Can High-Rise Projects Be Built Near Wildlife Sanctuaries? Supreme Court Says No
TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. vs AALOK JAGGA AND OTHERS
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot permit construction projects within 123 meters of a wildlife sanctuary.
• Environmental clearances must comply with statutory notifications under the Environment Protection Act.
• The Doctrine of Public Trust mandates the protection of eco-sensitive zones.
• High-rise buildings near wildlife sanctuaries pose significant ecological risks.
• State authorities must act in accordance with environmental laws to protect wildlife habitats.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment regarding the construction of high-rise buildings near wildlife sanctuaries. In the case of Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. vs. Aalok Jagga and Others, the Court ruled that no construction could be permitted within 123 meters of the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to environmental regulations and protecting sensitive ecological zones.
Case Background
The case arose from a housing project proposed by Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. (Tata HDCL) in the revenue estate of village Kansal, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab. The project, named 'CAMELOT,' was intended to cover an area of 52.66 acres, with a built-up area of approximately 463,144.54 square meters. However, the project site was located within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and just 123 meters away from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary.
The High Court of Delhi had previously set aside the environmental clearance granted to Tata HDCL, stating that the project did not comply with the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) notification dated 14.09.2006, which mandates prior environmental clearance for projects in sensitive areas. The Court emphasized that the Survey of India map, which demarcated the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, was binding on the State of Punjab.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The High Court ruled that the environmental clearance granted to Tata HDCL was invalid due to the project's proximity to the wildlife sanctuary and the catchment area of Sukhna Lake. The Court noted that the project posed a significant threat to the environment and wildlife, as it was located within an ecologically fragile area. The High Court also highlighted the need for compliance with the Wildlife Protection Act and the Environment Protection Act.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the construction of high-rise buildings within 123 meters of a wildlife sanctuary was impermissible. The Court reiterated that the protection of wildlife and the environment is paramount and that the authorities must act in accordance with the Doctrine of Public Trust.
The Court noted that the State of Punjab had failed to protect the eco-sensitive zone around the wildlife sanctuary, allowing the construction of high-rise buildings that could adversely affect the environment. The Court pointed out that the project was not only in violation of environmental laws but also smacked of arbitrariness, given that many beneficiaries of the project were members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
Statutory Interpretation
The Supreme Court's ruling relied heavily on the interpretation of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Court emphasized that environmental clearances must adhere to the statutory notifications issued by the MoEF, which are designed to protect sensitive ecological zones. The Court also highlighted the importance of the Survey of India map in determining the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and the proximity of the project to the wildlife sanctuary.
Constitutional or Policy Context
The judgment is significant in the context of India's constitutional mandate to protect the environment. Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution enjoin the State to protect and improve the environment and wildlife. The Court's ruling reinforces the need for the government to act in accordance with these constitutional provisions and to prioritize environmental protection over development interests.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is a landmark ruling that underscores the importance of environmental protection in the face of urban development. It serves as a reminder that construction projects must comply with environmental laws and that the government has a duty to protect wildlife habitats. The ruling also highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the approval of construction projects, particularly when they involve public officials as beneficiaries.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tata HDCL, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the environmental clearance for the project. The Court directed that no construction could be permitted within the specified distance from the wildlife sanctuary, thereby reinforcing the legal framework for environmental protection in India.
Case Details
- Case Title: TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. vs AALOK JAGGA AND OTHERS
- Citation: 2019 INSC 1203
- Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.R. Gavai
- Date of Judgment: 2019-11-05