehensive effort to protect not only territorial boundary of water or periphery of wetland but the entire surrounding of wetland necessary for its preservation.

¶265

It is the pious duty of the Municipal Corporation to make a planning including town planning, planning for economic and social development, roads and bridges, water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes, public health, sanitation conservancy and Solid Waste Management, urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects, slum improvement and up-gradation, urban poverty alleviation. Provisions of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds promotion of cultural educational and aesthetic aspects. Cattle ponds prevention of cruelty to animals and public amenities.

¶266

As per report submitted by the CPCB, the status of ponds, lakes/water bodies in Madhya Pradesh as reported are 66,438 and in Rajasthan it is reported to be 12,127. The chart does not disclose the number of water bodies presently under restoration or number of water bodies restored so far. The action is required to be taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh to restore the water body, to protect it and to take remedial action according 64 to environmental laws. We deem it just and appropriate to quote the relevant portion of analysis and directions as issued in the referred case.

¶267

Analysis and Directions

¶268

We find that the steps taken so far can hardly be held to be adequate. As already noted, protection of water bodies serves

¶269

44

¶270

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶271

great public purpose and is essential for protection of the environment. It helps not only aesthetics but also water availability, aquatic life, micro climate, recharge of ground water and maintaining e-flow of the rivers. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, the State has to act as trustee of the water bodies to protect them for the public use and enjoyment for current and future generations. We may note the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on the subject which are as follows:

¶272

i. State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205, at page

¶273

212:

¶274

6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation‘s natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation.

¶275

Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496, at page 500:

¶276

“13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature ‟ s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

¶277

iii. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606, at page 628:

¶278

.... ..... …...................... … …

¶279

33. … As was observed by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath our legal system based on English common law includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile

¶280

45

¶281

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶282

lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.

¶283

Iv Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, at page 574:

¶284

75. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388, Kuldip Singh, J., writing for the majority held:

¶285

“34. Our legal system … includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. … The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.”

¶286

76. The Supreme Court of California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country also known as Mono Lake case summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:

¶287

“ Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people‘s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust.”

¶288

This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government‘s general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources [Joseph L. Sax ―The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention ‖ , Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3

¶289

46

¶290

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶291

(Jan. 1970) pp. 471-566]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]:

¶292

1. The property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;

¶293

2. The property may not be sold, even for fair cash

¶294

equivalent;

¶295

3. The property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.”

¶296

v. Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors., 2019 SCC Online 1510 pr 20

¶297

“ .... .......

¶298

20. …. Waterbodies, specifically, are an important source of fishery and much needed potable water. Many areas of this country perennially face a water crisis and access to drinking water is woefully inadequate for most Indians. Allowing such invaluable community resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly illegal.”

¶299

In the conclusion, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has directed to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction and the cost of demolition and all incidental expenses including the fees payable to the experts are directed to be borne by the person who have constructed illegally.

¶300

In view of the above facts, we direct the Collector and the Municipal Council/Commissioner to remove the encroachment within six months and further directe as follows :

¶301

The Collector is directed to remove the encroachment from

¶302

the ponds, water bodies in accordance with law.

¶303

47

¶304

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶305

The Collector, and the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council, are directed to ensure that no solid waste should be thrown in the pond area and in case if it is found that there is a violation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, State Pollution Control Board is directed to take necessary action, initiating prosecution as well as calculation and realisation of Environmental Compensation as per parameters laid down by the Central Pollution Control Board.

¶306

The Collector, and the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council, are directed to ensure that there shall not be any discharge of untreated sewage water in to the water body/pond and if there is any violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 or direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Principal Bench of this Tribunal, environmental compensation at the rate prescribed must be assessed and realised.

¶307

There must be a provision of Treatment Plant to treat the water and Municipal Corporation shall ensure installation of STP and also proper functioning of the STP already installed and in the mean time the insitu remedial process may also be considered where there is no STP.

¶308

In light of the settled pronouncement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Goel Gang Developers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India referred above with regard to the calculation of environmental compensation, 10% of the project cost shall be assessed and realized from the polluter. State Pollution Control Board is directed to proceed and to exercise its statutory duty to initiate the proceedings of prosecution as well as the calculation and assessment of the realization of environmental compensation in accordance with law.

¶309

48

¶310

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶311

A copy of the order be sent to the Secretary

¶312

(Environment), State of Madhya Pradesh who shall monitor or may constitute a committee or direct the authorities concerned to comply the order and remove the encroachment on the State land/water bodies which was found unauthorized and illegal. He shall monitor periodically and ensure the removal of encroachment at the earliest in due process of law.

¶313

With these observations the Original Application NO. 181/2023 stands disposed of

¶314

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶315

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶316

4^th September 2024

¶317

O.A. No. 11/2022(CZ) K

¶318

49

¶319

O.A. No. 181/2023(CZ) Hari Mohan Mishra vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

Hari Mohan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Mohan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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

Anil Prasad and Ors. vs

Sushil Kumar Jain vs the Principal Secretary West Bengal Biodiversity Board

Soudamini Naik vs State of Odisha through Chief Secretary

Aseem Chawla vs

News Item Titled Four Suffocate to Death Cleaning Sewage Plant in MumbaiS Virar Appearing in the Times of India Dated 10.04.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

News Item Titled "6 Killed 1 Injured in Chemical Factory Fire Near Jaipur" Appearing in News 18 Dated 23.03.2024 vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Kailash vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Ziaurrahman Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Rowghat Sangharsh Samiti through Banshi Lal Dugga vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Behru Lal Regar vs State of Rajasthan

Behru Lal Regar vs State of Rajasthan

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Ram Vishnoi vs State of Rajasthan

Madhusudan Chauhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh