National Green Tribunal
Ranjit Kumar Sapui vs Chief Secretary Govt Of West Bengal on 22 April, 2025
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.05 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)
Original Application No.38/2024/EZ
(I.A. No.90/2024/EZ & I.A. No.98/2024/EZ)
Ranjit Kumar Sapui Applicant(s)
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 22.04.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Indradeep Ghosh, Adv. a/w
Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for R-1 to 10 & 14
(in Virtual Mode),
Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey, Adv. for R-13 (in Virtual Mode),
Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, Adv. in IA-90-2024-EZ,
Mr. Buddhadeb Ghosh, Adv. in IA-98-2024-EZ
ORDER
1. Mr. Indradeep Ghosh assisted by Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).
..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM April 22, 2025, Original Application No.38/2024/EZ (I.A. No.90/2024/EZ & I.A. No.98/2024/EZ) SKB 1 Item No.05 Court No.1 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE) Original Application No.38/2024/EZ (I.A. No.90/2024/EZ & I.A. No.98/2024/EZ) In the matter of:
Ranjit Kumar Sapui Son of Late Bishnupada Sapui, Residing at 15, Dharmatala Road, Police Station - Kasba, Kolkata - 700042 .... Applicant(s) Versus
1. State of West Bengal Service through Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal being The Chairman, East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority, Nabanna, 325 Sarat Chatterjee Road, Police Station - Shibpur, Howrah - 711102
2. The State of West Bengal Service through the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, "Pranisampad Bhaban", 5th Floor, LB-2, Sector-3, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700106
3. The Chief Technical Officer, East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority, Government of West Bengal, Department of Environment, "Pranisampad Bhaban", 5th Floor, LB-2, Sector-3, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700106
4. The Director of Fisheries, Government of West Bengal, Meen Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700091
5. The District Magistrate and Collectorate, South 24 Parganas, Treasury Building Alipore, Kolkata - 700027
6. The Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, 2 Alipore, Kolkata - 700027
7. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kasba, Additional T.M. Block Kasba, Kolkata - 700107
8. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sonarpur, Baikunthapur, Kolkata - 700150
9. The Officer in Charge, Purva Jadavpur Police Station, Kolkata - 700099
10. The Officer in Charge, Narendrapur Police Station, Kolkata - 700103
11. Motilal Mondal, Son of Lalmohan Mondal, Of 7/1, Netaji Nagar, Green Park, Kolkata - 700099
12. Madhusudan Moindal, Son of Lakshikanta Mondal of Garfa Mondal Para, P.O. - Haltu, P.S. - Garfa, Kolkata - 700078
13. West Bengal State Pollution Control Board, Through Member Secretary, Paribesh Bhaban, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700106
14. Officer in Charge, Garfa Police Station, Post Office - Haltu, Kolkata
15. Shyamali Mondal, Wife of Late Madhusudan Mondal
16. Avishek Mondal, Son of Late Madhusudan Mondal,
17. The Pradhan, Kheadaha-II Gram Panchayat, Vill - Dargatala, P.O. - Kheadaha, P.S. - Narendrapur, Dist. - South 24 (Pgs.) .... Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 22.04.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 3 HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s) : Mr. Indradeep Ghosh, Adv. a/w Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv. (in Virtual Mode) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for R-1 to 10 & 14 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey, Adv. for R-13 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, Adv. in IA-90-2024-EZ, Mr. Buddhadeb Ghosh, Adv. in IA-98-2024-EZ ORDER
1. Mr. Indradeep Ghosh assisted by Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.
2. The Applicant is stated to be joint owner and in possession of plots of land at Mouza-Kalikapur, J.L. No.20, R.S. Dag No.375, Police Station-Narendrapur and Mouza-Mukundapur, J.L. No.04, R.S. Dag No.25, 34, 35, 36, 41 and 80, Police Station-Purva Jadavpur. It is stated that the said plots are recorded as Beel, Tank, Fisheries and Bheri. It is also stated that the said plots are water bodies and wetlands in nature and are included in the list of Ramsar sites and specified in Schedule-I of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.
3. The allegation of the Applicant is that the Respondent Nos.11 & 12 drained out water from the water bodies by using pumps and started filling up the said water bodies depositing white sand and debris from the construction site. It is also alleged that the said Respondents have demarcated and divided the said land into several small plots and sold out the same to some buyers for purposes of construction of a Housing Complex Project on the said plots of land.
4. It is further stated that the Applicant had filed W.P.A. No.8456 (W) of 2015 before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in which the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority submitted a Report on affidavit confirming that private respondents of the said writ petition 4 had violated the provisions of East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.
5. It is stated that thereafter the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 with a direction to the authorities to act in terms of the Act of 2006 and restore the wetland to its former shape.
6. The copy of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta dated 21.11.2017 reads as under :-
"W.P. No.8456 (w) of 2015 Ranjit Kumar Sapui v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With CAN No.4034 of 2017 and CAN No.7824 of 2017 Ms. Amrita Sinha Ms Madhurima Sarkar ... for the Petitioner Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. A.G. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Debaashish Ghosh Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas ... for the State Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Pratik Majumder ... for the Respondent no.10 Mr. Jay Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dipayan Kundu ... for the Respondent no.11 21.11.2017 The petitioner complains that, the State is not taking steps to restore and preserve a wetland.
The respondent nos.10 and 111 are represented. The State respondents are represented by the learned Advocate General.
There are two applications in the pending writ petition, which are taken up for consideration analogously. CAN No.4034 of 20174 is an application made by the petitioner for appropriate order. CAN No.7824 of 2017 is an application made by the respondent no.11 seeking modification of subsisting interim orders.5
The fact that, the land in question comprises of wetland is not disputed between the parties. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent no.11 raises the question of maintainability of the writ petition and the grant of relief in the writ petition. He submits referring to the various provisions of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 that, all the rigors of the provisions of such Act of 2006 being applicable to the land in question and without questioning the applicability of such Act to the land in question, there is a designated expert body to look into the issue of preservation, protection and conservation. The petitioner did not approach such designated body. Such designated body is empowered under Section 11 of the Act of 2006 to restore the land to its original nature and character. The process of restoration is laid down in the Act of 2006. The expert body will have to employ such process for the purpose of restoration, if required. He submits that, the nature and character of the land has changed naturally. The surrounding area of the land has changed its character. In the present context, the land in question cannot be considered to be a wetland any further in view of the change of the nature of the surrounding area. Moreover, his client did not do anything to change the nature and character of the land. He submits that, the writ petition is essentially one, which tries to settle civil disputes between the private parties. He submits that, the writ petitioner is a party to a suit for partition in which the writ petitioner had obtained orders of injunction. The writ petitioner has also claimed violation of such order of injunction. The petitioner had obtained an order of appointment of receiver over the suit property. It is in such factual context that, the writ petitioner had approached the Writ Court without making his client as party respondent to the petition and had obtained orders from the Court. He submits that the orders of the Civil Court are subsisting since 2006. He refers to the averments made in the writ petition, particularly, to paragraphs 6 to 8 thereof and submits that, the case of the writ petitioner has to be understood on the strength of the pleadings of the writ petition. He submits on instructions that, the respondent No.11 is ready and willing to suffer an order of injunction in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition. Any other action taken by the State authorities would be beyond the permissible limit of the Act of 2006. He submits that, there is a distinction between a wetland and a water body. He relies upon the definitions of the two words and submits that, the State cannot make a wetland a water body as sought to be done by employing men and machine.6
He submits that, the right of the respondent no.11 with regard to an immovable property is a constitutional right and is recognized to be so. He relies upon (2007) 6 SCC 81 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors.) and (2007) 8 SCC 705 (Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.) in support of his contentions.
Learned Advocate General appearing for the State authorities submits that, the Act of 2006 empowers the authority to restore a wetland to its former shape. In the present case, by virtue of the orders passed by the Court, the authorities have undertaken the process of restoration of the water body. He submits that, the funds are inadequate for the purpose of meeting all the expenses of restoration. As and when further funds are made available, the process of restoration will continue. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, there is a building in the water body, which is required to be removed.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
As noted above, the complaint is of conversion of a wetland. The land in question has been described as wetland and a water body interchangeable in the orders passed by the Court from time to time. However, the fact that, the land in question is governed under the provisions of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 is admitted amongst the parties. It is pointed out that, the wetland comprised in the writ petition lies in the jurisdiction of two police stations. The State has undertaken the work of restoration in one of the police stations while it has not done so in respect of the other.
The writ petitioner is a party to a suit for partition. There are subsisting orders of injunction restraining the parties from changing the nature and character of the property concerned. As a Writ Court, I am not concerned with the orders passed by the Civil Court, in the facts of the present case. The orders of the Civil Court does not relate to conservation work required under the Act of 2006. The State in its wisdom has found that, the land in question is a wetland and requires restoration. It was asked to do so. It has proceeded to do so. There are subsisting orders of this Court directing the State to restore 7 the land as a water body. Learned advocate General submits on instructions that, the State will continue the process of restoration subject to adequate funds being made available.
The contention of the respondent no.11 that, the writ petition is essentially one to settle the civil disputes between the private parties, in the facts of the presence case is not accepted.
Although, the petitioner is a party to the Civil Suit as noted above, the Civil Suit is one for partition and has nothing to do with the process of conservation of a land covered under the Act of 2006. The scope and ambit of the writ petition is protection, preservation and conservation of a wetland recognized to be so under the Act of 2006 by exercising power therein. In view of the above, it cannot be said that, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is clarified that, none of the observations made in this order will be construed to prejudice any of the rights and contentions of any of the parties in the pending suit.
The contentions of the respondent no.11 that, the State should not restore the water body and that, the expert body designated under the Act of 2006 should look into the same is concerned, I am afraid, I am not in a position to accept the same. The State is obliged to implement the provisions of the Act of 2006. In the present case, the attention of the State was drawn to the situation prevailing in the land concerned. The State in its wisdom has proceeded to restore and conserve the land in question under the Act of 2006.
Change of nature and character of a wetland can happen either by way of natural causes or for manmade reasons. In either of the two scenarios, the Act of 2006 empowers the authorities to take corrective measures.
Right to property is recognized as a constitutional right. Such view is expressed in Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) as well as Maddula Ratnvalli & Ors. (supra). In the present case, the right of the petitioner to the land per se is not being dealt with by the authorities. The property in question is sought to be conserved under the Act of 2006. The right of the private parties inter se amongst themselves with regard to the property in question will be decided in the pending suit or any other litigation that, the parties may litigate before an appropriate forum.8
In such circumstances, W.P. No.8456 (W) of 2015 is disposed of by directing the authorities to act in terms of the Act of 2006 and restore the wetland to its former shape. In view of such direction being given, no further order need be passed in the application of the petitioner being CAN No.4034 of 2017. In view of the direction given herein and the disposal of the writ petition, no further relief can be granted to the respondent no.11 in CAN No.7824 of 2017. The same is dismissed.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)"
7. It is stated that against the said order CAN 4034 of 2017 and CAN 7824 of 2017 (Ranjit Kumar Sapui vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) were filed before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the said Appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 03.01.2019.
8. Copy of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated
03.01.2019 reads as under :-
"IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and The Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee MAT 2058 of 2017 With CAN 11730 of 2017 Madhusudan Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With MAT 2059 OF 2017 WITH Can 11732 OF 2017 Motilal Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the appellant / applicant : Mr. Dipayan Kundu 9 In MAT 2058 of 2017 For the State in MAT 2058 OF 2017 : Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, led by Mr. Pantu Deb Roy For the respondent no.10/ Writ petitioner : Mr. Supratick Shyamal, Ms. Madhurima Sarkar Heard on : 03.01.2019 Judgment on : 03.01.2019 Biswanath Somadder, ACJ :
By consent of the parties, both the appeals are treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the respective applications for stay.
Both the appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 21st November, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. 8456 (W) of 2015 together with CAN 4034 of 2017 and CAN 7824 of 2017 (Ranjit Kumar Sapui vs. The State of Wet Bengal & Ors.).
By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the concerned authorities to act in terms of the provisions contained under East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 and restore the wetland to its former shape.
Both the appeals have been preferred by the private respondents in the writ proceeding, namely, Motilal Mondal and Madhusudan Mondal, being the private respondent nos.10 and 11, respectively.
It is contended on behalf of Madhusudan Mondal (being the private respondent no.11 in the writ proceeding) that the issue is essentially related to a private dispute between the respondent/writ petitioner on one hand and the private respondents on the other. As such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given a direction upon the concerned authorities to act in terms of the statutory provisions as contained under East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.
Upon pursuing the impugned judgment and order as well as the papers before us, we notice that the learned Single Judge - while 10 proceeding to dispose of the writ petition - has taken note of the pendency of a civil proceeding. The learned Single Judge has clarified that none of the observations made in the order impugned would be construed to prejudice any of the rights and contentions of any of the parties to the pending suit. The learned Single Judge has further observed in the impugned order to the effect that the rights of the private parties inter se amongst themselves with regard to the property-in-question will be decided in the pending suit or any other litigation that the parties may litigate before an appropriate forum.
In the backdrop of the above observations made by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any palpable infirmity of reasoning or perversity in respect of the directions given by the learned Single Judge upon the concerned authorities to act in terms of the statutory provisions as contained under East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 for the purpose of restoring the wetland to its former shape. If a writ Court directs an authority to act in accordance with any statutory provision, surely it cannot be construed as an order which requires any interference in an Intra- Court Mandamus Appeal where scope of interference is extremely limited. That apart and in any event, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order clearly and squarely protect and preserve the rights of the parties in respect of the pending civil proceeding and also in respect of future litigation, if any.
For reasons state above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Both the appeals along with the respective applications for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.
(Biswanath Somadder, ACJ.) I agree.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)"
9. It is stated that in spite of the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the Respondent Nos.11 & 12 are seeking to change the 11 nature of the plots in question by stacking construction material over the said plots of land and constructing a concrete fencing for erecting walls.
10. The Director of Fisheries has filed affidavit dated 13.03.2024 wherein it is stated that a Spot Inspection Enquiry in terms of the directions of the Tribunal, at Plot R.S. Dag No.25, 34, 35, 36, 41 and 80, Mouza - Mukundapur under office of B.L.& L.R.O., Sonarpur block has been prepared. The Spot Enquiry Report reads as under :-
"Spot enquiry report at Mouza Mukundpur, JL No.04, RS Dag No.25,34,35,36,41 and 80, under Narendrapur PS, South 24 Parganas xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ref: No. GA - (LAW)/18 (2a/08/2024 DATED 05/03/2024 OF THE Additional Director of Fisheries, West Bengal Date of Enquiry: 7th March, 2024 (Thursday), 2.00-4.00pm At the time of enquiry, the undersigned officers were accompanied at the site by Sri Subarun Naskar, RI of Office of the BL&LRO, Kheyadaha-II Gram Panchayat, Sonarpur Development Block and Sri Dulal Ch. Sardar, Surveyor at Office of the BL&LRO, Sonarpur Development Block; the Plots of land in question were identified by the land officials and they provided the approximate area of the Plots.
On the basis of spot enquiry on 07/03/2024, it can be said that:
Plot No.25: It measures about (180 x 105) sq feet in area. It has recently been filled up with white sand, soil and constructional debris. Few patches of wild terrestrial shrubs found over it. Plot No.34: It is a perennial water body (clean freshwater beel). It is approximately (450 x 70) sq feet in area, which is amalgamated with nearby Plots No. 26 and 33.
Plot No. 35: This Plot is covered with tall 'Nalban', it is approximately 720 sq feet in area.
Plot No.36: Most of this Plot is covered with tall 'Nalban', which is approximately (310 x 150) sq feet in area. A small hutment with thatched roof was found in this plot.
Plot No.80: It is approximately 18.446 acre in area, entirely covered with tall 'Nalban'.12
Plot No.41: It is approximately 3.16 acre in area, entirely covered with tall 'Hogla bon'. Prtly plotting has been done in this plot, demarcated by split bamboo poles.
Temporary earthen roads were observed in between plots of land No.35, 36, 41 and 80.
Fencing with barbed wire has been found around both Plots No. 36 and 80.
Submitted to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, South 24 Parganas for his kind information and taking necessary action.
District Fishery Officer (Normal) Assistant Fishery Officer
South 24 Parganas South 24 Parganas"
11. A perusal of the Report would show that Plot No.25 has been filled up with white sand, soil and construction debris with few patches of wild terrestrial shrubs found over it ; plot No.34 has a perennial waterbody (clean fresh water beel) ; plot No.35 is covered with tall 'Nalban' ; plot No.36 is covered with tall 'Nalban' and small hutment with thatched roof has been found at this plot ; plot No.80 is entirely covered with tall 'Nalban' ; plot No.41 is entirely covered with tall 'Hogla Bon' and plotting has been done at this plot demarcated by split bamboo poles.
12. The East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority has filed affidavit dated 26.04.2024 wherein it is categorically stated that the waterbody in question namely "Heder Bheri" spreads over R.S. Dag No.375, Mouza - Kalikapur, J.L. No.20 under P.S. - Purba Jadavpur and R.S. Dag Nos.9, 18, 25, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45 and 80 of Mouza - Mukundapur, J.L. No.4 under P.S. - Sonarpur both being in District - 24 Parganas (South). It is categorically stated that whole of Mouza - Mukundapur and part of R.S. Dag No.375 of Mouza - Kalikapur falls within the East Kolkata Wetlands Management area. It is also stated that a field inspection was carried out on 13.03.2024 and it was noticed that one house of brick and asbestos and three houses of tin and bamboo were built 13 over the waterbody i.e. "Heder Bheri" and boundary wall has also been constructed along the waterbody and there is some solid waste dumping also ; the rest of the area of the subject waterbody is full of aquatic vegetation. The Field Inspection Report reads as under :-
"FIELD INSPECTION REPORT xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Observation:
During the field inspection, it was observed that 'Heder Bheri' situated at part of RS Dag Nos. 9, 18, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45 and 80 Mouza Mukundpur, JL No.4, P.S. Narendrapur and part of RS Dag No. 375 Mouza Kalikapur, JL No. 20, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Dist. South 24 Parganas. One brick and asbestos-made house and three tin and bamboo-made houses have been built. A boundary wall has been constructed along the roadside on a small stretch and solid waste dumping is there. The rest of the area is full of aquatic vegetations.
The whole Mouza-Mukundapur and part of RS Dag No.375 of Mouza Kalikapur falls within East Kolkata Wetlands area.
Shyamal Das Technical Assistant"
13. The District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas has filed affidavit dated 30.04.2024 stating that the site was inspected on 18.04.2024. The details of the plot and its area has been given in para 5 of the affidavit which reads as under :-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1) RS & LR Plot No.-18 (Shali) Area - 2.02 Acres
2) RS & LR Plot No.-35 (Bil) Area - 7.20 Acres
3) RS & LR Plot No.-36 (Bil) Area - 4.26 Acres
4) RS & LR Plot No.-39 (Debsthan) Area - 0.09 Acres
5) RS & LR Plot No.-40 (Debsthan) Area - 0.14 Acres
6) RS & LR Plot No.-41 (Bil) Area - 3.16 Acres
7) RS & LR Plot No.-42 (Bil) Area - 1.49 Acres
8) RS & LR Plot No.-44 (bil) Area -15.00 Acres
9) RS & LR Plot No.-45 (Khal) Area - 0.61 Acres
10) RS & LR Plot No.-80 (Shali) Area - 18.46 Acres 14 Total 54.43 Acre of Mouza - Mukundapur, J.L No.04 under Sonarpur Block."
14. The physical Status Report has also been given in the affidavit which reads as under :-
Sl. Plot Area Classif Classif Vested Present Status of the Plot Whether No. No. (Acre) ication ication or the plot in RS in LR Raiyati is within Record Record the EKWMA Area or not 1 RS & 2.02 Shali Shali Full i) The Plot is completely filled EKWMA LR Vested by Hoglabon Area Plot No.18 ii) Partly Schematic Plots have also noted in the plot.
2 RS & 7.20 Bil Bil Full i) Water body area seen more -DO-
LR Vested or less 2.00 Acre
Plot
No.35 ii) Rest more or less 5.20 acre
of the plot seen filled by
"Hoglabon"
3 RS & 4.26 Bil Bil Full i) A tin set roofing house seen -DO-
LR Vested covering area-0.10 acre
Plot ii) Through the midedle of the
No.36 plot there is a pathway
which appears to be used
for long years and beside.
iii) Western side of the plot
there is Bill more or less
1.077 Acre
iv) Rest area of the plot more
or less 3 acre filled with
"Hoglabon"
v) Partly schematic plots have
also noted in the plot.
4 RS & 0.09 Debsth Debsth Full i) A Temple on the plot is there -DO-
LR an an Vested
Plot
No.39
5 RS & 0.14 Debsth Debsth Full i) Presently plot is filled with -DO-
LR an an Vested "Hoglabon
Plot
No.40
6 RS & 3.16 Bil Bil Full i) Partly more or less 0.30 -DO-
LR Vested acre of this plot is encircled
Plot with boundary wall made
No.41 of log and fencing wire.
ii) Rest area of the plot is
partly filled with
"Hoglabon"
7 RS & 3.49 Bil Bil Full i) The plot is filled with -DO-
LR Vested "Hoglabon"
Plot ii) Some schematic plots are
No.42 also seen in the plot.
8 RS & 15.00 Bil Bil Full i) The plot is completely filled -DO-
LR Raiyati with "Hoglabon"
Plot ii) Some schematic plots are
No.44 also seen.
9 RS & 0.61 Khal Khal Full i) The plot is completely filled -DO-
LR Vested with "Hoglabon"
Plot
No.45
10 RS & 18.46 Shali Shali Part i) The plot is filled with -DO-"
LR Vested "Hoglabon"
Plot Govt.
No.80 Land -
1.54 Acre
Raiyati
Land
16.92
Acre
15
15. The perusal of the Report shows that all the concerned plots fall within the East Kolkata Wetlands Management area which has also been declared a Ramsar Site.
16. The District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas has filed further affidavit dated 28.08.2024 and it is stated that the Pradhan, Kheyadaha-II Gram Panchayat vide his Memo dated 16.08.2024 was requested to submit Action Taken Report for removal of Hogla Bon/water hyacinth which has grown extensively at R.S. Plot No.18, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45 and 80, J.L. No.04, Mouza -
Mukundapur under Sonarpur Block and R.S. Plot No.375 of J.L. No.20, Mouza - Kalikapur which falls under East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority.
17. In this regard we find that the Executive Engineer, Metropolitan Drainage Division-II vide his letter dated 22.08.2024 has intimated that the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal has given in principle approval for removal of Hogla Bon and water hyacinth from the plot in question.
18. The Respondent No.15 and 16 are the heirs of the Respondent No.12, Madhusudan Mondal who is stated to have expired.
19. I.A. No.90 of 2024 has been filed by the Applicant Pralay Naskar, Somen Naskar, Smt. Daya Rani Naskar, Smt. Mira Rani Dua and Vikiram Naskar Applicants therein seeking to be impleaded in the present proceedings as Respondents.
20. In the I.A, it is stated that with respect to Dag No.80, there is a dispute between the said proposed Respondents and the Applicants of the Original Application and a Partition Suit is also pending between the parties. It is stated that the Partition Suit was filed before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd 16 Court at Alipore, district - South 24 Parganas in 1956 and subsequently, the case is re-numbered as Partition Suit No.121/1962. It is stated that in this suit, an interim order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge on 16.06.2006 directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.
21. The learned Counsel Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, appearing for the Applicants of I.A. No.90/2024/EZ submitted that the present Original Application may be kept in abeyance in view of the interim order passed by the Civil Court in the Partition Suit proceedings.
22. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Applicant of the Original Application has illegally got the character of the properties changed into wetlands during the pendency of the partition suit proceedings.
23. However, we find that there is nothing on record to show that if the Applicant of the Original Application had indeed illegally misrepresented to the authorities to change the character of the land and got it included in the Ramsar Site of the East Kolkata Wetlands whether any opposition to the same was filed by the Applicants of I.A. No.90 of 2024 before the concerned Civil Authorities / Revenue Authorities or whether any appeal has been filed against such change of character of land before the appropriate Civil/Revenue Authority.
24. I.A. No.98/2024 has been filed by Mr. Kamal Sapui, Mr. Tapan Kumar Sapui, Mr. Bimal Sapui, Smt. Laxmi alias Niva Bhuiya, Smt. Debi Mandal and Smt. Jharna Mandal Applicants therein taking the same pleas as in I.A. No.90/2024/EZ but we have already noted hereinabove that there is nothing on record to show that the character of the land was changed to show it to be a waterbody at 17 the behest of the Applicant of the Original Application and whether the Applicants of the two Interlocutory Applications No.90/2024/EZ and I.A. No.98/2024/EZ had filed any Opposition/Appeal to such alleged change of land character before the appropriate Civil/Revenue Authorities.
25. The categorical stand of the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority (EKWMA) in their affidavit is that the plots in question are part of the East Kolkata Wetlands which is a Ramsar Site.
26. The District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas in his affidavit has also taken a categorical stand that the plots in question are waterbody also known as "Heder Bheri" and is part of the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority which is a Ramsar Site.
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 496 Hinch Lal Tiwari -Versus- Kamala Devi And Others has held as under :-
" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests,k tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy enviroinment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated 25-2- 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on 12-3-1999. Consequently, Respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted to them, within six months from today. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have 18 constructed on the said land. If Respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period the official respondents i.e. Respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. The State including Respondents 11 to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the environment in regard to which this Court has repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must begin at the grass-root level if they were to become the nation's pride."
28. The judgment in (2001) 6 SCC 496 Hinch Lal Tiwari -Versus-
Kamala Devi And Others (Supra) has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 507 M. K. Balakrishnan (1) And Others -Versus- Union of India And Others in relation to conservation of wetlands.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 18 Supreme Court Cases 494 Mantri Techzone Private Limited -Versus- Forward Foundation And Others wherein directions issued and penalty imposed by the National Green Tribunal, challenged by the Project Proponent, were held to be valid and sustainable. The National Green Tribunal while hearing M.A. No.603 of 2015 and M.A. No.596 of 2015, had passed an order on 04.05.2016 giving general as well as specific directions.
These directions are quoted in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mantri Techzone Private Limited Versus Forward Foundation and Others (Supra) and read as under :-
"21. It is evident from the above orders that the Tribunal had granted opportunity to the parties to address it "limited question", as aforementioned. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an order dated 4-5-2016 as under :
(Forward Foundation case2, SCC OnLine NGT) "General conditions or directions 19
1. In view of our discussion in the main judgment, we are of the considered fixation of distance from waterbodies (lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt contradiction, legal infirmity and is without any scientific justification. The RMP 2015 provides 50 m from middle of the Rajkulewas as buffer zone in the case of primary Rajkalewas, 25 m in the case of secondary Rajkulewas and 15 m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in contradiction of 30 m in the case of lake which is certainly much bigger waterbody and its utility as a waterbody/wetland is well known certainly part of wet land. Thus, we direct that the distance in the case of Respondents 9 and 10 from Rajkulewas, waterbodies and wetlands shall be maintained as below -
(i) In the case of lakes, 75 m from the periphery of waterbody to be maintained as green belt and buffer zone for all the existing waterbodies i.e. lakes/wetlands.
(ii) 50 m from the edge of the primary
Rajkulewas.
(iii) 355 m from the edges in the case of
secondary Rajkulewas.
(iv) 25m from the edges in the case of tertiary Rajkulewas.
This buffer/green zone would be treated as no construction zone for all intent and purposes. This is absolutely essential for the purposes of sustainable development particularly keeping in mind the ecology and environment of the areas in question.
All the offending constructions raised by Respondents 9 and 10 of any kind including boundary wall shall be demolished which falls within such areas. Wherever necessary dredging operations are required, the same should be carried out to restore the original capacity of the water spread area and/or wetlands. Not only the existing construction would be removed but also none of these respondents - project proponent would be permitted to raise any construction in this zone.
20All authorities particularly Lake Development Authority shall carry out this operation in respect of all the waterbodies/lakes of Bangalore.
2. The capacity of the existing STPs to treat sewage is 729 MLD, whereas another 500 MLD sewage is proposed to be treated in 10 upcoming STPs. In this context, all the STPs operating in the area whether Government or privately owned, should meet the revised standards notified by CPCB/MoEF.
3. Bangalore City receives treated potable water of 1360 MLD from River Cauvery whereas the requirement is for another 750 MLD and the entire area falls in critical zone in terms of groundwater exploitation. Information reveals that only one million litre per month of STP treated water is used by builders for construction purposes. For this reason, the BWSSB issues partial NOC to various residential and commercial projects in respect of supply of potable water. In this context, following directions need to be issued:
(i) At the time of grant of EC, the water
requirement for the construction phase and
operation phase should be considered separately. Due consideration should also be given for identification of source of supply of water and this should be a prerequisite for grant of EC.
(ii) All the project proponents should necessarily use only treated sewage water for construction purpose and this should be reflected in EC as a condition for construction phase.
(iii) Wherever the quality of treated sewage water does not conform to the quality needed for construction, necessary upgradation in STP should be undertaken immediately.
Specific conditions/directions for Respondent 9 In addition to the above directions which should be equally part of EC condition in respect of Respondents 9 and 10, following specific conditions shall apply to Respondent 9:
(i) Reclaimed area of the lake to the extent of 3 ac 10 guntas in Survey No.43 should be restored to its original condition at the cost of 21 project proponent. The possession of this area should be restored by Respondent 9 to the authorities concerned immediately. In addition, a buffer zone of 75 m should be provided between the lake and the project area and this should be maintained as green area.
(ii) In the remaining area, where primary Rajkalewa is abutting the project area, 50 m buffer zone on the side of the project area from the edge of the Rajkalewa should be maintained as green belt.
(iii) Several irrigation canals or tertiary Rajkalewas taking off from the Agara tank were passing through the area of Respondent 9, and serve the dual purpose of irrigating paddy fields and disposal of surface run off (storm watrer drains) during rainy season. However on account of the activities of the project, these drains have been totally obliterated. For the purpose of proper disposal of storm runoff from the entire area falling between Agara Lake and Belandur Lane, Respondent 9 must provide required number of storm water drains based on proper hydrological study. These storm drains should have a buffer zone of 15 m on either bank maintained as green belt.
(iv) The cumulative quantity of earth excavated for the construction of project is around
4 lakhs cubic metres in the depth range of 0 to 9 m. This has created huge hillock like structure obstructing the natural flow pattern of surface runoff from Agara Lake side to Balendur Lake side or primary Rajkalewas. For this purpose, during construction phase garland drain should be constructed around the existing dumping site for safe disposal of runoff to the Rajkalewas. For the disposal of excavated material, a proper muck disposal plan duly approved by SEIAA shall be prepared. In any case the plan should ensure that no muck/sediment flows into Rajkalewas and/or Belandur Lake.
22(v) The kharab land identified by Revenue Department admeasuring 1 ac 2 guntas should be demarcated and maintained separately as green belt.
(vi) The entire green belt created under the directions of this Tribunal should not to be considered as part of green belt of the project as part of EC condition and will be over and above the green belt as indicated in the EC.
(vii) In view of the heavy traffic load in the adjoining Sarjapur Road, a proper study on the basis of traffic density, foot falls expected, etc., a proper plan needs to be prepared and the concept of service road exclusively for the project needs to be worked out and additional parking space created within the project area and incorporated as a part of the overall project layout, within a period of 3 months.
* * *
10. Though, at the time of hearing prior to passing of the judgment, we had heard the parties on all aspects but still we have provided rehearing to the parties on all issues with emphasis on imposition of environmental compensation including the quantum. Upon hearing, we are of the considered view that environmental compensation imposed upon Respondent 9 calls for no variation and Respondent 9 should be called upon to pay the said amount of Rs 117.35 crores determined under the judgment prior to commencement of any project activity at the site. Respondent 10 has not commenced any actual construction activity but has carried out various preparatory steps including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock at the premises in question and a site office.
Thus, considering cumulative effect on environment and ecology due to various breaches in that behalf by Respondent 10 and the fact that the remedial measures can more effectively be taken by Respondent 10, we reduce environmental compensation payable by Respondent 10 to Rs 13.5 crores (3% of the stated 23 project cost instead of 5% as imposed in the original judgment).
General directions
1. We direct SEIAA, Karnataka to issue amended order granting environmental clearance within four weeks from today incorporating all the conditions stated in this judgment and such other conditions as it may deem appropriate in light of this judgment and inspection note of the expert members. The project proponents would be permitted to commence activity only after issuance of amended environmental clearance order.
2. SEIAA Karnataka and MoEF shall ensure regular supervision and monitoring of the project and during the construction and even upon completion to ensure that activity is carried out strictly in accordance with the conditions of the order granting environmental clearance, this judgment, notification of 2006 and other laws in force.
3. The distances in respect of buffer zone specified in this judgment shall be made applicable to all the projects and all the authorities concerned are directed to incorporate such conditions in the projects to whom environmental clearance and other permissions are now granted not only around Belandur Lane, Rajkulewas, Agara Lake, but also all other lakes/wetlands in the city of Bangaluru.
4. We hereby direct the State of Krnataka to submit a proposal to MoEF for demarcating wetlands in terms of the Wetland Rules, 2010 as revised from time to time. Such proposal shall be submitted by the State within four weeks from today and MoEF shall consider the same in accordance with law and grant its approval or otherwise within four weeks thereafter. After such approval is granted by MoEF, the State would issue notification notifying such areas immediately thereafter in accordance with Rules and law.
5. Both Respondents 9 and 10 shall ensure that debris or any construction material that has been dumped into the Rajkulewas, or on their banks and on the buffer zone of wetlands should be removed within 24 four weeks from today. In the event they fail to do so, the same shall be removed by the Lake Development Authority along with the State Administration and recover charges thereof from the said respondents.
6. There is a serious discrepancy even in regard to the measurement of land as far as Respondent 9 is concerned. Admittedly the respondent has been allotted and is in possession of land admeasuring 63.94 ac, though environmental clearance has been granted for 2,92,636.03 sq m which is equivalent to 72.22 ac. For this reason alone, environmental clearance cannot be given effect to. While issuing the amended environmental clearance, SEIAA Karnataka shall take into consideration all these aspects and, if necessary, would require Respondent 9 to submit a fresh layout plant and the entire project may be revised in accordance with law.
7. Both the respondents (project proponents) shall submit an appropriate plan in view of the conditions imposed in this judgment and the amended environmental clearance that would be issued.
8. The amount of environmental compensation will be deposited prior to issuance of amended environmental clearance.
With the above directions, Original Application No.222 of 2014 and Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 596 of 2016 and 603 of 2016 are finally disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the Provisions under Section 33 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and held as under :-
"47. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, the Planning Act, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (the KMC Act); and the Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 (RMP). A Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of Schedule VII List I of the 25 Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over State legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specify buffer zones around specific lakes and waterbodies in contradiction with zoning regulations under these statutes or RMP."
31. Para 52, 53, 54 and 59 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal also may be referred to herein which read as under :-
"52. The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of the Committee report of August 2015, that the appellant had encroached 3 ac 10 guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundary wall has been raised around the said land. The Tribunal has also found that the project proponents have violated the Master Plan. They have not obtained the mandatory clearance from the Sensitive Zone Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka. It is also clear from the materials on record that there are several other violations by the project proponents. The Tribunal has discussed all these issues from para 52 onwards. It is also clear from the materials on record that there is a definite possibility of environment, ecology, lakes and wetland being adversely affected by these projects. That is why, the Tribunal has observed as under: (Forward Foundation case, SCC OnLine NGT para 72) "72. In light of the above scope of the project and records before the Tribunal and the defaults on the part of the project proponents, the cumulative adverse effects of the activities undertaken by the respondents before us can be summed up as under :
(1) The construction of both the projects had started prior to the grant to environmental clearance.
(2) The EIA Notification of 2006 requires that without grant of environmental clearance, no project can commence its activity. This restriction applies not only to operationalization of the project but even for the purposes of establishment.
(3) Revenue map images shows multiple Rajakaluves flowing through the project(s) in question. The images further show encroachment on Rajakaluves.
(4) Digital images of the land available on Google satellite images showing encroachment on two major Rajakaluves.26
(5) Google satellite images retrieved from Google archives clearly reflect two distinct features. Firstly, change in the wetland area between the period of 13-11-2000 and 23-
11-2010. Secondly, it reveals the excavation work carried out by Respondents 9 and 10 commenced prior to obtaining environmental clearance.
(6) Restriction in regard to extraction of groundwater was not strictly complied with as permission of Central Ground Water Authority was not obtained before construction. (7) The conditions with regard to the natural slopping pattern of the project site to remain unaltered and natural hydrology of the area to be maintained as it is, to ensure natural flow of storm water as well as in relation to lakes and other waterbodies within and/or at the vicinity of the project area to be protected and conserved. The inspection report by MoEF clearly notes that Conditions (xxxix) and (xl) in the environmental clearance of Respondent 9 cannot be complied with as it will necessarily result in some alteration of the natural slopping pattern of the project site and the natural hydrology of the area. It noted that the project area is located in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake and the project authorities have informed that they will take all precautionary measures to ensure that the lake will not be affected by project activities either during construction or operation phase."
53. In para 81, the Tribunal has observed as under: (Forward Foundation Case, SCC OnLine NGT para 81) "81. ... Another very important aspect which cannot be overlooked by the Tribunal is with regard to Respondents 9 and 10 carrying on their project activity fully knowing that they were incapable of or it was not possible for them to comply with Conditions (xxxix) and (xl) (or alike conditions) in the order granting the environmental clearance. This has even been noticed by MoEF in its monitoring report dated 14- 8-2013. These respondents never applied for variation or amendment of these conditions and continued with their construction activities. This renders these respondents entirely liable for environmental and ecological damage and the restoration and restitution thereof."
2754. In our view, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were available on record but also on the pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the Committee's report and the inspection note of the expert members. Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents are valid and sustainable and do not suffer from any perversity.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
59. We do not find any error in the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the objections taken by Respondents 9 and 10 do not satisfy the basic ingredients to attract the application of res judicata or constructive res judicata."
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.1904/2020 Mirza Abid Beg -Versus- State of U.P. & Ors. as in para 3 of its order dated 16.07.2024 has held as under :-
"We must record here with a great deal of emphasis that it is the paramount duty of the State not only to protect the ponds/lakes/water bodies in the State but also to ensure that ponds/lakes/water bodies, which have been illegally filled in, are restored. It is the Constitutional duty of the State to do so. The Committee appointed by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, will make a note of this obligation on the part of the State."
33. In Civil Appeal No.7607/2023 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Ashok Malik & Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to restoration of wetlands, observed as under :-
"We wonder how a city can become smart without protecting the water bodies/wetlands in the city and how cities will become smarter by making encroachments on the water bodies/wetlands".
34. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.02.2025 reads as under :-
28"SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Record of Proceedings Civil Appeal No. 7607/2023 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Ashok Malik & Ors. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and IA No.235750/2023-EX-PARTE STAY With C.A. No.7916/2023 (XVII) FOR ADMISSION and IA No.240733/2023-EX-PARTE STAY Date : 19-02-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Perused the order dated 1st December, 2023 which reads thus :-
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice, returnable on 29th January, 2024.
Learned Advocate-on-Record, who is on caveat, accepts and waives formal notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 .
For the time being, we are not staying the impugned order. However, we make it clear that no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants for non-compliance with the order.
We direct the appropriate Secretary of the State Government to file an affidavit indicating the extent to which the State can comply with the directions contained in the impugned orders and the time span within which the same are proposed to be complied with.
The order dated 13th December, 2021 passed in Original Application No.63 of 2021 is operating for the last two years. We, therefore, direct the State Government to file an affidavit reporting compliance with the directions issued under the said order. The affidavits shall be filed within a period of six weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavits, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter."29
Instead of filing an affidavit indicating the extent to which the State can comply with directions contained in the impugned orders and the time span within which the same are proposed to be complied with, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. T. Ravikanth, holding charge of Principal Secretary LSG, Jaipur, in which the stand is of defiance and not compliance. An additional affidavit has been filed by Mr. Deshal Dan, holding charge of Commissioner cum ACEO, Ajmer Smart City Limited. Both the affidavits indicate clear defiance on the part of the State of Rajasthan. Moreover, a direction was issued to the State Government to file an affidavit reporting compliance with order dated 13th December, 2021 in Original Application No.63 of 2021 and, even that compliance affidavit has not been filed.
The direction issued under the impugned order is for restoration of wetlands. The second affidavit is filed by Mr. Deshan Dan S/o Kushal Dan who was in-charge Commissioner of Ajmer Smart City Limited. We wonder how a city can become smart without protecting the water bodies/wetlands in the city and how cities will become smarter by making encroachments on the water bodies/wetlands.
In view of non-compliance with the order dated 1st December, 2023, before we consider of initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we direct the Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan to appear before the Court through video conferencing on Monday 17th March, 2025.
If the State of Rajasthan is seriously interested in purging the contempt, we expect the Chief Secretary to file his personal affidavit reporting compliance with at least some of the directions issued under the impugned judgment as well as under the order dated 13th December, 2021 passed by the National Green Tribunal.
Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan."
35. A further order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.03.2025 in the said Civil Appeal which reads as under :-
"SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Record of Proceedings Civil Appeal No. 7607/2023 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Ashok Malik & Ors. Respondent(s) 30 (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.235750/2023-EX-PARTE STAY With C.A. No.7916/2023 (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.240733/2023-EX-PARTE STAY Date : 17-03-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Before we consider the stand taken by the Chief Secretary in the compliance affidavit, we accept the statement made in the affidavit to relocate the structures inside the Seven wonders Park within a period of six months. In fact, the statement on oath clearly shows that even the State is aware that the structures were constructed on a lake because a prayer is made in the alternative to permit the structures to remain at the same place without disturbing the ecology of the lake or the environment in the area.
Accordingly, we grant time of six months to the State to remove the structures.
We also accept the assurance recorded in the affidavit that the entire Food Court shall be removed.
Before we consider the other parts of the affidavit, if the State wants to maintain the work done on the wetland or lake, the State should come out with a proposal to recreate the wetland in the same city of the adequate area.
To enable the State to come out with the proposal, list on 7th April, 2025. The other part of the affidavit will be dealt with on that day.
For the time being, the presence of the Chief Secretary is dispensed with."
36. In Civil Appeal No.5109/2019 Jitendra Singh -Versus- Ministry of Environment & Ors. where a challenge against allotment of local ponds to private industrialists had been dismissed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal the said order was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 31 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment dated 25.11.2019 has held as under :-
"19. There remains therefore no doubt that it is the responsibility of the respondents to ensure the protection and integrity of the environment, specially one which is a source for livelihood for rural population and life for local flora and fauna.
20. Protection of such village-commons is essential to safeguard the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of our Constitution. These common areas are the lifeline of village communities, and often sustain various chores and provide resources necessary for life. Waterbodies, specifically, are an important source of fishery and much needed potable water. Many areas of this country perennially face a water crisis and access to drinking water is woefully inadequate for most Indians. Allowing such invaluable community resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly illegal.
21. The Respondents' scheme of allowing destruction of existing water bodies and providing for replacements, exhibits a mechanical application of environmental protection. Although it might be possible to superficially replicate a waterbody elsewhere, however, there is no guarantee that the adverse effect of destroying the earlier one would be offset. Destroying the lake at Khasra Nos.552 and 490 for example, would kill the vegetation around it and would prevent seepage of groundwater which would affect the already low water- table in the area. The people living around the lake would be compelled to travel all the way to the alternative site, in this case allegedly almost 3 kms away. Many animals and marine organisms present in the earlier site would perish, and wouldn't resuscitate by merely filling a hole with water elsewhere. Further, the soil quality and other factors at the alternate site might not be conducive to growth of the same flora, and the local environment would be altered permanently. The respondents' reduction of the complex and cascading effects of extinguishing natural water-bodies into mere numbers and their attempt to justify the same through replacement by geographically larger artificial water-bodies, fails to capture the spirit of the Constitutional scheme and is, therefore, impermissible.
22. Hence, it is clear that schemes which extinguish local waterbodies albeit with alternatives, as provided in the 2016 Government Order by the State of UP, are violative of Constitutional principles and are liable to be struck down.32
23. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the NGT. The allotment of all water bodies (both ponds and canals), including Khasra Nos.552 and 490 to Respondent No.6, or any other similar third party in village Saini, tehsil Dadari, district Gautam Budh Nagar is held to be illegal and the same is hereby quashed. Since this Court has on 15.07.2019 already directed the parties to maintain status quo, Respondent Nos.1 to 5 shall restore, maintain and protect the subject-water bodies in village Saini. Respondents are further directed to remove all obstructions from the catchment area through which natural water accumulates in the village ponds, all within a period of three months.
37. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants of the I.As repeatedly submitted that in view of the injunction granted by the learned Civil Court in the Partition Suit, the present O.A. proceedings should not proceed and the Original Application was liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.
38. The submission of the learned Counsel is thoroughly misconceived.
39. We find that the pleas as raised by the Applicants of the I.A. No.90/2024/EZ and I.A. No.98/2024/EZ were also raised before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.A. No.8456 (W) of 2015 Ranjit Kumar Sapui -Versus- State of West Bengal & Ors. which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 which has already been extracted hereinabove. The Hon'ble Single Judge held that, Although the petitioner is a party to the Civil Suit as noted above, the Civil Suit is one for partition and has nothing to do with the process of conservation of a land covered under the Act of 2006. The scope and ambit of the Writ Petition is protection, preservation and 33 conservation of a wetland recognized to be so under the Act of 2006 by exercising power therein.
In fact, the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge with a categorical direction that, In such circumstances, W.P.A. No.8456 (W) of 2015 Ranjit Kumar Sapui -Versus- State of West Bengal & Ors. is disposed of by directing the authority to act in terms of the Act of 2006 and restore the wetland to its former shape.
40. The directions given by the Hon'ble Single Judge were challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench in Appeal and the Appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03.01.2019. It appears that the plea taken by the Applicants of I.A. No.90/2024/EZ and I.A. No.98/2024/EZ have been raised by the Applicants therein, only to circumvent the directions given by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.
41. However, having said that, we direct that if the Applicants of the I.A. No.90/2024/EZ and I.A. No.98/2024/EZ claiming to be in possession over the Plot No.80 of the plots in question, represent before the East Kolkata Wetlands Authority within fifteen days hereof, their claim shall be duly examined by the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority (EKWMA) without prejudice to the pendency of any suit proceedings or the pendency of the Partition Suit or any order passed therein and thereafter East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law giving the Applicants of the I.A. No.90/2024/EZ and I.A. No.98/2024/EZ an opportunity of being heard, within one month thereafter.
3442. The affidavits of the State Respondents show the land to be covered with vegetation and Hogla Bon. Needless to say the authorities shall take requisite steps for restoration of the land by removal of all vegetation and Hogla Bon which due to its growth has the natural consequence of causing eutrophication and destruction of the BOD level of the said waterbody. The East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority is directed to remove debris and construction material and restore the land in question into a waterbody as it originally was and as also directed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Let these directions be carried out within a period of six months and Compliance Report be filed by the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority (EKWMA) by 31.10.2025.
43. With the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application is disposed of.
44. I.A. No.90/2024/EZ and I.A. No.98/2024/EZ and other I.As if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
45. There shall be no order as to costs.
..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ............................................. Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM April 22, 2025, Original Application No.38/2024/EZ (I.A. No.90/2024/EZ & I.A. No.98/2024/EZ) SKB 35