Dismissed

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

NGT4 Nov 2024Original Application No. 73/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this original application before the NGTN Western Zone Bench, the applicant sought to restrain the MIDC from allotting open spaces reserved for plantation to industrial use or other purposes, citing MIDC circulars. The Tribunal rejected the application at the admission stage, finding no prima facie case and lacking jurisdiction to issue a restraining order.

What did the court decide?

This Original Application is rejected at admission stage itself.

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi vs Department of Industrial Policy… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.5

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶6

Jasmeet Singh Ranjeet Singh Oberoi … Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, MIDC & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant : Mr. Akhil H. Mishra, Advocate along with the applicant Respondents : Mr. Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate i/b and with Ms. Shraddha Chheda, Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

From the side of the applicant, rejoinder dated 01.10.2024 has been filed to the affidavit-in-reply dated 30.08.2024 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

After this, we heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and that of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the point of admission of this application. The main issue which has been raised by the applicant in the present application is that the MIDC, Akola i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the biggest developer in Maharashtra having diverse industries. As per one of the Circulars dated 05.10.2020, issued by MIDC, the MIDC was supposed to cultivate and establish good quality dense plantation on existing reserved open spaces in MIDC industrial area. Copy of the said circular is annexed as Annexure-A1. It is stated that the existing open spaces No.13,04,21 and 15 were reserved for the plantation in MIDC, Akola. The Circular dated 31.01.2008 contemplated about the plantation above the

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

open spaces and laid down terms and conditions of the allotment of open spaces for the purpose of plantation of trees over it. The MIDC resolution dated 19.08.2019 lays down that about 10% of total land of MIDC would be reserved as open spaces for plantation but the same has not been carried out. Therefore, it is prayed that the land reserved for environment purpose as per circular should not be allowed for the purpose of industrial use. When we enquired from the learned counsel for the applicant as to how would it be covered under the environmental law, he says that nonplantation would result into loss caused to the environment, although he could not produce any evidence to the effect that the environmental loss is happening in the present matter due to said activity of MIDC.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to paragraph No.17 of the affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein it is stated that open space No.15 was allotted on 17.07.2017 to Shri Digambar Dattatraya Sangale of Akola Shivanya Garden. However, the allottee had not made the payment as required under the Allotment Order. Hence, possession of the said plot has not been given to the said allottee. It is said to be a false statement. The learned counsel drew our attention to Annexure-A8 at page 60 of the paper-book, which is an electricity bill of the period from 13.09.2024, wherein the date of payment is recorded as 03.10.2024 and it is allotted in the name of Shivanya Garden, Akola of plot no. Open Space 15 and on the basis of documentary evidence, it is urged by him that it would show that the possession was handed over to Shivanya Garden and it is wrong affidavit given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to which learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 responded that the allotment was made in the name of Shivanya Garden, but no possession of the land was given to them because of non-payment of money and that this electricity bill is of 2024 wherein the date of electricity connection is recorded as 07.05.2024, which appears to be an encroachment on the part of Shivanya Garden. He also

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

stated that after coming to know of this, notice has been issued to Shivanya Garden for demolition and Electricity Department has also been approached regarding this breach.

¶20

From the side of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned senior counsel has submitted that submission made in their affidavit dated 30.08.2024 is to the effect that the present application is not maintainable because the grievance raised in it about the open space not being used for tree plantation, cannot be raised before this Tribunal. The utilization of open space is governed by the Development Control Regulation (DCR) of MIDC and according to the said Regulations, the open space can be used for various purposes such as play grounds, parks, garden, etc. as may be permitted under DCRs. The applicant has failed to demonstrate as to how his case falls in the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as neither the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 nor the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 require that the open space in MIDC industrial area should be used exclusively for forestation/tree plantation. It is also stated in the said affidavit that in exercise of power under Section 64 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act), MIDC with the previous approval of the State Government has framed the MIDC Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975. The said Regulations being framed in exercise of power under Section 64 of the MIDC Act are statutory in nature, which govern the manner in which the MIDC shall deal with the lands transferred by the State Government or purchased/acquired/held by the MIDC. The said Regulations also detail the manner of disposal of the land/open plot by MIDC. It provides that the MIDC can dispose of the lots either by public auction or by entertaining individual applications and the same can be allotted on rental basis, on premium lease basis or partly on rental basis or partly on premium lease basis.

¶21

Page 3 of 5

¶22

It is further stated in the affidavit that open space in MIDC industrial area is not being utilized for plantation purpose in furtherance of various circulars, issued by the MIDC. It is stated that the applicant has to demonstrate that the relief claimed by the applicant falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The MIDC is a statutory Corporation established under Section 3 of the MIDC Act, 1961 and its powers and functions are detailed under Sections 14 and 15 of the said Act. MIDC is also a Special Planning Authority under Section 40 (1A) of the MRTP Act. Since July, 2023, MIDC Comprehensive Development and Control Promotion Regulations, 2023 govern the utilization of land in MIDC industrial area for various purposes. As per the existing planning policy, industrial areas about the approximately 60% of total area is used for industrial purpose by carving out various plots of varying sizes for the industrial units. About approximately 25% of the total area is used for the purpose of roads, pipe lines, footpaths etc, about 10% of area is required to b e kept as compulsory open space under Development Control Regulations of MIDC and minimum 5% area is compulsorily required to be kept for amenities such as Post Office, Telephone Exchanges, Schools, Colleges, Educational Institution, Training facility, etc. The minimum area, which should be kept as open space and amenity area has been prescribed under the Development Control Regulation of the MIDC, however, the actual percentage of the area kept as open space and amenity area varies according to site specifications and requirement of the particular industrial area and it may provide for more than the minimum prescribed under the Development Control Regulations. The MIDC Comprehensive Development and Control Promotion Regulation, 2023 has also been annexed as Annexure-1 to this reply-affidavit and relevant para 3.4.3 (i) to (v) of which is shown on page 53 of the paper-book pertaining to structures permitted in open space, which has been read out by learned counsel before us. Having drawn our attention to this paragraph

¶23

Page 4 of 5

¶24

and above pleadings, it is stressed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of granting relief of a direction to be issued to it to revoke the allotment of open space No.21 belonging to respondent No.6, as prayed by the applicant.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to establish that there is prima facie case involved in the present matter. The jurisdiction does not appear to vest in us regarding restraining order to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to allot land within the area falling within their jurisdiction. We do not find force in the argument made by the applicant.

¶26

In the result, this Original Application is rejected at admission stage itself.

¶27

No order as to costs.

¶28

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶29

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶30

November 04, 2024 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.73/2024(WZ) npj

¶31

Page 5 of 5

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash vs

News Item Titled "Sonbhadra : File Me Simta Uppcb Ka Vayu Pradushan Niyantran Jaane Pura Mamla" Appearing in Newstrack.Com Dated 24.03.2024 vs

Rafikur Rehman So Shafekurrehman vs

Ajab Singh Solanki vs

Sumit Kumar Rastogi vs

Surender Kumar Mahto vs

Arun Jain vs

Murugharaj vs

Nippon Paper Foodpac Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Nippon Paper Foodpac Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Nippon Paper Foodpac Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Mr. Muralidhar Dattoba Nimankar vs Maharashtra State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd.

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi