Partly allowed

Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. the Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

NGT3 Sept 2025Original Application No. 147/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that while objections regarding Plot B were time-barred, construction on Plot C violated the EIA Notification, 2006 as it exceeded 20,000 sq.m. without prior Environmental Clearance. Consequently, the project proponent was directed to pay Environmental Damage Compensation of Rs. 2.55 Crores.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Environmental Damage Compensation of Rs. 2.55 Crores with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for environmental improvement.

Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs the Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra — NGT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶3

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2016 (WZ)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF :

¶6

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire, Age : Adult, Occupation : Service, R/o Flat No.16, CTS-296, Laxmi Apartment, Near Shivaji Maratha High School, White House Lane, Shukrawar Peth,

¶7

Pune – 411 002

¶8

Tushar Namdev Kakade, Age : Adult, Occupation : Self-Employed, R/o 18, Sundar Heights, Survey No.29, Chaitanyanagar, Dhankawadi,

¶9

Pune – 411 043 .. Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Secretary, Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra, Room No.217, Annex Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032

¶12

The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Government of Maharashtra, 15^th Floor, New Administrative Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032

¶13

The Chairman,

¶14

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Kalptaru Point, 3^rd Floor, Near Sion Circle,

¶15

Opp. Cine Planet, Cinema, Sion €, Mumbai – 400 022

¶16

Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board-Maharashtra State, Jog Centre, 3^rd Floor, Mumbai-Pune Road, Wakadewadi, Pune – 411 003

¶17

Pimpri-Chinchawad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018

¶18

Municipal Commissioner, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018

¶19

Page 1 of 43

¶20

City Engineer, Pimpri-Chinchawad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018

¶21

Shri Makrand D. Nikam, Executive Engineer, Pimpri-Chinchawad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018

¶22

District Collector, Pune, President – District Environment Committee, District Collector Office, Pune – 411 001

¶23

Irrigation Department, Executive Engineer, Khadakwasla Irrigation Division, Pune – 411 011

¶24

Shri Vikas Achalkar Architect, 1221, B/1, Wrangler Paranjape Road, Behnd Bhave X-Ray Clinic, Off F.C. Road, Pune – 411 004

¶25

M/s Arun Developers, Acting through :

¶26

Atul Jaiprakash Goel,

¶27

Amit Jaiprakaash Goel,

¶28

Ramsharan Banarashidas Gupta &

¶29

Arun Ramsharan Gupta, Office at : Near Padamji Paper Mill, Chinchwad, Pune AND ALSO AT

¶30

3^RD Floor, San Mahu Complex, Opp. Poona Club, 5, Bund Garden Road, Camp, Pune – 411 001

¶31

Ganga Ashiyana “D” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/15081/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶32

Ganga Ashiyana “E” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/15082/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶33

Ganga Ashiyana “F” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/15147/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶34

Page 2 of 43

¶35

Ganga Ashiyana “G” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/15148/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶36

Ganga Ashiyana “H” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/15402/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶37

Ganga Ashiyana “I” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/16401/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶38

Ganga Ashiyana “J” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/16403/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033

¶39

Ganga Ashiyana “K” Cooperative Housing Society, Through Chairman/Secretary/Authorised Person (Certificate No. PNA/PNA/(3)/HSG/TC/16974/2013), Survey No.33, Hissa No.4 to 8, CTS No.6298/6299, Village Thergaon, Pune – 411 033 … Respondents

¶40

APPEARANCE :

¶41

Applicants : Applicant No.1 is present in person with

¶42

Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Advocate

¶43

Respondents : Mr. Raghunath B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-1 and R-2 Mr. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-3 and R-4

¶44

Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate holding for

¶45

Mr. Shashikant Jagtap, Advocate for R-5 to R-8

¶46

Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate for R-12 Mr. Sangram Singh Bhosale, Advocate for R-13 to R-16 and R-18 to R-20 Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-17

¶47

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

¶48

=================================================================

¶49

Reserved on : 17.06.2025

¶50

Pronounced on : 03.09.2025

¶51

=================================================================

¶52

Page 3 of 43

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

This Original Application has been filed with the prayers that a direction be issued to the respondents – Government Authorities to demolish the illegal structures at Survey Nos.33/4, 33/5, 33/6, 33/7 and 33/8 and their respective C.T.S. Nos.6298 to 6299 at village Thergaon, Taluka Mulashi, District Pune, constructed by respondent No.12 – M/s Arun Developers, which comprises eight residential buildings, two commercial buildings, two parking complexes on 10% open space and three club houses above parking complexes, which are alleged to have been constructed in violation of environmental laws and that Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) be ordered to be levied on the principle of “Polluter Pays” from respondent No.12. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that according to the applicants, respondent No.12 – M/s Arun Developers – Project Proponent has illegally raised construction at the above site, which is mostly completed. The actual construction at the site without prior Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Establish (CTE) is done to the extent of 50,041.19 sq.mtrs, which comprises 497 flats, 25 shops/offices. None of the buildings received completion certificate/occupancy certificate till filing of complaint by the applicants on 02.04.2015 and until further enquiry with Pimpri-Chinchawad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). The entire development is under violation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The buildings, D, E, F & G on Plot B have total number of 241 flats and 13 number of commercial units as per the PCMC sanctioned plan and the buildings H, I, J and K on Plot C have total number of 256 flats and 12 number of commercial units as per the PCMC sanctioned plan. The actual construction (Built-up Area) of the buildings, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K, Commercial building and Club Houses is as per the following Table:

¶55

Page 4 of 43

¶56

Sr. No.	Description	Plot-B & C
		(Sq.Mtrs.)
1	D & E – FSI	4594.58
2	F – FSI	3250.71
3	G – FSI	3058.49
4	PLOT-B COMM & RESI - FSI	352.07
5	H – FSI	3551.42
6	I-FSI	3478.62
7	J-FSI	4362.72
8	K-FSI	2726.07
9	PLOT-C COMM – FSI	228.32
10	BALCONY PROPOSED	3864.68
11	TERRACE	5023.46
12	PASSAGE	3460.43
13	STAIRCASE	1693.04
14	LIFT MC ROOM	209.81
15	LIFT AREA	56.86
16	PARKING	8995.05
17	REFUGEE AREA	447.12
18	CLUB HOUSE-1	131.42
19	CLUB HOUSE-2	44.75
20	SECURITY CABIN	20.00
21	OVERHEAD TANKS	400.00
22	UNDERGROUND TANKS	120.00
	TOTAL	50041.19

¶57

Page 5 of 43

¶58

Further it is mentioned that respondent No.12 – Project Proponent has neither obtained prior EC for raising this construction, nor had moved any application for the same.

¶59

Further it is mentioned that respondent No.12 – Project Proponent applied for building permission from PCMC, which was granted on 30.03.2007 vide Commencement Certificate to develop plot B’. There were six amendments/revisions in the building plans and layouts. From year 2007 to 2013, the construction is made under the name M/s Arun Developers through the PAH Mr. Ramsharan B. Gupta. The Project Proponent was granted amendment in first sanction plan by PCMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 09.10.2009, which was for plot B’ having residential buildings (D, E, F, E) and one commercial building.

¶60

It is further mentioned that the Project Proponent was allowed second revision/amendment in the sanction plan by PCMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 09.03.2010, which related to plot `B’ having residential buildings D, E, F, E and one commercial building. The Project Proponent was allowed third amendment in sanction plan by PCMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 02.09.2011, which related to the same buildings as above. Further, the Project Proponent was allowed 4^th amendment in the sanction plan by PCMC vide Commencement Crtificate dated 03.03.2012.

¶61

With respect to plot C’, from the record it was revealed that there was no record available with PCMC with regard to the sanction of any construction on the said plot before 09.03.2010. The sanction given on 09.03.2010 was the original sanction for Plot C’ and the building permission on plot `C’ was approved vide Commencement Certificate dated 09.03.2010, which related to four buildings, namely, H, I, J, K and one commercial building.

¶62

Page 6 of 43

¶63

It is mentioned that thereafter, the Project Proponent was allowed to make first amendment in sanction plan by the PCMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 04.04.2012, which related to the above mentioned buildings. The Project Proponent was allowed second amendment to the sanction plan by the PCMC on 17.07.2013, relating to the said set of buildings as above. The said original sanction as well as revised ones are described in Table 4 as below:

¶64

Sr. No.	Plot	Sanction	Notice Date	Sanction Date	Sanction No.
1	B	Original		30.03.2007	BP/Thergaon/17/2007
2	B	Revised	01.07.2009	09.10.2009	BP/Thergaon/22/2009
3	B	Revised	17.12.2009	09.03.2010	BP/Thergaon/09/2010
4	B	Revised	29.05.2010	02.09.2011	BP/Thergaon/19/2011
5	B	Revised	22.12.2011	03.03.2012	BP/Layout/Thergaon/ 06/2012
6	C	Original	18.12.2009	09.03.2010	BP/Thergaon/08/2010
7	C	Revised	25.04.2011	04.04.2012	BP/Thergaon/16/2012
8	C	Revised	28.12.2012	17.07.2013	BP/Thergaon/22/2013

¶65

Respondent No. 5 – PCMC has issued Plinth Check Certificate for residential buildings D and E on plot B’ on 23.11.2009, Plinth Check Certificate for residential building G’ on 11.03.2010, Plinth Check Certificate for residential building H’ on plot C’07.10.2011, Plinth Check Certificate for residential building F’ on plot B’ on 12.10.2011, Plinth Check Certificate for residential building K’ on plot C’ on 10.10.2012. No data is available for the Plinth Check Certificate for commercial building on Plot B and also for residential building J and commercial building on Plot C. The part of the buildings I and J are coming under the blue line of Pawana river regarding which various notices were issued by respondent No.5 – PCMC to

¶66

Page 7 of 43

¶67

the Project Proponent, but the respondents did not bother. A summary of plinth check certificate in tabular form is given, which is as below:

¶68

Respondent No.5 – PCMC, despite there being a complaint on record about various violations, particularly there being no EC, issued completion/occupancy certificate. The Project Proponent has not left 10% open space, which was to be kept for a Recreational Ground to develop the garden and greenery in the project site as per the provisions of the DC Rules.

¶69

It is stated that the PCMC approved the proposal for four residential buildings and one commercial building having total built-up area of 13,348.42 sq.mtrs on plot B only with total residential tenements 140 and in the said sanction, no details for passage, staircase, lift area, covered parking area, refuge area were provided by project proponent intentionally. The breakup of the total built-up area of the buildings D, E, F and G is indicated in Table-6 as follows:

¶70

Page 8 of 43

¶71

The above breakup is provided by the applicants as per the authentic record provided by the PCMC.

¶72

The above plan was revised on 09.03.2010. The project proponent proposed eight multi-story residential buildings and two commercial buildings having built-up area of 28,174.21 sq.mtrs on plots B and C with total residential tenements of 323 (plot B – 165 and plot C – 158), but in this sanction also, there are no details for passage, staircase, lift area mentioned. It was essential for respondent No.12 – Project Proponent to obtain prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from SEIAA and Consent to Establish (CTE) from the MPCB because the proposed built-up area exceeded 20,000 sq.mtrs as the proposed built-up area was 28,174.21 sq.mtrs. But respondent No.12 – Project Proponent intentionally did not obtain the EC as well as CTE. The breakup of the total built-up area of the buildings D, E, F, G, H, I and J is given in Table-7 as below:

¶73

Page 9 of 43

¶74

The Project Proponent obtained the revised sanction on 02.09.2011 from respondent No. 5 – PCMC, which approved the proposal for four residential buildings and one commercial building, having total built-up area of 20,942.76 sq.mtrs. on plot B only with total residential tenements of 234. It was mandatory, looking to the total built-up area for respondent No.12 – Project Proponent to obtain prior EC and CTE, as per EIA Notification, 2006. In Table-8, the breakup of total built-up area of buildings D, E, F and G has been given as below:

¶75

Page 10 of 43

¶76

It is alleged by the applicants that the above details have been provided from the authentic record provided by respondent No.5 – PCMC.

¶77

The sanction plan was got revised on 03.03.2012 and 04.04.2012, as per which the PCMC approved the proposal of eight residential buildings and two commercial buildings, having total built-up area of 49,452.46 sq.mtrs. on Plots B and C with total residential tenements 497 (Plot B -241 and Plot C -256). Hence, prior EC was mandatory, the area having been exceeded 20,000 sq.mtrs. But no such EC was intentionally obtained. The breakup of total built-up area of these buildings in tabular form in Table-9 is given as below, which is stated to have been prepared by the applicants from the authentic information provided by the PCMC.

¶78

Page 11 of 43

¶79

The plan was got revised on 17.07.2013 thereby PCMC approved proposal of four residential buildings sand one commercial building, having total built-up area of 27,645.77 sq. mtrs on Plot C only with total residential tenements 256. Hence, prior EC was necessary. The breakup of these four residential buildings and one commercial building i.e. buildings H, I, J, K and Commercial building is given in tabular form in Table-10, which was prepared by the applicants on the basis of authentic record provided by respondent No.5 – PCMC, as below:

¶80

Page 12 of 43

¶81

It is further alleged that respondent No.12 – Project Proponent has made illegal construction in Blue Line and Red Line of river Pawana, which appears from show-cause notice dated 21.02.2012 to have been issued. The PCMC received the flood line marking map from the Irrigation Department in February, 2009, which revealed that respondent No.5 – PCMC and respondent No.12 – Project Proponent were well aware that the part of plot C was coming under the river flow and blue line of Pawana river. Permission for the plot C is obtained for the first time on 09.03.2010. Therefore, it was within the knowledge of PCMC and Project Proponent that the part of building “I” is coming under the river flow and Red line, while buildings H, J and K are coming between Red Line and Blue Line, as stated in the site visit report of PCMC dated 12.01.2012. Even then the PCMC and Project Proponent have ignored this fact and the Project Proponent continued to raise construction in Blue Line of the river. The PCMC had issued a show-cause notice on 21.02.2012 under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for revocation of building permission issued on 09.10.2009 to the Project

¶82

Page 13 of 43

¶83

Proponent. A site visit was made by PCMC officer on 12.01.2012 and following observations were made :

¶84

“Plot-C, Building H (P+3) and Building 1 (P+12), J (P+12) are sanctioned and RCC work of all building is completed. Out of above buildings, Part of “I” Building is effecting and coming under River Flow & Blue line and remaining Part of Building I, H & J is coming between Blue Line and Red Line .”

¶85

It is stated that it is apparent that buildings on Plot B and Plot C are completely under Red line, but even then while granting revised permission, the PCMC overlooked this fact intentionally.

¶86

It is further stated that the Project Proponent has illegally used, for constructing parking, club house and swimming pool, the mandatory 10% open space for 3530 sq.mtrs. It is stated that as per 7/12 extract of land Survey No.33 Part 4 to 8, the area is 35,300 sq.mtrs, which is shown in tabular form in Table 13, as below:

¶87

It was clarified that the area remaining for development comes to only 24,431.27 sq.mtrs. This area is subdivided in three plots, namely, plot Nos. A, B and C. The sub-division of the plots is given in Table 14 as below:

¶88

Page 14 of 43

¶89

The record would reveal that it was agreed between the parties that Plot “A” of 5611.00 sq.mtrs will be developed by M/s Khivansara Sawant Associates and Plot B and Plot C both will be developed by M/s Arun Developers. It is stated that it may also be observed from the consent agreements executed and registered between the Project Proponents and the original land owners for the compromise of the legal dispute and the agreements, which are registered at Serial Nos.3311/2009, 3312/2009 and 3313/2009 at Haveli-11 dated 29.04.2009. A jist of development rights of the Project Proponents is given in tabular form in Table 15 as below:

¶90

Page 15 of 43

¶91

Having cited the above table pertaining to the project area, it is submitted that area of the project is more than 20,000 sq.mtrs despite sub-division and illegal reduction of reservation area.

¶92

The present Project Proponent has used the total Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) of 6627 sq.mtrs in addition to the FSI of 16,938.20 sq.mtrs. Respondent No.5 – PCMC is allowing the Project Proponent to use TDR to make additional construction. The effect of TDR loading is that the Project Proponent has made excess construction, which has right to affect additional population or occupancy and additional load on the public services generating the waste water, solid waste, excess energy consumption, temperature increase of the surrounding areas, etc. It has resulted in drastic increase in CO2 generation, causing environmental damage. The details of the TDR loading are given in Table16 as below:

¶93

It is further stated that respondent No.12 – Project Proponent has started the illegal use without completion/occupancy certificate obtained from PCMC of 225 residential units out of 241 units from May, 2012 of buildings D, E, F & G and 210 residential units out of 256 units from March, 2014 of buildings H, I, J and K. This act of the Project Proponent has given rise to the overburden to the basic infrastructure of the PCMC for water supply, drainage line and solid waste disposal system affecting the quality of life of the people living in the same project as well as the

¶94

Page 16 of 43

¶95

people living in the vicinity. The Project Proponent has utilized the ground-water for construction purposes without permission from the Ground Water Department and till the date of filing of this Original Application, is using the water for construction without permission.

¶96

The details of the consumption of water is also calculated and the same is given from May, 2012 per person per day, the same is stated to 145 liters and number of occupant per unit is considered to be five (5) as per the DC Rules and the same has been calculated and given in Table-17 as below :

¶97

Thus, it is stated that the total consumption of water would come to 39,17,17,500 liters.

¶98

Similarly, regarding waste water generation, the calculation is made at the rate of per person, consumption of 45 liters per day, so it has been arrived at total waste water generated in the PCMC line, if the burden on PCMC drainage system, would be 12,15,67,500 liters.

¶99

It is further stated that the solid waste generated is also calculated at the rate of 0.6 kg per day and the same is arrived at 16,20,900 kgs.. Further it is mentioned that the DG sets are being used by the Project Proponent without any permission, which is creating air pollution.

¶100

Page 17 of 43

¶101

Having made the above pleadings and having relied on several caselaws, which are mentioned in these pleadings, the above prayers have been made by the applicants in this Original Application.

¶102

The respondents were served and thereafter their responses have been submitted from their respective sides.

¶103

From the side of respondent No.12 – Project Proponent, vide their reply dated 23.11.2016, submissions have been made that the present application is time-barred because as per Section 14 sub-clause (3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010), limitation to file any application is six months from the date of cause of action first arose and in the present case, the first cause of action arose in October, 2009 because actual development work of plot B started in the month of October, 2009 and that of plot C started in March, 2010, when the commencement certificates were issued by the PCMC. The project is completed or is on the verge of completion on the date of filing of this application. Thereafter, the Plinth Checking Certificates of buildings D and E were issued on 23.11.2009 and for wing F, it was issued on 12.10.2011, for wing G, it was issued on 11.03.2010. Thus, in the present case, development of plot B firstly commenced in the month of October, 2009. Therefore, the first cause of action arose in the month of October, 2009 for the reliefs being sought while these reliefs ought to have been sought within six months from October, 2009, which are claimed in para 44 (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E ). So far as the reliefs claimed in para 45 (B), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) of the application are concerned, the application ought to have been moved within five years from the date of first cause of action i.e. from October, 2009 as per Section 15 (3) of the NGT Act, 2010. Moreover, the applicants are not entitled to move this application for damages

¶104

Page 18 of 43

¶105

because they are not the victims nor are they concerned with the development of Plots B and C.

¶106

It is stated that for building “H”, the Plinth Check Certificate was issued on 07.10.2011, for buildings I and J, the same was issued on 07.10.2011, for building K, it was issued on 10.10.2012. In the case in hand, the development of plot “C” was first commenced in March, 2010 after receipt of the Commencement Certificate. Therefore, the first cause of action arose in March, 2010 in respect of the reliefs, claimed in para 44 (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) and in para 45 (B), (D), (E ), (F), (G) and (H) of the application.

¶107

It is further stated that this Original Application is not maintainable because the Sub-Regional Officer of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) had a surprise visit to the project on 15.11.2011 and asked for clarification from the answering respondent regarding development of Plots B and C, and it was responded to by the answering respondent by saying that four buildings are being developed on plot B, admeasuring about 8960 sq.mtrs as per the Commencement Certificate issued by PCMC on 02.09.2011 and further, it was informed that plot B was a separate plot admeasuring 9860.27 sq.mtrs. The development of plot B commenced as per Commencement Certificate dated 09.03.2010. It was further clarified by the answering respondent that both the plots were different with separate sanctioned plans and therefore, separate ECs and clearances from MPCB under EIA Notification, 2006 were not required. There was no query made by the MPCB, but they were satisfied with the explanation given by the answering respondent and hence, there was no necessity to take CTO from MPCB , nor there was any need to obtain prior EC.

¶108

Page 19 of 43

¶109

It is further stated by the answering respondent that the applicants have malafidely interpreted that EIA Notification, 2006 is applicable to the projects developed by the answering respondent on Plot nos. B and C. The answering respondent has developed separate project on Plot B, admeasuring about 8960 sq.mtrs and plot C, admeasuring 11,939.68 sq.mtrs. Even Fire NOCs for buildings constructed on plots B and C have been obtained separately.

¶110

In para 4 of the affidavit, the circumstances and litigation between the parties have been indicated, which led to a decision on the part of the answering respondent to decide to divide the area into two separate plots i.e. Plot B and Plot C. The answering respondent had decided to develop half area for which title is clear which is shown as plot No.B and to postpone development of plot C. Dispute between the parties was got settled in the month of December, 2009 and thereafter, the process of finalizing the documents was initiated and several litigations took place in the meantime, which are referred to in this affidavit. Further it is stated that because of the disputes, which are cited in para 4, point Nos.4.` to 4.4 of this affidavit. The answering respondent was required to submit sub-division plan to the original layouts dated 30.03.2007 of the land bearing Survey No.33 Hissa Nos.4, 5, 6 7 and 8 of Thergaon, admeasuring about 35,300 sq.mtrs. The answering respondent subsmitted sub-division plan for the said land and PCMC sanctioned the layout of sub-divisionon 09.10.2009, as per which plot A, admeasuring about 6400.32 sq.mtrs, plot B, admeasuring 8960.00 sq.mtrs, plot C, admeasuring about 11,939.68 sq.mtrs and reservation plot admeasuring about 8000 sq.mtrs. Therefore, it is clear that Plots A, B and C and reservation plot are separate and distinct plots. Plot A is with Khiwansara & Lunawat and the answering respondent has nothing to do with that plot. None of the above

¶111

Page 20 of 43

¶112

plots in the said layouts are beyond 20,000 sq.mtrs. As per applicable law when the commencement of Plots B and C happened, the built-up area of both plots B and C was not more than 20,000 sq.mtrs. Therefore, no EC was required for the development, which is being carried out on the said plots B and C by the answering respondent. It has developed these two plots on the aforesaid layout. It is further stated that on plot No.B, there are four wings consisting of residential units and one commercial building. The answering respondent has formed separate society for each wing and for plot No.B, following four separate Cooperative Housing Societies have been registered:

¶113

It is further mentioned by the answering respondent that on plot C, there are four wings consisting of residential units and one commercial building. The answering respondent has formed separate society for each wing for plot C, following four separate Cooperative Housing Societies have been registered:

¶114

Page 21 of 43

¶115

31. The details of development of plot B, as are given by the answering

¶116

respondent in their affidavit, are as follows:

¶117

Page 22 of 43

¶118

32. With respect to plot “C”, it is submitted by the answering respondent as follows:

¶119

Further it is submitted that the City Engineer of PCMC has issued show-cause notice dated 21.02.2012 to the answering respondent stating therein that as per the plans of Irrigation Department, part of plot No.C, fell within the Blue line area and as per the decision of the State of Maharashtra dated 21.01.1989, no construction was permitted in Blue line area and therefore, why the permission should not be cancelled. The response was submitted by the answering respondent to the said notice and after hearing the answering respondent, the City Engineer of PCMC has passed an order with directions that TDR should not be transferred on building affected by Blue flood line and parking level of the building should be kept above Blue line and accordingly, building permission may be taken. Further it is mentioned that the construction of the plinth was completed considering the Principle of Committed Development, the permission to construct I Wing was given because building plans for I wing were already sanctioned.

¶120

Page 23 of 43

¶121

It is further submitted that plot “C” has separate identity and has already been completed. The Occupancy Certificate has already been issued by the PCMC on 30.04.2016, in which following details have been given:

¶122

In rest of the paragraphs of this affidavit, parawise replies of the averments of the applicants are given, which contains nothing but denial of the allegations made against the answering respondents and defence of the answering respondent No.12 has been reiterated therein. So we do not find it essential to reproduce those paragraphs herein again.

¶123

The response of respondent Nos.5 to 8 – PCMC, through their affidavit dated 06.12.2016, is filed, wherein it is submitted that the applicants were shown entire record by the answering respondents on 21.01.2016 pursuant to the application of the applicants under RTI Act dated 08.01.2016 and that no information has been suppressed by it. The applicants had requested to stop the said construction of the project and demolish the construction, which had already been completed and occupied by the respective unit holders/purchasers since 2014. The

¶124

Page 24 of 43

¶125

answering respondents have sanctioned the building plan of the property bearing Survey No.33/4 to 33/8 (Part) of village Mauje Thergaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, having total area of the plot of 35,300 sq.mtrs; the area covered under Road Widening of 2868.73 sq.mtrs; area of reservation of 8000 sq.mtrs and remaining area of plot as 24,431.27 sq.mtrs. Further, the area of Plot A is stated as 5611.00 sq.mtrs, open area of the plot as 561.10 sq.mtrs and balance area of the plot as 5049.90 sq.mtrs. As regards plot No.B, its plot area is shown as 8960.00 sq.mtr, open area of the plot as 896.00 sq.mtr and balance area of the plot is stated as 8064.00 sq.mtr. The area of Plot No.C is shown as 11,939.68 sq.mtrs, open area of the plot as 986.00 sq.mtrs and balance area of the plot as 8874.24 sq.mtrs.

¶126

In view of above sub-division of the plot, sub-divisions as plot Nos.A, B and C are in existence, sanctioned layout is annexed as Annexure-A. It is submitted by the answering respondents that the applicants are falsely representing and referring the entire construction on three plots and thereby pointing out the alleged violations of the environment. The applicants have raised objections on the construction on plots B and C; however, there are four buildings on each plot No.B and C, respectively. There are two independent plots. Therefore, it is neither legal nor proper to consider the entire construction jointly. The applicants are falsely representing the picture of the project with a view to point out the alleged environment violations. The construction of the project is not covered under EIA Notification, 2006. The construction on plot No.B and Plot No.C was already completed on 30.03.2012 and September, 2013 and October, 2015, respectively. It is falsely stated by the applicants that none of the buildings have received completion/occupancy till filing of the complaint dated 02.04.2015. The Occupancy Certificates were already issued to the

¶127

Page 25 of 43

¶128

buildings on Plot No.B on 30.03.2012 and occupancy certificate on 30.04.2016 to buildings on Plot C, copies of which are annexed as Annexure-B and Annexure-C, respectively. The answering respondents have sanctioned building plans of buildings D, E, F & G on plot No.B, having total number of 241 flats and 12 nos. of commercial units. The answering respondents have sanctioned the building plans of buildings H, I, J and K on plot No.C, having total number of 256 flats and 12 nos. of commercial units. According to the answering respondents, the applicants have dishonestly calculated entire slab area of two independent plots with a view to raise alleged violation of environment. The definition of Built-Up Area as per Development Control Rules “ Ground area covered immediately above the plinth level by the building or external area of any upper floor, whichever is more, except (a) to (r ) as listed below ::

¶129

Page 26 of 43

¶130

Page 27 of 43

¶131

It is further stated by the answering respondent that Proforma-I of Development Control Rules speaks how to measure various areas as described in the Schedule. As per serial nos.6 and 13 mentioned in the Schedule, it is stated that Built-Up Area = Floor Area (built up area and floor area is equal) and therefore, the then Competent Authority had sanctioned the building permission by taking into consideration the same area. The answering respondent has further stated that Built-Up Area of Plot B is admeasuring 11,289.60 sq.mtrs and built-up area of plot C is admeasuring 14,349.99 sq.mtrs and therefore, there was no need of prior EC.

¶132

Page 28 of 43

¶133

It is further stated by the answering respondent that in the year 2011, an amendment has been made in Built-Up Area in the following manner:

¶134

“ The Built-Up Area or covered area on all the floors put together including basement(s) and other service areas, which are proposed in the building/construction projects .”

¶135

A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-F. It is further stated by the answering respondent that in the said definition, there is no clear explanation. However, in earlier definition, basement and other services were covered in Built-Up Area. There is neither clear explanation of service areas, nor defined in the Development Control Rules. There is no service floor in the said project. As per the Notification dated 30.01.2014, issued by the Environment Department, it specifically states that where the EC is applicable and as per the said Notification, the same is applicable to an area of 20,000 sq.mtr or more (including FSI and NonFSI). A copy of the said Notification is annexed as Annexure-G. Further it is mentioned that the applicants have wrongly calculated construction jointly (FSI and Non-FSI) as per Notification of 2014 and wrongly claimed that prior EC is required. However, the permission of the construction and the construction on the building had already completed prior to 2014. Therefore the said Rule is not applicable.

¶136

Further it is stated that the answering respondents inspected the plinth of commercial building on Plot C of Conveyance Shoppe on 21.09.2013 and buildings I and J on plot C on 07.10.2011. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-H. It is stated that only small portion of building I is covered under blue flood line area. The answering respondents have already issued Completion Certificate to the buildings on plot B and plot C and the developer had kept open space as per the

¶137

Page 29 of 43

¶138

Rule. An area admeasuring 152.58 sq.mtr out of total area admeasuring 843.54 sq.mtr of plot C is affected by blue flood line. A copy of the sheet showing drawing is annexed as Annexure-I. The answering respondent issued notice and after hearing, permission has been granted by imposing certain conditions, because, according to them, Red line is out of demarcation and therefore, not considered. Except the area under the Blue line, remaining plot is in Red and Blue lines is buildable area imposing some conditions and there is marking of Blue line on measurement map. The part of building “I” came within Blue line area and other buildings are within Blue and Red lines. The answering respondent have properly calculated the area of road widening. Regarding N.A. permissions, it is stated that there is no violation.

¶139

Further it is mentioned that the area of reservation as per DP is kept and there is no change in it. TDR is permissible as per Sanctioned Development Control Rules and Occupancy Certificates of the buildings were already issued. Thus, those who are using the premises prior to getting occupancy certificate, have been charged compounding fee as per the existing Rules. The developer has constructed grey water recycle plant and therefore, there is less quantity of waste water.

¶140

With above pleadings, it is prayed by the answering respondent Nos.5 to 8 that the Original Application be dismissed.

¶141

From the side of respondent No. 1 – Environment Department and respondent No.2 – SEIAA, Maharashtra, the stand taken from their side, through their affidavit-in-reply dated 04.01.2017, is that as per EIA Notification, 1994, expansion or modernization of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a new project listed in Schedule-I requires Environmental Clearance (EC) by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure laid down in EIA Notification, 1994. As per

¶142

Page 30 of 43

¶143

the amended EIA Notification, 2004, EC is required for project with population above 1000 persons, or sewage generated more than 50 m³ /day, or project cost above Rs.50 crores. A copy of the EIA Notification, 2004 is annexed as Annexure-A. The Central Government superseding the previous EIA Notification, has notified EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, as per which, EC is required for projects having built-up area above 20,000 sq.mtrs and projects above 1,50,000 sq.mtr built-up area would be requiring Environment Impact Assessment and EC both. In the case in hand, as per the record available with SEAC and SEIAA, there no application from respondent No.12 for obtaining prior EC for their project in question. The Member Secretary, MPCB, vide their letter dated 29.11.2016, submitted the site visit report done by officials of the MPCB of the site in question. Copy of the said letter dated 29.11.2016 is annexed as Annexure-C. As per the report, it is prima facie observed that Project Proponent carried out construction of total built-up area exceeding 20,000 sq.mtrs at site without obtaining the prior EC.

¶144

It is further stated that the Environment Department issued a show-cause notice dated 02.01.2017 to the Project Proponent under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and EIA Notification , 2006, which is annexed as Annexure-D. Thereafter, it is submitted that if the allegations made against the Project Proponent are found to be correct, it would amount to violation under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with EIA Notification, 2006. The answering respondents support the grant of interim relief as prayed for, to the extent of stopping the work on site, till the initial scrutiny, which has been initiated by the Environment Department, is over. The answering respondent have already issued the show-cause notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act,

¶145

Page 31 of 43

¶146

1986 and liberty may be granted to them to initiate action against respondent No.12 in accordance with law.

¶147

A perusal of this affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 would indicate that the answering respondents have held respondent No.12 – Project Proponent to be guilty for not obtaining prior EC because during the site inspection, they had found that the total built-up area constructed by the Project Proponent at the site in question to be exceeding 20,000 sq.mtrs. although details of that construction over 20,000 sq.mtrs. have not been given as to whether this area has been said to be combined area of the construction raised at plot “B” and plot “C” or whether the construction made on plot “B” , which has exceeded 20,000 sq.mtrs.

¶148

While considering the matter, we have to decide the issue, in addition to other issues, as to whether construction on these two plots B and C should be treated to be two different projects as stated by respondent No.5 – PCMC or should it be taken to be one combined project as is being claimed by the applicants.

¶149

From the side of respondent Nos.3 and 4 – MPCB, they have filed affidavit dated 01.12.2015, wherein it is submitted that the Board had carried out visit of the site in question on 07.11.2016 and found that respondent No.12 had completed construction of Ganga Ashiyana Phase-I and Phase-II at survey number in question, total built-up area of which is more than 20,000 sq.mtrs and that respondent No.12 has not obtained EC therefor and yet, it has completed the construction.

¶150

This reply of MPCB does not reflect as to whether the MPCB is treating the construction at plot B and plot C to be single project or two separate projects and whether this area of more than 20,000 sq.mtrs is taken to be of construction made on both plots or the construction of each

¶151

Page 32 of 43

¶152

plot was found to be exceeding 20,000 sq.mtrs. We have already stated that an issue in this regard will be decided while considering the matter. 49. According to us, in case they are treated to be two different projects, then we will have to see the total built-up area of construction of each plot separately and if on any of the plots, the area exceeds 20,000 sq.mtrs of construction, that would require prior EC and in case the same is not obtained by the Project Proponent – respondent No.12, the Project Proponent would be treated to have caused violation of environmental law and accordingly, the Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) would have to be calculated and levied upon respondent No.12 – Project Proponent. In case, we come to the conclusion that the construction on both plots should be treated to be one project, we will have to see combined area of both plots and if we find that the total built-up area of construction exceeds 20,000 sq.mtrs, in that case also, it will be treated that prior EC was required and if the same was not obtained, the Project Proponent would be held to be in default of this provision.

¶153

From the side of respondent No.10 – Irrigation Department, reply dated 28.12.2016 has been filed, wherein we do not find anything of substance for arriving at a conclusion to be drawn in this case.

¶154

From the side of the applicants, rejoinder-affidavit dated 13.02.2017 has been filed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.12 – Project Proponent dated 23.11.2016, reply respondent Nos.5 to 8 (PCMC) and that of respondent Nos.3 and 4, wherein we find the same facts have been reiterated, which we have considered above.

¶155

Further rejoinder dated 07.04.2017 has been filed by the applicants to the affidavit of respondent No.12, reply of respondent Nos.5 to 8 and that of respondent Nos.3 to 4. After having gone through the same, we find that the same facts, which we have already considered in this

¶156

Page 33 of 43

¶157

judgment above, have been reiterated and nothing of any substance has been found therein.

¶158

Further affidavit dated 14.02.2017 has been filed on behalf of the applicants on computation of carbon footprint and expansion, explanation of prayers sought. We have gone through this affidavit and we do not find it appropriate to record the facts therefrom in this judgment for disposal of present dispute.

¶159

Additional affidavit-in-reply dated 07.07.2017 has been filed by respondent Nos.5 to 8 – PCMC, which we have gone through and nothing of any substance is found therein to decide the dispute involved in the present case.

¶160

Affidavit-in-reply dated 21.09.2017 has been filed by respondent No.12 to the additional affidavit dated 07.04.2017 filed by the applicants, wherein we find that submissions made by the applicants have been rebutted by the answering respondents.

¶161

Affidavit-in-reply dated 14.09.2018 has been filed by respondent No.10 to the additional affidavit dated 07.04.2017 filed by the applicants, Nothing of any substance is found therein by us.

¶162

Reply dated 20.02.2024 has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.13 to 16 and respondent Nos.18 to 20, wherein it is recorded that the construction of the buildings of respondent Nos.13 to 20 was carried out in accordance with law and respondent No.12 – Project Proponent has take permission from time to time. The answering respondents have raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present application. Locus standi of the applicants has also been questioned in this reply.

¶163

Page 34 of 43

¶164

Reply-affidavit has been filed by the applicants to I.A. No.221/2023 filed by respondent No.12 – Project Proponent and rejoinder to the reply of respondent Nos.13 to 16 and respondent Nos.18 to 20 – Cooperative Housing Societies, has also been filed, in which the same facts have been reiterated, which have been stated by the applicants in the Original Application. Hence, we need not reproduce the same here.

¶165

Respondent No.17 – Ganga Ashiyana “H” Cooperative Housing Society has filed reply-affidavit dated 21.05.2024, in which it is recorded that respondent No.12 has divided plots B and C with tin sheets giving access to Plot C – occupants, to the amenities in Plot B. Members of all the societies in Plot B and C were frustrated with a division between the two plots and by common understanding between them, they removed all the tin sheets. However, when the present case was initiated against respondent No.12, he put a common concrete wall between both the plots and now members of the answering respondents as well as Society Building Nos.I, J, K in plot C are deprived of direct unrestricted access to all the common amenities located in plot B as well as 55 parking slots. It is further stated by the answering respondents that the Societies I, J and K filed a complaint against respondent No.12 and Societies D, E, F and G with the Cooperative Societies Registrar. Similarly, they have filed a Civil Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.1927 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. They have even filed Writ Petition No.6224/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay for modification of the deemed conveyance orders passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The said Societies have not done any construction activity, hence, they cannot be held responsible, nor should they suffer for whatever environmental non-compliances respondent No.12 has committed. If any demolition order is passed by this Tribunal, they will be rendered homeless and

¶166

Page 35 of 43

¶167

respondent No.12 will be utterly responsible for such loss and that he should provide alternate accommodation with full ownership rights to the members of the answering respondents.

¶168

We have considered the pleadings of the applicants as well as that of respective parties, perused the record and after having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, following issues have been framed by us for being decided in this Original Application:

¶169

(I) Whether this Original Application is barred by limitation ?

¶170

(II) Whether two plots B and C and the construction thereon should be treated to be two different projects as stated by respondent No.5 – PCMC or should it be treated to be one combined project as is being claimed by the applicants ?

¶171

(III) Whether respondent No.12 – Project Proponent has violated the requirements of EIA Notification, 2006 ? and if Yes, what is the amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) to be calculated and levied from respondent No.12 – Project Proponent ?

¶172

FINDINGS :

¶173

Issue No. (I) :

¶174

According to this issue, we have to decide as to whether this Original Application is barred by limitation.

¶175

Record reveals that the present Original Application has been filed on 16.09.2016, alleging in paragraph No.42 of the application with regard to limitation that the applicants had sent first notice dated 02.04.2016 to the respondents with available information for stopping the said violations and strict action thereon, but the violations continued till the filing of the

¶176

Page 36 of 43

¶177

application. Therefore cause of action to file the present application arose on 19.05.2019 when the applicants got sufficient information and knowledge of the gross violation of various environmental laws.

¶178

The application, by which the applicants had sought information from respondent No. 5 – PCMC, was moved on 08.01.2016, pursuant to which, they were provided information on 27.01.2016 regarding details of the construction area, illegality in the project and plans. Thereafter, the applicant No.1, by an application dated 19.01.2016, sought information from the MPCB, which was replied to vide letter dated 04.02.2016, clearly stating that there is no data available for prior EC and no Consent to Establish was granted to respondent No.12 for the said project. Thereafter, applicant No.1, through application dated 31.01.2016, sought information from the Environment Department and it was responded to by letter dated 15.04.2016, stating that there is no prior EC granted and even no application for grant of EC was moved for the said project. So, based on the available information, the applicants had moved a complaint on 02.04.2016 to the PCMC – respondent No.5, requesting to stop the construction and demolish the illegal construction. The PCMC had responded to the complaint of the applicants vide their reply dated 27.01.2016, the reply of MPCB dated 19.02.2016 and reply of Environment Department dated 15.04.2016 and thus, the applicants allege that the cause of action arose on 19.05.2016.

¶179

As against this, from the side of respondent No.12 – Project Proponent, it is submitted that the applicants have challenged the development of Plot Nos.B and C being done by respondent No.12 in violation of EIA Notification, 2006. The Project Proponent – respondent No.12 had commenced the development of Plot No.B as per Commencement Certificate dated 09.10.2009 in the month of October,

¶180

Page 37 of 43

¶181

2009 itself. Therefore, the first cause of action so far as development of Plot No.B is concerned, arose in 2009 itself. Thereafter, on the basis of Commencement Certificate dated 09.03.2010 started construction in the month of March, 2011 itself. Therefore first cause of action so far as plot No.C is concerned, arose in March, 2011. Thus, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 (C) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the limitation to file Original Application is six months from the cause of action first arose. The present Original Application is highly time barred. From the record, we find at page 94 of the paper-book, Occupancy Certificate, issued by respondent No.5 – PCMC, which has been filed by the applicants, which is with respect to the completion of construction on plot No.B, whereupon buildings D, E, F, G and commercial wing “C” are shown to have been completed by 30.03.2012. So with regard to the construction regarding these buildings on this plot, the cause of action could have been brought within six months, which obviously has already expired and thereafter only, this matter has been filed by the applicants.

¶182

We find on record Completion Certificate with respect to the construction made on plot “C” pertaining to the buildings H, I, J and K and one commercial building to have been issued on 30.04.2016, which is also corroborated by PCMC, which is found to have been annexed at page 56 of Misc. Application No.410 of 2016 in O.A. No.147 of 2016, which also stands corroborated by the summary provided by the applicants across the bar to us, which is taken on record and marked “X” for the purpose of identification.

¶183

In view of above, if we consider these two plots B and C to be separate projects, then we will have to come to the conclusion that the issue with respect to illegal construction on plot No.B could not have been raised, being time-barred, but as regards the construction raised on plot

¶184

Page 38 of 43

¶185

No.C, it could have been raised because the present application has been filed within six months from the expiry of the date of limitation. However, in case we consider the project to be a joint one, which means the construction on both plot Nos.B and C is treated to be one single project, in that case, the cause of action would be reckoned from 30.04.2016 and in these circumstances, the whole project would be treated barred by limitation. This issue is decided accordingly.

¶186

Issue No. (II) :

¶187

As per this issue, we have to decide as to whether two plots B and C and the construction thereon should be treated to be two different projects as stated by respondent No.5 – PCMC or should it be treated to be one combined project as is being claimed by the applicants. In this regard, we do not have an established yardstick or norms which we can apply and arrive on a conclusion, but in our opinion, it would be appropriate for us to see on the basis of documentary evidence produced by the parties on record, as to whether construction on these two plots was got sanctioned separately or was there combined sanction. Further, whether the amenities provided for the residents residing in the buildings constructed on these two plots would be enjoyed jointly, such as car parking, clubhouse and all other amenities, or were they to be enjoyed separately.

¶188

We find that the approval to the construction to be raised on plot No. B, of four buildings and the commercial buildings was obtained from respondent No. 5 – PCMC on 09.10.2009 initially, while the first sanction of approval for construction of the buildings on plot No.C was obtained on 09.03.2010 from PCMC. It has also come to light in the evidence that the construction on plot No.C could be started separately because of some dispute being there while construction on plot No.B had started in March, 2010 prior to that. As regards amenities, the car parking and the club

¶189

Page 39 of 43

¶190

houses are provided for the buildings separately on plot Nos.B and C. Thus, this would lead us to believe that the construction on plot Nos.B and C should be treated to be separate scheme and not one scheme. Issue No.(II) is decided accordingly.

¶191

Issue No.(III) :

¶192

As per this issue, we have to decide as to whether respondent No.12 – Project Proponent has violated the requirements of EIA Notification, 2006 ? and if Yes, what is the amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) to be calculated and levied from respondent No.12 – Project Proponent. In this regard, while observing with respect to Issue No.(II) above, we found that the construction which has been raised on plot Nos.B, against the same, the applicants cannot raise any objection with regard to the construction being in violation of EIA Notification, 2006, because the same is time-barred. However, with respect to the construction on plot No.C, we find that the construction could have been questioned as the same is alleged to have been done in violation of EIA Notification, 2006 as no prior EC was obtained while the same was essential, the total built-up area being beyond 20,000 sq.mtrs., which is calculated by us as below.

¶193

As per the layout for Plot C, last approval is accorded on 17.07.2013 for built-up area of buildings H, I, J, K and commercial building, details of which are given in the following table.

¶194

Page 40 of 43

¶195

Hence, for Plot “C”, Terrace area is 2943.06 sq.mtrs., balcony area is 2153.53 sq.mtrs. and open parking area is (1174.00 sq.mtrs. + 923.70 sq.mtrs), totaling 7193.59 sq.mtrs., which will have to be deducted from Total Built-Up Area of 27,645.77 sq.mtrs. Hence, Total Built-Up Area as per EIA Notification, 2006 will be 27,645.77 sq.mtrs – 7193.59 sq.mtrs = 20,452.18 sq.mtrs.

¶196

As per “Construction Cost Guide book India - 2024 Project & Development Services – India” (https://www.jll.co.in/content/dam/jllcom/documents/pdf/research/apac/india/jll-construction-cost-guidebook), India construction cost for residential buildings with floors less than 12 in 2024 in Pune is reported as Rs. 2250 to Rs. 2650/sq ft. This Cost/sq ft. represents the average of the competitive tender prices as on Q4 2023. The cost/sq ft. is based on construction floor areas measured to the outside face of the external walls / external perimeter including lift shafts, stair wells, water tanks, plant rooms and like and excludes cost of Demolition of existing buildings, tenant fit-out, FF&E (furniture,

¶197

Page 41 of 43

¶198

fitting and equipment unless otherwise specified), Cost escalation, professional fees, land, finance, Approvals etc. where applicable. Hence, total construction cost in 2024 can be taken as Rs. 2500/sq. ft in Pune. With TBUA as 20,452.18 sq.mtrs. the construction cost of project works out as Rs. 51 Crores. We wish to mention that As per NGT order dated December 6, 2018 in O.A 125/2017 for delay in payment of Environmental Compensation, an interest @12% will be payable. Thus, escalation and interest rate balance each other. Hence, we have worked out project cost as per construction cost guidebook of the year 2024.

¶199

In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10854 Of 2016 dated 10.08.2018 in the case of M/s Goel Ganga Developers India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests and others; (2018) 8 SCC 257 , , following is held:

¶200

“57. Having held so we are definitely of the view that the project proponent who has violated law with impunity cannot be allowed to go scot-free. This Court has in a number of cases awarded 5% of the project cost as damages. This is the general law ….”

¶201

Hence, EDC to be levied and recovered from R-12-PP works out as 5% of Rs. 51 Crore at Rs. 2.55 Crore.

¶202

Since we find that there is clear violation of EIA Notification, 2006 as regards the construction made on plot No.C, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.12 – Project Proponent to deposit the EDC of Rs.2.55 Crores (Two Crores Fifty Five Lakhs only), calculated by us as above in terms of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.08.2018 in the case of M/s Goel Ganga Developers India Private Ltd. Issue No.(III) is decided accordingly.

¶203

Page 42 of 43

¶204

We dispose of this Original Application with directions that the amount of EDC of Rs.2.55 Crores (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Five Lakhs) shall be deposited by respondent No.12 – Project Proponent with respondent No.3 – MPCB within two months from the date of uploading of this judgment, which shall be utilized for improvement of the environment in the area concerned.

¶205

In view of disposal of Original Application, all pending I.As./M.As. stand disposed of.

¶206

No order as to costs.

¶207

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶208

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶209

September 03, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2016 (WZ) npj

¶210

Page 43 of 43

Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. the Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. the Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

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

Sandeep Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled "Well Water Could Be Source of Infection for Pam Cases: Officials" Appearing in the Hindu Bureau Dated 22.08.2025. vs

News Item Titled "4 Die After Nitrogen Gas Leak at Pharma Firm in Maharashtra" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 22.08.2025. vs

News Item Titled "Bengaluru,S Garment Boom Leaves a Toxic Trail" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 24.08.2025. vs

Deepak v Rao vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation

Suo Moto vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Biswajit Saha vs State of West Bengal

Daso Ram Hansda vs M/S Gajanan Ferro Private Limited

Anil Hoble vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Moin Alimiya Saiyed (Proprietor of Shree Ambaji Minerals) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Rahimbhai Jivabhai Nandasaniya vs 1. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2025 in Original Application No. 40/2023 of Yogesh Mundhara vs 1. M/S Super Dream Real Estate Private Limited

Lalitkumar Namdeo Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra