Disposed

Sach Sewa Samiti Trust Trust Registered Under the Trust Act through Its President v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT27 Sept 2024Original Application No. 908/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged the allotment of Green NOIDA Authority land, alleging it encroached on a statutory green corridor and involved illegal conversion of green/institutional land to commercial use. The Courtrejected the encroachment claim based on survey evidence but directed UPPCB to prosecute the alleged violation of Water and Air Acts regarding the commercial complex. Disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal directed UPPCB to carry out processes and take appropriate action under Water and Air Acts within three months.

Sach Sewa Samiti Trust Trust Registered Under the Trust… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 07

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 908/2022 (IA No. 370/2024)

¶5

Sach Sewa Samiti Trust Trust Registered under Trust Act Through Its President

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 27.09.2024

¶10

CORAM:	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant:	Mr. Deepak Kohli, Mr. Mohd. Shariq, Mr. Amit Kharbanda and Mr. Abhishsek Yadav, Advocates for Applicant.
Respondents:	Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No. 1 MoEF and CC Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocate for State of U.P. Mr. Ravindra Kumar Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Saxena and Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena Advocate for respondent no. 4- GNIDA Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for respondent no. 5- UPPCB
	Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Mr. Pushkar, Ms. Sneh Somani and Ms. Ritu Dhingra Advocates for Respondents No. 8 and 9

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Applicant, Sach Sewa Samiti Trust through President, Yatender Kumar Bhati (hereinafter referred to as ‘applicant’ ) had filed this original application under Section 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal, Act 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’ ) alleging that Greater NOIDA Authority through Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent4’ ) has developed Knowledge Park-I, which is an educational region in Southern Western Greater Noida. Object of establishing Knowledge Park-I was to establish various universities and colleges in the vicinity. Knowledge Park-I was developed after acquiring

¶13

¶14

land of village Tugalpur of Haldona, District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. A layout plan of Knowledge Park-I was prepared wherein institutional areas and residential areas have been duly earmarked and notified separately. As per layout plan, which is based on Master Plan notification there was a green area/belt admeasuring 10,500 square meters falling in between Plot No. 12 and 22, left for maintaining ecology and environment. Copy of proposed Layout Plan of Knowledge Park-1 has been placed on record as Annexure A-2, page 36. Respondent 4 granted a license of 10,500 square meter green area to one Viren Singh, S/o Nawab Singh for plantation, nursery, floriculture, etc., for a period of 20 years vide license agreement dated 27.05.2003. This shows that land was actually left for making area green and license was granted to adhere to the said objective. Further, there is a High Tension wire of 1,10,000 watt passing through ‘green area’. Area under High Tension line was also to be kept vacant. One Rajendra Singh son, of Mehtab Singh i.e. respondent 7 had encroached upon a piece of land measuring 1000 square metres approximately on ‘green belt’ situated between Plot No. 12 and 22 of Knowledge Park-I, Greater NOIDA.

¶15

Applicant when got knowledge of this encroachment, made complaint, sent several interrogatories to Authorities to find out real fact and therefrom came to know that respondent 7 made a representation on behalf of Ms. Shwetna and Madhu Singh i.e. respondents 8 and 9 to officials of respondent 4 stating that two pieces of land i.e. Plot No. 10 and 12, area 1710 sq. mtr and 1630 sq. mtr were allotted in Village Tusiyana in lieu of acquisition of land in furtherance of allotment of 6% land to affected farmers. Respondent 7 however requested Authorities to allot land in place of Village Tusiyana to Tugalpur Haldona. Pursuant to said request, respondent 4 carved out Plot No. A-1 out of green belt from

¶16

¶17

Knowledge Park-I, in active connivance with respondent 7. Vide letter dated 10.11.2024 respondents 8 and 9 were informed that respondent 4 had allotted Plot No. A-I of Village Tugalpur Haldona, area 870 sq. mtr, and for remaining area, respondent 4 would consider in future. Respondent 8 and 9 were also informed that their allotment of land at Village Tusiyana stands cancelled with immediate effect. Subsequently, vide letter dated 27.11.2024, respondent 4 informed respondents 8 and 9 that area of Plot No. A-1 has reduced from 870 sq. mtr to 691 sq. mtr which ultimately resulted in reduction in amount demanded from respondent 8 and 9. Lease deed 27.11.2024 was executed in respect of Plot No. A-I, Village Tugalpur Haldona, area 691 sq. mtr in favor of respondent 8 and 9 which shows that officials of respondent 4 and 7 have worked and functioned, hands in gloves with each other. After execution of lease deed, Building Plan was submitted for raising construction on Plot No. A-1 vide application dated 06.09.2015 but no such plan has been approved till date.

¶18

Grievance of applicant is that Plot No. A-1 has been carved out and allotted to respondents 8 and 9 at the instance of respondent 7 by respondent 4 by carving out area from ‘green belt’ which have the effect of damaging environment and greenbelt area cannot be converted for residential or other purposes and has to be maintained as it is. The applicant therefore has prayed that respondents be directed to remove construction raised in ‘green belt/area’ encroached upon and land falls between Plot No. 12 and 22 and maintain green belt public area as per Master Plan.

¶19

Tribunal took notice of complaint on 20.12.2022. After being prima facie satisfied that a substantial question relating to environment has arisen due to implementation of enactments specified in Schedule 1 to

¶20

¶21

NGT Act, 2010, notices were issued to all respondents, giving them opportunity to file their responses.

¶22

U.P State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPPCB’ ) i.e. respondent 5 Submitted its reply dated 15.03.2023 stating that site inspection was carried out on 02.03.2023 and from inspection, it was found that Plot No. A-1 Village Tugalpur Haldona, Knowledge Park 1, Greater NOIDA has been developed as a commercial complex which is in operation with several activities for example, rented shops, gyms, restaurants, etc; no sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘STP’ ) has been installed by Proponent; sewage generated from commercial complex is discharged into sewer line of respondent 4; 137 MLD STP of Greater NOIDA Authority is installed and operational at terminal point of sewer line; as per office record, Project Proponent of commercial complex has not obtained Consent to Establish Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTE’ ) and Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTO’ ) from UPPCB; notice was issued by Regional Officer, Greater NOIDA on 14.03.2023 to Proponents of commercial complex for compliance of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Water Act, 1974’ ) and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Air Act, 1981’ ) and explain non-compliance within a week; and letter dated 10.03.2023 has also been sent by Regional Office, UPPCB to Greater NOIDA Authority for providing land record, allotment letter, approved map, etc. of land in question but response is awaited.

¶23

Respondent 1, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoEF&CC’ ) submitted its reply via email dated 27.04.2023 referring to provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006, as amended from time to

¶24

¶25

time, which requires prior Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as ‘EC’ ) in respect of construction of new projects/activities/expansion or modernization of existing projects in different parts of country. It is also said that if development/ construction has been carried out without EC, a Standard Operation Procedure vide Office Memorandum (hereinafter referred to as ‘OM’ ) dated 07.07.2021 has been provided for handling such violation cases which also provides provision for penalty. Further, power to grant EC has been conferred upon State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEIAA’ ) and in the present case, this power is vested with SEIAA UP.

¶26

On merits of matter reply of respondent is of no use since nothing has been said in this regard.

¶27

Respondent 4 filed its reply vide email dated 02.05.2024 by submitting a letter dated 02.05.2024 issued by Deputy Director, InCharge Horticulture, which states that after demarcation of boundary of Plot No. A-1, Sector Knowledge Park 1, Greater NOIDA and construction raised thereon, encroachment was made on undeveloped green belt ( Harith Pattika ). This encroachment made on 253 sq. m. has been removed by demolition.

¶28

Applicant has filed objection dated 29.07.2024 to report filed by respondent 4 stating that action has been taken only in respect of 253 sq. m. of land, allegedly encroached by respondents 7 to 9, on notified green belt, but no action has been taken in respect to development made on Plot No. A-1 which has been carved out from area of ‘notified green belt’ in Knowledge Park-1 and that has reduced area of ‘notified green belt’.

¶29

¶30

Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2024 made observations that report submitted by respondent 4 is incomplete and does not give complete picture. Hence it was required to submit a detailed reply.

¶31

Accordingly, respondent 4 has submitted a compliance report dated August, 2024, filed vide E-mail dated 05.08.2024. It is stated therein that area of ‘green belt’ is 10,500 sq. mtr and is part of corridor running under High Tension Electricity Transmission Line. As per applicable norms, no building activity is permissible on such a corridor which must have a width of 26 m on either side from centre of Transmission line. On site, this ‘green corridor’ is completely free. Total ‘green area’ available at site is 10,570 sq. mtr which is slightly more than what is alleged by applicant. Partial encroachment of 253 sq. mtr on land of corridor has been completely removed and it has been freed from respondent 7, etc. Allegation that Plot No. A-1 was carved out of 10,500 sq. mtrs of ‘greenbelt’ is not correct and in fact Plot No. A-1 has an area of 691 sq. mtrs which has been allotted as an abadi plot as part of compensation package against acquisition of land by State by taking away land from Plot No.22. Respondent 7, etc. extended this plot area into ‘green belt’ and made encroachment which has been removed. A Layout Plan/map has been filed as annexure R-4-1 (at page 229) to show that Plot No. A-1 does not fall in ‘green corridor’ and is outside its alignment though adjacent to corridor of High Tension Electricity Transmission Line. Contention of applicant that there is reduction in area of green corridor or that Plot No. A-1 has been carved out from 10,500 sq. mtrs area of green area is incorrect. It is reiterated that clear area of green corridor is 10,570 sq. mtrs at site. With regard to license agreement for permitting use of green belt/Green corridor as nursery, respondent 4 has said that initially this arrangement was made by granting license to Virender Singh

¶32

¶33

for a period of 20 years but licensee failed to deposit requisite amount to respondent 4, hence, license was cancelled after issuing notice and giving opportunity to licensee. Licensee filed Civil Suit No. 525/2016 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gautam Bhudhnagar which has been dismissed. Licensee thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 18646 of 2017 in Allahabad High Court which has been disposed of by directing NOIDA Authority to decide licensee's representation by a reasons and speaking order. Respondent 4 again vide letter dated 05.07.2018, required licensee to pay dues and his representation was disposed of where against licensee filed Writ Petition No. 24561 of 2018 wherein order was passed by High Court on 26.07.2018 directing licensee to deposit entire amount of money. Licensee did not comply the said order and accordingly its license has ultimately been cancelled on 28.01.2019. With regard to commercial activities being carried out by respondent 7 on Plot No. A-1, respondent 4 has stated that such limited commercial activity is permissible on Abadi land, if plot is located on a road, not exceeding 45 metres width. Plot in question is located on 80 metre wide road where no commercial activity is permissible. Hence if there is a misuse of terms of allotment, action would be taken in accordance with law but that misuse does not mean that there is any encroachment on greenbelt or plot in question allotted to respondent 8 and 9 has been carved out by taking away land of ‘green corridor’. Allegations of collusion of Authorities with respondent 7 are denied and it is said that applicant has not given any details of persons who are allegedly in collusion with respondent 7. Respondent 4 has reiterated that corridor area on site is 10,570 sq. mtrs and Plot No. A-1 has not been carved out by taking any land from green area.

¶34

12. IA No. 370/2024 has been filed by applicant placing on record

¶35

certain documents i.e. colored copy of Layout Plan (on page 239); copy of

¶36

¶37

Environment Management Plan for Greater NOIDA Authority Master Plan 2021 (on page 240); copy of letter dated 19.05.2023 along with conclusion of SIT report and affidavit in compliance of order dated 29.09.2023. Since Layout Plan is already on record which we have already referred. Other documents, in our view, are not relevant for issue in question.

¶38

When matter was heard by Tribunal on 22.08.2024, it was noticed that proposed Layout Plan of April 2000 was relied by applicant before us and question arose whether same is a final Layout Plan or not, hence opportunity was granted to Greater NOIDA Authority to clarify on this aspect. Accordingly, supplementary reply vide email dated 09.09.2024 has been filed stating that proposed Layout Plan of area was prepared in 1994-95 which received approval of Competent Authority in July 1995. Thereafter, modifications were made on dates which are mentioned in Plan and copy of said Plan is place on record as Annexure R-4-2 (on page 538). It is explained that when Plan was initially prepared, it is marked as ‘Proposed Layout Plan’ but once it is approved it became ‘Approved Plan’ and annexure R-4-2 after modifications made, contains date of 26.02.1999 and is an ‘Approved Plan’ with modifications.

¶39

It is also said that by respondent 4 there is no green belt as such notified in approved Plan but certain area has been marked as ‘green’ which is distinct from ‘green belt’.

¶40

With regard to High Tension Electricity Line corridor, it is said area underneath Transmission line has to be left free of any construction and that has been maintained. It is also sought to be explained that Plot No. 22 was facing 80 meter wide road of Surajpur Kasna. The plot was not rectangular. Front side facing road was longer comparing to rear side.

¶41

¶42

Plot No. 22 was allotted by Greater NOIDA Authority to ‘Diamond Drill Public School’ vide allotment latter dated 25.07.1997 and on their request it was made rectangular on 04.09.1997. This exercise left certain part of Plot No. 22, triangular in shape vacant but since entire plot was for institutional purposes, triangular portion also remained to be in the same category i.e. institutional. Contention of applicant that this triangular portion was or should be treated as part of nursery and part of green area is not correct. This triangular portion was carved out of institutional Plot No. 22 and never changed its category from ‘institutional’ to ‘green’.

¶43

Matter was argued subsequently on different dates i.e. 11.09.2024, 13.09.2024 and 25.09.2024. During course of arguments, it transpired that entire endeavor of applicant’s counsel is that Plot No. 1-A has been carved out from area which was part of Electricity High Tension Line corridor or area which was marked as ‘green’ in approved Layout Plan of respondent 4 and that is how it has reduced ‘green area’ which is not permissible in law.

¶44

On the contrary, stand taken by respondents 4 and 7 to 9 is that Plot No. A-1 has not been carved out from land shown as ‘green’ but it is part of Plot No. 22 which was not rectangular and in fact one portion of it became a triangular plot when for the purpose of school, a rectangular plot was carved out.

¶45

In the circumstances, we required learned counsel for respondent 4 to tell exact area of Plot No. 22 before its allotment and after carving out Plot No. A-1.

¶46

¶47

Pursuant thereto, a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 27.09.2024, has been filed stating that at the time of preparation of Layout Plan, actual measurement is not undertaken. Later on, at time of execution of lease deeds, actual measurement is taken. In such circumstances, there used to be some variation in actual area of plots and that is what has happened in the present case also. As per layout plan, area of Plot No. 22 was 11,300 out of which 11,232 sq. mtrs after making Plot No. 22 rectangular was allotted to Diamond Drill Public School. Triangular part which left vacant when subsequently carved out as Plot No. A-1, and, measurement was undertaken, it was found that actual area of Plot No. 22 was larger and that is how area of 691 sq. mtr of Plot No. A-1 has been allotted to respondents 8 and 9. However, the fact remains that this area does not have any effect of reduction of area of ‘green part’ or High Tension line corridor which has been shown as ‘green corridor’ in approved Layout Plan and therefore basic assumption on the part of applicant is not correct and contrary to record.

¶48

Learned counsel for applicant argued that Plot No. A-1 has been illegally allotted to respondents 7, 8 and 9 on account of collusion of Authorities and for the reasons other than bona fide. Plot No. 22 was meant for institutional purposes and adjacent to green area which has to be maintained as it is. For showing favour to respondents 8 and 9, at the instance of respondents 7, in a clandestine manner, respondent 4 has acted. Record shows that various officers have signed document of allotment on same day and even lease deed has been executed in similar illegal manner which shows reasons other than bona fide. He further contended that respondents are trying to conceal the fact that area preserved to be a ‘green area’ has been occupied by carving out Plot No. A-1 and same has been allotted to respondents 8 and 9 which is illegal.

¶49

¶50

He further contended that commercial activities undertaken on the said plot are wholly illegal and in violation of environmental laws in as much as no permission has been obtained from UPPCB under the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981; no STP has been constructed and this is evident from Joint Committee report. Hence appropriate action should have been taken by UPPCB which has also failed to take appropriate action in the matter.

¶51

Per contra , Sh. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent 4, after referring to various documents and pleadings which we have already referred, submitted that it is a clear stand of respondent 4 that Plot No. A-1 has been carved out from land which was part of Plot No. 22 and no part of ‘green area’ has been taken away for the purpose of carving out Plot No. A-1. It is true that in the course of development of construction and other activities on Plot No. A-1, allottees had encroached upon certain part of green area which was 253 sq. mtrs, as found on site, but the same has been removed and now entire ‘green area’ has been cleared of any encroachment whatsoever.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for respondent 7, 8 and 9 have adopted arguments advanced by Sh. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent 4. Further they have urged that they have been allotted land in question in lieu of acquisition of their land which respondent 4 had to allot and earlier it was allotted in another village i.e. Tusiyani which on request of respondent 7, 8 and 9 has been changed to present place i.e. in Village Tugalpur Haldoni and there is no favour shown to respondents 7 and 8. Instead due to deprivation of their agricultural land which was source of their livelihood, as per policy, besides compensation, land in question has been allotted to them and

¶53

¶54

there is no concession, favour or any other thing shown to respondents 7 and 9. It was their right which has been recognised by respondent 4 by allotting said plot by accepting the request of respondent 7 to 9.

¶55

We have heard learned counsel appearing the parties and perused record.

¶56

Applicant’s case is that while carving out Plot No.A-1, area marked as ‘green’ or ‘green corridor’ or ‘corridor under Electricity High Tension Line’ has been taken away by respondent 4 but this is also admitted from record that as per applicant’s own showing total ‘green area’ is 10,500 sq. mtr. As per record placed by respondent 4, total area at site is actually 10570 sq. mtr hence it cannot be said that any part of ‘green area’ has been taken away or reduced by respondent 4 for carving out Plot No. A-1 and allotting the same to respondents 7, 8 and 9. The fundamental question raised by applicant therefore is not supported by any material on record and we do not find any reason to accept the otherwise submission advanced on behalf of applicant.

¶57

So far as the manner of carving out Plot No. A-1 or its allotment by taking it away from ‘institutional’ category and converting it for any other activity, we find that it is not within our domain to examine this aspect since this aspect does not give rise to any substantial question relating to environment and therefore we are not making any comment on this aspect.

¶58

So far as development of plot in question as a commercial land, UPPCB in its reply dated 15.03.2023 has clearly stated that a commercial complex has been built whereon different activities are carrying on but no STP has been installed and sewage generated therein is being discharged

¶59

¶60

to sewer line of Greater NOIDA Authority and no consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 has been obtained by developer/promoter of commercial complex. UPPCB has also said that letter was sent to respondent 4 on 10.03.2023 for seeking certain information but reply is awaited but thereafter we do not have anything on record to show as to what further action has been taken in the matter. If there is any violation of environmental laws i.e. Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and Environment Protection Act, 1986, it is obligatory upon UPPCB to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of case, we therefore direct UPPCB to carry out its processes in view of stand taken in its reply dated 15.03.2023 and take a final decision in the matter by taking appropriate action in accordance with environmental laws, if there is any violation of such laws on the part of the Proponent, expeditiously, and in any case within three months.

¶61

With the aforesaid observations/directions this application is disposed of.

¶62

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶63

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶64

September 27, 2024 Original Application No. 908/2022 (IA No. 370/2024) AB

¶65

Sach Sewa Samiti Trust Trust Registered Under the Trust Act through Its President v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sach Sewa Samiti Trust Trust Registered Under the Trust Act through Its President v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Ajit Kumar Gupta vs

Manoj Kamlakant Haldankar vs Government of Goa

Venkatramanan Krishnamurthy vs Central Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Lokayukta Probe Finds Blocked Swd,S Encroachments at Two Bengaluru Lakes" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 09.09.2024 vs

Mohit Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Secretary

News Item Titled "Pune: Nibm Annex Residents Raise Concerns Over Forest Destruction With Authorities" Appearing in Punekar News Dated 11.09.2024 vs

Society for Voice of Human Rights and Justice vs District Magistrate

News Item Titled "60% Water Sewer Connections in Faridabad ,Unauthorised," Appearing in Tribuneindia.Com Dated 21.05.2024 vs

Ajit Kumar Gupta vs

Madan Lal vs

Balwinder Kumar vs

Neeraj Kumar and Ors. vs

Kajal Rani and Ors. Wo Sh Kamal Manjeet Singh vs

Rajni Devi vs