National Green Tribunal
Mr Vijay Sawarkar vs Urban Development And Housing ... on 14 May, 2026
Item No.06
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.21/2024(CZ)
Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Applicant(s)
Vs.
Urban Development and Housing
Department & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 14.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Ms. Mishika Bhatnagar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for
State of Madhya Pradesh
Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for MPPCB
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for R-3
Mr. Shivansh Soni, Adv. for R-7
Mr. Prashant Sthapak, Adv. for R-6
ORDER
1. The issues raised in this application are compliance of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and consent conditions as required by the State PCB.
2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Applicant are that the Applicant is a citizen of India and is resident of Betul. The Respondent No.07 is carrying a residential project under construction in the area of Municipal Council Multai District Betul, Dream Land City, which is Khasra No. 3/1, to 3/12, and Khasra 5/1 to 5/2, 6/1 to 6/12 area, area 19.950 Mauza. The said project was initiated in the year 2009.
3. That in order to mitigate the potential adverse effects of extensive construction activities on the environment, the Government has 1 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
mandatory to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impact on the surrounding area. This assessment should in compliance to the Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14/09/2006, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and shall encompass various crucial factors, such as air and water quality and pollution levels, effective management of solid and wet waste, and the carrying capacity of the designated area.
4. The overarching objective of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification is to ensure that construction activities are not initiated until a thorough compilation of scientific evidence has been undertaken. This scientific inquiry is aimed at gaining a profound understanding of the genuine environmental repercussions associated with a given project.
5. Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14/09/2006, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India Upon meticulous evaluation and consideration of all pertinent factors, obtaining environmental clearance becomes mandatory. This clearance is in accordance with the provisions outlined in Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14/09/2006, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. This regulatory measure is crucial in ensuring that construction endeavors align with sustainable environmental practices and adhere to stringent guidelines before commencement.
6. However, M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers, Yewatmal which is carrying a residential project under the name and style "Dream Land City" covering more than 20000 Sq. Mtr. Built up area since the year 2009 has not taken any Environment Clearance till present date and still the authorities have not taken any action against M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers, Yewatmal and are allowing M/s Ramdev Baba 2 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
Varco Developers, Yewatmal to carry the construction and further argued that the Applicant has obtained a Status Report dated 24.11.2022 under the Right to Information Act, which starkly highlights a blatant disregard for environmental norms in the specified area. The report explicitly reveals that in the "Dream Land City"
development, essential infrastructure components such as a sewer line, sewage treatment plant (STP), and a rainwater harvesting system are conspicuously absent.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant are that the residential project encompasses approximately 792 plots and houses.
The glaring absence of critical environmental infrastructure, namely the sewer line, STP plant, and rainwater harvesting system, as outlined in the Status Report, cannot be overlooked. This deficiency raises serious concerns about the potential adverse impact of the project on the environment, given the vital role these components play in sustainable and environmentally responsible urban development. The absence of such crucial systems underscores the urgency and necessity of addressing these deficiencies to ensure the project aligns with established environmental standards and practices and the problem arising out of development project without proper environmental assessment, would lead to irreparable damage to the environment and the ecological balance of its surrounding. Therefore, there is dire need to restrain the Respondents from carrying any construction over the said site till the time environment assessment of the said site is not done and compliance thereafter is not completed.
8. Notices were issued to the Respondents and in compliance there of the reply has been filed. During the course of hearing a Joint Committee 3 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The report has been filed.
9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. The first Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows:-
1.0 Observation made during field visit:
The committee visited the site on 3rd April 2024 to account the factual status.
1. The "Dream land City" site is located at Multai town of Betul at 21.7925190,78.242300° geo-location. As per the Town & Country Planning, Betul permission dated 30.12.2008 for the land development, the site is being developed by M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developer, Yawatmal in total area of 19.95 Hectare. The area lies in Khasra No. 3/1 to 3/12, 5/1, 5/2, 6/1 to 6/12. The Land conversion permission dated 21.1.2009 issued by SDM, Multai. The development work started in year 2009.
2. The latest development report submitted on 24.11.2022 to SDM, Multai by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Multai revealed that the Khasra no. on which it is located are not matching with the Khasra No. stated in T&CP permission viz.
Khasra no. 3/13 & 6/13 were not recorded in T&CP permission. On enquiring on this miss-match, no document was furnished by CMO, Multai. Secondly, NO sewer line, Sewage Treatment Plant, Rain water harvesting is developed. Along with these, repair of the bitumen road, Pre-cast RCC drain is required.
3. Based on the 70% progress on the development works as reported vide report dated 24.11.2022, nearly 50% of the mortgage plots i.e. 94 out of total 198 were released in favour of the developer vide letter dated 13.9.2023.
4. The electrification work of Dream Land City Colony, Multai completed on 9.5.2022 and was charged on 23.8.2022.
5. The committee observed that construction on very few plots i.e. 100 is completed by individual owners out of total 792 plots. Majorly all the constructed houses were 2 or 3 storeys. 4 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
6. The domestic effluent was found accumulated behind the houses. It was informed by the applicant that septic tanks/soak pits were constructed by individual owners.
7. A pre-cast RCC open drain was provided by the developer stating it as a drain. The drain was found clogged and damaged at many places. In place of such open drain for carrying sewer, a conduit pipeline is required to be developed.
8. There was a borewell & open well. As per the supervisor of the site, HDPE pipeline is laid to supply the water to households. The same pipeline was observed by the committee at few places. There is a over head water tank also provided but as informed by the applicant and other residents of the colony, water is not yet supplied by the developer from the above sources and they are depended on the water tankers for daily water requirement. The committee observed that the over head tank was also dried up that signify that water is not being supplied to the households by the developer.
9. The road network is developed in the area, however repairment of the roads is required to be done. The plantation was found inadequate.
2.0 Related Court matter:
On the same issue related to failure of the colonizer to carry out development works to provide civic facilities and infrastructure in the colony i.e. Dream Land City.
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur) vide its order dated 20.02.2024 in W.P. No. 28972 of 2022 disposed of the matter by ordering as below under Para 13:
13. Considering the aforesaid factual situation, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: -
i. The respondent No.5 shall complete the internal development works and provision of civic facilities in the colony within a period of six months from today.
ii. Any further mortgage/hypothecated plots shall be released to the respondent No.5 only after the respondent No.2 - Collector records his personal satisfaction that the entire development works in the colony have been completed.
iii. In case respondent No.5 fails to complete the remaining development works in the colony, then the respondent No.2 being 5 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
the competent authority shall be well advised to take consequential action under Rule 20 of the Rules of 2021 and ensure completion of development works in the manner provided under Rule 20 of Rules of 2021.
3.0 Action Taken by Municipal Council, Multai
1. A notice was issued to M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers on 28.03.2024 stating that there is "ZERO" progress in the development work on 22.03.2024 since the 50% mortgage plots were released on 13.9.2023.
4.0 The status of Environmental Clearance:
➤ The M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers has not obtained Environmental Clearance stating that it is involved in land development only not in construction of the houses in this Dream Land City.
➤ As per the layout plan of the Dream Land City following is stated:
➤ Total Net Scheme area: 198732.00 SQMT ➤ Total Plottable area: 112367.08 SQMT ➤ Commercial area: 2352.06 SQMT ➤ Community Hall area: 948.49 SQMT ➤ School area: 2161.53 SQMT ➤Informal area: 4850.64 SQMT And area identified for Park, road etc. If all the constructable area is summed up i.e. plottable, commercial, community hall, school area & informal area than the total area is 1,22,679.8 SQMT. As the M/s Shri Ramdev Baba Varco Developers is a land developer for this project and not involved in the construction of the individual houses. The assessment of the total built-up area was not possible. However, during the visit committee has observed that majorly all the houses constructed by the individual owners were 2 or 3 storeys. This suggest that on completion of all the construction work on the plots, the built-up area will lie in the purview of the Environmental Clearance (EC) applicability under Category 8(b) "Townships and Area Development Projects" (Covering an area ≥ 50 ha and or built- up area 21,50,000 sq. mtrs) of EIA notification, 2006.6
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
Looking into the holistic view and ensuring sustainability, the committee is opined that as the developer is selling the plots to individual buyers and registry is being done between developer and land purchaser. It is the liability of the land developer to seek environmental clearance if the total built-up area is going to be higher than the 1,50,000 SQMT. And Town & Country Planning department needs to fix the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in such cases where land developer is only developing the site and selling the plots to avoid EC applicability.
Considering above, this matter may be taken under violation case under EIA Notification, 2006 provisions and dealt as per the MoEFCC O.M. 7th July 2021. However, it is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Office Memoranda dated 7th July 2021 in W.P. NO. 1394/2023 titled Vanashakti Vs Union of India vide order dated 2.1.2024.
5.0 The status of Consent to Operate (CTO):
The M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers has not obtained Consent to Operate from Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB).
As per the MPPCB notification dated 10.12.2021, such type of project w.r.t. Built-up area or land development area are categorized under Orange Category at S.No. 06 as:-
a) Building and construction project built up area > 5000 sq.m < 20,000 sq.m.,
b) land/area development area projects < 50 Ha. and > 05 Ha and waste water <100KLD.
6.0 Recommendations:
W.r.t. the field observations and document furnished by the district authority following is recommended by the committee:
i. M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers needs to seek Environmental Clearance as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. Appropriate action may be initiated by the concern authorities as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. ii. M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers shall obtain Consent to Operate (CTO) under Orange Category from MPPCB. iii. M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers shall develop the conduit pipeline to carry domestic sewage and develop sewage treatment plant and ensure treatment upto the prescribed norms.7
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
iv. M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers shall increase the green belt area upto maximum upto 33%.
v. MPPCB may assess the environmental compensation as the project is not having Consent to Operate. And also take necessary action as per the relevant environmental acts.
11. It is to be noted that aggrieved by the order of Collector the Writ Petition No. 28972 of 2022 was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and vide order dated 20th February, 2024 the writ petition was disposed of as follows:-
"1. This present petition has been filed on the allegation that a colony has been developed by respondent No.5 at Multai, District Betul, which is called "Dreamland City".
2. It is submitted that the permission for development of the said colony was granted by the authorities, but as the respondent no.5 colonizer failed to carry out development works to provide civic facilities and infrastructure in the colony, an order was passed by the Collector, District Betul. It further submitted that action be taken against the Respondent no.5 - Colonizer and FIR be ordered to be registered against him and further that development works of colony be completed within three months and also that the management of mortgaged/hypothecated plots be given to some State authority to complete the balance development works in the colony.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the colony is having about 800 plots and 198 plots were hypothecated with the Municipal Council to ensure completion of development works in the colony and provision of civic facilities. Learned counsel of the petitioner by referring to order has submitted that colonizer has failed to carry out development works.
4. The case is having voluminous pleadings. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 initially filed a reply dated 11.05.2023 and submitted that the matter is also pending 8 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority "RERA" and also that the order has already been modified vide order dated 17.11.2015.
5. During the pendency of the present petition, the Additional Collector, District Betul passed an order dated 28.08.2023 releasing 99 out of 198 plots, which were hypothecated in favour of Municipal Council.
6. This Court by order dated 06.12.2023 directed the Collector to file affidavit that under which provision of law the mortgaged plots have been released, when development work of the colony is not yet complete. In compliance of the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the Collector vide document dated 14.12.2023. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that the plots have been released in terms of Rule 18 of M.P. Nagarpalika Colony Development Rules, 2021.
7. Upon going through the rival pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record, it is clear that the colony which is being developed by respondent No.5 is still short of completion of development works. The stand taken by the State is that a joint inspection was carried out on 24.11.2022 and report was prepared. As per the said report it was found that 70% development work of the colony is complete. Thus, the authority decided to release 50% of the hypothecated plots.
8. It is common ground that during the pendency of the present petition, the State Government has framed rules known as M.P. Nagarpalika Colony Development Rules, 2021 (for short referred to as "Rules of 2021"). As per the 4 said Rules of 2021, Rule 18 provides release of mortgage or hypothecated plots to the extent of 50% on completion of 50% work, remaining additional 25% plots on completion of 75% work and release of remaining 25% plots on completion of 100% work. It is further provided in Rule 17 that it is necessary to complete the development works within a period of 5 years, which can be extended by the competent authority by additional one year.
9 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
9. It is further submitted that upon the colonizer failing to complete the development work, even during the extended period, then action under Rule 20 shall be taken against the colonizer. The said action includes disposal of mortgage properties and to utilize the funds recovered therefrom to complete the development work in the colony. Rule 20 further authorizes the competent authority to recover balance amount, if even upon disposal of mortgage/hypothecated plots, sufficient amount is not recovered from the colonizer to complete the development work.
10. Upon perusal of the order dated 28,08.2023 by which 50% plots have been released, it is seen that the Additional Collector has granted further six months time to complete the development works and this period of six months would be reckoned from the date of release of 50% plots. It is further mentioned in the said order that if the colonizer fails to complete the development work within six months, then action under said Rule 20 shall be taken against the colonizer. It is verbally submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 that they would certainly complete the remaining works within a period of six months.
11. The object and purpose of the present petition is to get the development works in the colony completed so that the residents can get proper civic facilities and habitable conditions in the colony. The joint inspection report dated 24.11.2022 indicates that 70% works were completed till that time.
12. The development work in the colony appears to be going on since the year 2009 and a considerably long time has elapsed since than.
13. Considering the aforesaid factual situation, the petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
(i) The respondent No.5 shall complete the internal development works and provision of civic facilities in the colony within a period of six months from today.10
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
(ii) Any further mortgage/hypothecated plots shall be released to the respondent No.5 only after the respondent No.2 - Collector records his personal satisfaction that the entire development works in the colony have been completed.
(iii) In case respondent No.5 fails to complete the remaining development works in the colony, then the respondent No.2 being the competent authority shall be well advised to take consequential action under Rule 20 of the Rules of 2021 and ensure completion of development works in the manner provided under Rule 20 of Rules of 2021.
14. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of."
12. The submission of the Respondent/Project Proponent are that Hon'ble the High Court has directed only to develop the internal work and provision of seek facilities in the colony within a time frame.
13. Learned Counsel for the State PCB has submitted that the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change issued a standard operating Procedure on 07th July, 2021 for identification and handling of violations cases under EIA Notification, 2006. In compliance of the order of NGT Appeal No.34 of 2020 (WZ) and SoP was challenged before the High Court of Madras and later on it was again challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WPC No.1394 of 2023 titled Vanashakti Vs. Union of India & Ors and that has been stayed, which was communicated to the authorities concerned.
14. During the proceedings vide order dated 08th April, 2024, the Committee was further directed to submit the action taken report and the same has been filed as follows:-
1.0 Action taken by the authorities:11
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
➤ Municipal Council, Multai, Betul i. Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Multai vide its letter dated 2.4.2024, directed Deputy-Registrar, Multai to impose immediate prohibition on the registry of the mortgage plots of the Dreamland City Colony.
ii. CMO, Multai vide its letter dated 5.5.2024, directed M/s Shri Ramdev Baba Varco Developers, Yawatmal to complete the pending development works within 6 months in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 20.2.2024 in Writ Petition/28972/2022.
iii. CMO, Multai vide its letter dated 21.6.2024, directed Deputy- Registrar, Multai to submit the information on illegal construction on the govt. land by the Dream land city colony.
➤ Madhaya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB), Chindwara i. MPPCB, Regional Officer, Chindwara vide letter dated 16.5.2024 communicated M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Development regarding the reported violation under Water (P & CP), 1974 and Air (P & CP) Act, 1981 and put immediate prohibition was imposed on the sale of the plots till the final judgement of Hon'ble NGT.
➤ Assessment of the Environment compensation (EC) The project proponent i.e. M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Development has not developed sewer network & sewage treatment plant to cater the present & future need of collection &treatment of the sewage probable to generate on occupancy on the total 792 plots. However presently on about 100 plots construction is completed by the individual buyers.
➤Environment Compensation for Discharge of
Untreated/Partially Treated Sewage by Concerned
Individual/ Authority:
Following formula was considered for assessing the EC based on the gap in sewage treatment capacity, conveyance system, O&M cost and environmental externality.
12 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
EC (Lacs Rs.)= [17.5/Total Sewage Generation -Installed Treatment Capacity)+ 55.5/Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity)] + 0.2(Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity) x N+ Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) XN Where;
➤ N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority.
(NOTE: As till date no formal direction issued by MPPCB to the Project Proponent; committee opined to take the first NGT order date i.e. 8.2.2024 as first day.) ➤ Quantity of Sewage is in MLD The committee after study of the guidelines and order draw out the following parameters for assessment of the environment compensation:
1. Water consumption per day
2. Total Sewage Generation
3. Installed Treatment Capacity
4. Operational Capacity of STP
5.N- Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC
6. Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality Since the Project Proponent did not obtained consent from MPPCB hence the requisite data/documents or the information for assessment of the environment compensation based on above parameters are not available. Also, the water is being supplied through borewell that too doesn't have water meter. Considering the above, following were assumed:
i. Daily per capita water supply 135 LPCD (Ref. Handbook of Service level benchmarking, Ministry of Urban Development, Gol) ii. Sewage generation About 80% of the water supply i.e. 108 Ltr say 100 Ltrs (Ref. CPHEEO Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment) iii. Household size (persons)-05 13 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
(Ref. National Family health survey (NFHS)-3 report, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India) iv. Total number of occupants (if occupancy happen on all the 792 plots)-3960 So, following are the values considered for calculation:
➤ Water consumption per day: 0.53 MLD ➤ Total Sewage Generation (on total occupancy of 3960 persons):
0.39 MLD ➤Sewage generation (current occupancy-500 households):0.05MLD ➤ Installed Treatment Capacity: NIL (say ZERO) Operational Capacity of STP: NIL (say ZERO) ➤ N= Number of days (Date of Hon'ble NGT 1st order i.e. 8.2.2024 to date of 2nd order of Hon'ble Tribunal where direction for EC assessment were given i.e. 8.4.2024): 61 days ➤ Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality: As per the guidelines CPCB for calculation of environmental compensation for "Discharge of Untreated/Partially Treated Sewage by Concerned Individual/Authority and the order dated 21/09/2020 the Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality is taken as minimum 0.05 and maximum 0.10 for sewage upto 200 MLD. Hence for calculation of the environmental compensation Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality is taken as maximum i.e: Rs. 0.1 Lacs/day.
EC (Lacs Rs.)= [17.5(Total Sewage Generation -Installed Treatment Capacity)+ 55.5/Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity)]+ 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) x N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality x (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) X N EC (Lacs Rs.) [17.5(0.39-0)+55.5(0.39-0)]+0.2(0.05-
0)*61+0.1X(0.39-0)*61 EC (Lacs Rs. )= [6.825 + 21.645 + 0.61 + 2.379] EC (Lacs Rs. l = 31.459 Lacs 2.0 Recommendations:14
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
1. To impose environment compensation of Rs. 31.459 Lacs on M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers, Yawatmal for not establishing sewage network and treatment plant.
2. District Collector shall ensure the prohibition on the sale of the plots till the development works completed by the developer.
15. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (MPSEIAA) was directed to submit the reply and in compliance thereof the MPSEIAA has submitted that the report by the SEIAA is based on the comprehensive assessment of the document submitted by the Project Proponent through the Parivesh portal and by technical evaluation carried out by the State Expert Appraisal Committee, whose recommendations are then reviewed by the SEIAA. In this case nothing was uploaded on the website since the land area was less than 50 hectare or 1,50,000 sq. meter for which Environmental Clearance is not required.
16. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.06/Project Proponent are that at the outset, the entire case as set forth by the Applicant, as well as the findings of the State Department against Respondent No. 6, are primarily based on the alleged failure to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) as mandated under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006. However, the said notification does not apply to the present project of Respondent No. 7. As per the categorization and project scope defined under the EIA Notification, 2006, the requirement of EC for Township and Area Development projects is applicable only if the total project area exceeds 50 hectares or if the built up area surpasses 1,50,000 square meters (Category 8(b).
17. The language used in Section 14 of the act states that the Applicant has to prefer an original application within 6 months from the date of 15 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
action first accrued and evidently it is applicant own case that it obtained the alleged information on 24.11.2022. Thus, the instant original application ought to have been filed within 6 months from 24.11.2022 whereas the same has been preferred on 30.01.2024, which makes the instant original application barred by limitation. Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 is produced for convenience of the Tribunal:
"Section 14 :: Tribunal to settle disputes. -
(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in subsection (1) and settle such disputes and pass order ihereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
18. It is further argued that a thorough examination of the inspection report and layout plan sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department clearly establishes that the total project area is merely 19.829 hectares, and the built-up area is significantly below 1,50,000 square meters. Hence, the project does not meet the threshold criteria for mandating an EC. Furthermore, the construction of individual buildings within the project is being undertaken by respective plot owners, and the Respondent's role is confined strictly to land development. In such a scenario, there exists no legal obligation for the 16 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
Respondent to obtain an EC, and that the inspection of the project site was conducted in an ex parte manner, without providing any prior notice or intimation to the Respondent or its authorized representatives. Neither the Director nor the staff of the Respondent were given an opportunity to present their case during the inspection, which amounts to a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and due process. Such an arbitrary and unilateral approach renders the findings of the inspection report unreliable and legally unsustainable.
19. The Applicant has placed reliance on the MP Pollution Control Board Circular dated 10.12.2021, which is derived from the categorization circulars dated 17.12.2016 and 15.06.2017. However, it is submitted that these circulars are entirely inapplicable to the present project, as the project dates back to 2009, well before the issuance of the said circulars. The principle of non-retrospective application of law dictates that these circulars cannot be enforced against the present project, and any attempt to do so would be legally untenable. One of the findings against the Respondent is the alleged mismatch of Khasra numbers in the Town & Country Planning (T&CP) records. Specifically, it is alleged that Khasra Nos. 3/12 and 6/13 were not recorded in the T&CP permission. However, it is crucial to highlight that the coloured map relied upon to make this assertion is factually incorrect and resulted from an inadvertent error by the staff of the Respondent. The Respondent has taken corrective measures and has already purchased back the plots mentioned in the map to eliminate any potential discrepancies. Additionally, the correct and duly approved layout plan has been placed on record.
17 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
20. With regard to the environmental compensation amounting to INR 31.459 lakhs, it is submitted that the basis for this calculation is flawed. The sewage lines, electrification work, and other essential infrastructure development have already been completed by Respondent No. 6. Therefore, any assessment attributing an environmental compensation liability on the Respondent is erroneous and warrants revisitation in light of the actual status of compliance. A perusal of the Joint Committee Report reveals that the same has been prepared in a highly prejudicial manner, ignoring material facts and essential legal parameters. The report has failed to take into account fundamental aspects such as the total project area, built-up area, applicability of the EIA notification, and the nature of the project itself. status of compliance. Given these substantial defects, it is imperative that the report undergoes a comprehensive review before it is relied upon for any further action.
21. The contentions of the Project Proponent are that the Applicant has misinterpreted the directions of the Hon'ble High Court regarding the completion of the project. The reference in the court order pertains only to the completion of essential roads and related infrastructure, which have already been fully constructed by the Respondent. Thus, any assertion regarding non-compliance with the court's directives is misleading and factually incorrect.
22. It is further argued that the impugned project "Dream land" cannot be construed to fall under the category of a "building and construction project", and is a Townships and Area Development projects, with specific area provided in order to have EC mandate. The perusal of the EIA Notification, and the Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government from time to time, would reveal that there is no stipulation 18 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
with respect to any retrospective application or inclusion of Townships and Area Development project for EC, Consent to operate or establish even if the size limit is less, even otherwise, the conditions and stipulations cannot be imposed for a project retrospectively.
23. The submission and argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 are that the application is time barred and further that the plotted area is approximately 19.829 hectare and the built up area is significantly below 1,50,000 sq. meter hence, the project does not meet the threshold criteria for mandating an Environmental Clearance and further that circular dated 10.12.2021, which is derived from the categorization circular dated 17.12.2016 and 15.06.2017 are not applicable to the present project as the project takes back to 2009 and the circular is not applicable retrospectively.
24. It is further argued that one of the findings against the Respondent is the alleged mismatch of Khasra numbers in the Town & Country Planning (T & CP) records. Specifically, it is alleged that Khasra Nos. 3/12 and 6/13 were not recorded in the T &CP permission. However, it is crucial to highlight that the coloured map relied upon to make this assertion is factually incorrect and resulted from an inadvertent error by the staff of the Respondent. The Respondent has taken corrective measures and has already purchased back the plots mentioned in the map to eliminate any potential discrepancies. Additionally, the correct and duly approved layout plan has been placed on record as Annexure A/1 and further that it is a township project and the calculation of Environmental Clearance for the built-up project, which is on assumption that such number of buildings are constructed upto imagined number of storyes then in that case the built up area may be assumed as such. This is total imaginary by the authorities concerned 19 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
actually the Project Proponent has not built up any project because it is simply plotted project.
25. Relying on Graminee Environment Development Foundation v. Balaji Infrastructure Ltd., 2017 SCC Online NGT 1098 and Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale v. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online NGT 5096; It is argued that the application is time barred.
26. It is further argued that the requirement of consent under the WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 (the "Water Act") is based on a notification dated 10.12.2021, whereas the township in question predates the same having been set-up 10 years prior. Even otherwise, the Delhi High Court in Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Splendor Landbase Ltd., 2012 SCC Online Del 400 has categorically held that residential projects do not attract the provisions of the Water Act. Hence, the recommendation of EDC by the Joint Committee is without statutory basis and the contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody, (2025) 4 SCC
150.
27. It is further argued that project was initiated in 2008-2009 and this application has been filed after 14 years and in light of Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale v. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online NGT 5096, it was held that the application is time barred and not maintainable. The relevant portion is quoted below:-
"18. According to the Applicant in Original Application, as per his own pleadings which are stated in para no. 40, it is clear that construction of the project by the Project Proponent was started in the year 2011 and continued till 19.05.2018. He states that he had obtained information through online search and under RTI from 2017 to 18.05.2018. Thereafter, he had sent legal notice through Counsel on 19.05.2019. According to him, the SEIAA had issued first Show Cause Notice on 15.06.2019. Therefore, that 20 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
date should be taken to be the date of cause of action, which first arose.
19. We are not inclined to accept this argument because according to his pleading, he had full knowledge in the year 2011 itself when the construction had started. The pretext of having come to know about this project being constructed through RTI on a later date as stated above appears to be only in order to bring the present Original Application within limitation period. We agree with the learned Counsel for the Project Proponent (PP) that it is very easy for any person to use RTI to seek information for any project on any date chosen by him. We are of the considered opinion that such kind of practice cannot be allowed. We are not inclined to accept the argument made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant in Original Application and are convinced with the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 11/Project Proponent. We find that this Original Application is time barred, hence this Original Application stands dismissed as time barred."
28. With regard to the requirement of the Environmental Clearance, it is argued that in terms of Entry 8(b) to the Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006, an area development project/township is required to obtain an EC only if it exceeds the following thresholds:
a. The total area covered is more than 50 Ha.
b. The built-up area of more than 1,50,000 sq. mts.
29. In the instant case, the subject project does not meet the said threshold since: a. The total area in terms of the approved layout plan is 19.87 Ha., b. The total built-up area is 1,22,679.8 sq. mts.
30. This has, in fact, been noted by the Joint Committee in its first report.
The same has been reproduced below for ease of reference:
"As per the layout plan of the Dream Land City following is stated:
Total Net Scheme area: 198732.00 SOMT If all the constructable area is summed up i.e. plottable, commercial, community hall, school area & informal area than the total area is 1,22.679.8 SOMT. As the M/s Shri Ramdev Baba 21 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
Varco Developers is a land developer for this project and not involved in the construction of the individual houses. The assessment of the total built-up area was not possible. However, during the visit committee has observed that majorly all the houses constructed by the individual owners were 2 or 3 storeys. This suggest that on completion of all the construction work on the plots, the built-up area will lie in the purview of the Environmental Clearance (EC) applicability under Category 8(b) "Townships and Area Development Projects" {Covering an area ≥ 50 ha and or built-
up area ≥1,50,000 sq. mtrs) of EIA notification, 2006"
31. Pertinently, the Joint Committee has acknowledged that the total area of the project is less than 50 Ha. and that the total built-up area was less than 1,50,000 sq. mts. However, curiously, it has thereafter proceeded to project on a notional basis that there was a possibility that the total built-up area would exceed 1,50,000 sq. mts., and it is on this basis that it concluded that the Project Proponent was required to obtain an EC. It is sufficient to say that this notional computation is dehors the EIA Notification, and in fact demonstrates that the Project Proponent did not exceed the thresholds to obtain an EC.
32. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Chief Municipal Officer, Multai are that the permissions for development of the residential township were granted by the office of Sub Divisional officer, Multai in the year 2009. The said project was supposed to be completed in specified period as per provision but the project delayed and grievances of various persons were raised. Upon incomplete development work the office of Respondent issued various notices in the year 2024 and thereafter a joint committee constituted by the Collector Betul, who has visited the site and reviewed the documents and accordingly an action 22 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
was initiated and detailed order for Auctioning of mortgaged property of the said Residential township and complete the development work with the money received from the proceed of Auction, through the order passed on dated 29.08.2024 and thereafter District Collector has passed an order transferring the open land in favour of the municipality so as to develop and maintain the township according to rules and CMO has issued tender auctioning mortgaged properties of the Respondent/Project Proponent vide letter dated 07/10/2024, which has been challenged before Hon'ble the High Court by means of filing a Writ Petition No. 32848 of 2024, where Hon'ble the High Court has passed an order dated 23.10.2024 as follows:-
"Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been condemned unheard. No notice was given and order was passed against him. His rights of natural justice has flagrantly been violated.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Caveator submitted that he is not made party in the case. Direction may be issued in making him party. He will file appropriate reply.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State prays for time to file reply.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, returnable within four weeks.
Till the next date of hearing, orders dated 29.08.2024 and 07.10.2024 shall remain stayed.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is directed to implead Caveator as party/respondent in the case within seven days.
List the matter in week commencing 25.11.2024."
33. We have also examined the order passed by the Collector dated 29.08.2024 which has been filed by the Municipal Corporation and the land in question has been taken into custody by the Nagar Palika.
34. Learned Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh has argued that, Respondent No. 7, namely M/s Ramdev Baba Varco Developers, 23 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
Dreamland City, was undertaking development of a 236 residential township in Bhagat Singh Ward over land bearing Khasra Nos. 3/13 and 6/13, admeasuring a total area of 19.829 hectares. The answering Respondent was duly authorized by the District Collector to verify the said development and ascertain any violations, if any. In pursuance thereof, a detailed inspection was conducted jointly with the Sub- Divisional Officer, Multai, along with the officers of the office of the Municipal Corporation, Multai, and a comprehensive inspection report was prepared and submitted vide letter dated 24.11.2022.
35. It is an admitted position that approximately 70% of the internal development work had been completed by the Project Proponent, who has also placed on record the requisite permission obtained from the Electricity Department. Considering the prevailing ground situation of the said residential project, the Committee also made its recommendations accordingly.
36. The requisite permissions for development of the residential township were granted by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Multai, in the year 2009. The project was required to be completed within the stipulated period as per the applicable provisions; however, due to delay in execution, grievances were raised by various affected persons. Furthermore, upon noticing the incomplete development work, the office of the Municipality issued several notices in the year 2024.
37. A Joint Committee was constituted by the Collector, Betul, which inspected the site, examined the relevant records, and consequent thereto, appropriate action was initiated. A detailed order for auction of the mortgaged property of the said residential township for the purpose of completing the remaining development work from the proceeds of the 24 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
auction was passed by the Collector, Multai vide order dated 29.08.2024.
38. It is further submitted that the District Collector has also passed an order directing the transfer of the open land in favour of the Municipality, so as to ensure proper development and maintenance of the residential township. In compliance with the order passed by the District Collector, the office of the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) issued a tender for auction of the mortgaged properties of the Respondent- Project Proponent vide letter dated 07.10.2024. The order passed by the District Collector, Multai dated 29.08.2024, as well as the auction notice issued by the Municipality dated 07.10.2024, have been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in "Writ Petition No. 32848/2024, titled Shri Ramdev Baba Varco Developers Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others".
39. It is further argued that, the Town and Country Planning, Betul has issued permission for development vide permission no. न.ग्रा.नन./LP/4/12/08 dated 30.12.2008. The permission was signed by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Betul and further submitted that, pursuant to the permission granted by the T & CP the Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Multai has issued the permission for development of the colony vide letter no. 344/2008-09 dated 21.05.2009.
40. It is further argued that the District Magistrate has already directed the Municipal Council to sell out the mortgaged plots and finish the incomplete development work and further that the Chief Municipal Officer, Multai have to recover prescribed fee/charges of development permission in terms of rule 17 of notification No. 29 dated 13.01.2022 and release 50 per cent of the plot for sale.
25 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
41. The issues of solid as well as liquid waste management are being monitored by this Tribunal as per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2 order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India & Ors., (with regard to solid waste management) and order dated 22.02.2017 in W.P. No. 375/2012, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 326, Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India, with regard to liquid waste management (sewage). Other related issues which were taken up for monitoring include pollution of 351 river stretches, 122 non- attainment cities in terms of air quality, 100 polluted industrial clusters, illegal sand mining etc. However, later the Tribunal confined present proceedings only to issues of solid waste and sewage management. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that scope of present order is to compile and collate the background, data filed by the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs and analysis and directions of the Tribunal on the subject of waste management in the country for further follow up action.
42. Issue of liquid waste management was separately dealt with in OA 593/2017 on directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and in suo motu proceedings for restoration of 351 identified polluted river stretches in ΟΑ 673/2018. Vide order dated 28.08.2019, the Tribunal directed that 100% sewage treatment must be ensured by all local bodies. Vide further order dated 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/201810, the Tribunal directed that for failure to commence in-situ remediation, compensation will be payable at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain after 31.03.2020 and for failure to commence setting up of STPs after 31.03.2020 compensation is to be paid at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP. For failure to complete the project, compensation 26 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
has to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per STP per month after 31.03.2021. Relevant part of the order is quoted below:
"47. (1) 100% treatment of sewage may be ensured as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 by 31.03.2020 at least to the extent of in-situ remediation and before the said date, commencement of setting up of STPs and the work of connecting all the drains and other sources of generation of sewage to the STPs must be ensured. If this is not done, the local bodies and the concerned departments of the States/UTs will be liable to pay compensation as already directed vide order dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs per month per drain, for default in in-situ remediation and Rs. 5 lakhs per STP for default in commencement of setting up of the STP.
ii. Timeline for completing all steps of action plans including completion of setting up STPs and their commissioning till 31.03.2021 in terms of order dated 08.04.2019 in the present case will remain as already directed. In default, compensation will be liable to be paid at the scale laid down in the order of this Tribunal dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 10 lakhs per month per STP."
43. This Tribunal in O.A. No.606/2018 vide order quoted above summed up, observed and directed as follows:-
"We have noted the gaps in generation and processing of waste and need to address the same in the interest of protection of environment and public health. Such gaps exist even after monitoring of issue of solid waste management from 1996 to 2014 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for the last nine years by this Tribunal as far as solid waste is concerned and monitoring of issue of water pollution for decades by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Ganga, Yamuna and other rivers and water bodies by discharge of sewage and other waste, apart from industrial pollution. There are policies of Central Government like swachh bharat and Namami Gange. Still, there are mountains of garbage generating methane and other gases which are source of pollution causing diseases and deaths, apart from occupying huge valuable public resource. Segregation of biodegradable waste and its processing closest to the point of generation is a task which 27 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
requires good governance and according of high priority. Similarly, preventing sewage discharge into the sources of drinking water has to receive highest priority. Such discharge results in scarcity of drinking water for all living beings apart from degradation of environment and damage to public health. Gaps in compliance have been noted earlier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.2.2017 in Paryavaran Surakhsha fixed three year deadline for waste water treatment systems which has been monitored by the Tribunal in the last six years. Discharge of sewage in drains leading to rivers, lakes, sea or in water bodies and lands has led to serious damage to environment and public health and needs to be addressed on war footing, using indigenous technology wherever viable or such other technology but no drop of sewage can be mixed in drinking water. Timelines are deviated without accountability. There is no justification of any further delay having regard to adverse impact on humanity and citizens' right of access to drinking water. Sewage continues to be mixed in sources of drinking water to the detriment of public health and environment for which earnest efforts are required in the highest level of administration. There was no dearth of technology and no justification of repeated and unending extensions of timelines without fixing accountability for past delays."
44. At this stage, we may also refer the recent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.03.2023 in M.A. No. 356 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 375 of 2012, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti vs. Union of India & Ors. on the subject of extending timeline for setting up requisite sewage treatment plants and supplementary directions. As noted earlier vide judgment dated 22.02.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed deadline of three years for commissioning such plants which expired on 22.02.2020. After such expiry, further three years have expired and still gaps have been continued. The State of UP approached Hon'ble Supreme Court for extension of time. Thereupon, It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that apart from setting up of STPs, maintenance and performance of such STPs was also required to be duly scrutinized and monitored. The issue is of utmost concern. 28 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
Untreated sewage waste discharging to rivers and drains pollutes sources of water upon which survival of population and bio-diversity depends. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued supplementary directions to that effect with the further observation that any extension of time could be considered by this Tribunal on the basis of material placed before it showing bona fide steps taken to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and genuine hindrances, if any. Relevant observations are quoted below:
".......xxxx........xxxxx............xxxxx..................xxxxx...........xxxxx"
9. Apart from the above, the mere setting up of STPs is not enough. The maintenance of the STPS and their performance and capacity to deal with sewage which is generated is another matter which has to be duly Scrutinized and monitored. The treatment of sewage which is generated in the villages, towns and cities is a matter of utmost concern. Untreated sewage waste is discharged into rivers and naalas polluting the very sources of water upon which the survival of the population and bio diversity depends.
10. While this Court had in its judgment laid down time lines for the construction of STPS and CETPS, of equal importance is the need to ensure that:-
(i) The CETPS with the requisite technology and capacity are duly commissioned;
(ii) After the commissioning of the CETPS/STPS, they continue to remain operational;
(iii) The CETPS/STPS are duly maintained and upgraded as the need may arise;
(iv) There is due monitoring at the administrative level on a real time basis of the performance of the CETPS, the deficiencies which may arise in the course of functioning and work of repair and maintenance; and
(v) Entrustment to an authority which would be accountable for the due performance of the CETPS.
11. The above aspects are necessary to be borne in mind to supplement the directions of this Court. It is only if all other consequential steps are taken as adverted to above that the object and purpose of the order of this Court would be duly met. 29 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
12. We accordingly permit the applicant to move the National Green Tribunal with an application in that regard. The National Green Tribunal shall duly monitor compliance with the directions including the time-lines which have been spelt out in the order of this Court. It would be open to the applicant to place on the record of the Tribunal all material to indicate the bonafide steps which were taken to comply with the order of this Court and, if there were any genuine hindrances in doing so, the nature of the hindrances. The Tribunal would be at liberty in the exercise of its discretion to consider any request for a further extension of time.
13. The National Green Tribunal is authorized in terms of the present order to suitably extend time should it be satisfied that all necessary steps have been pursued with a sufficient degree of alacrity. The Tribunal shall also take stock of the issues which have been set out above in relation to due monitoring of the performance of the STPs and steps for ensuring up-gradation and maintenance. The Tribunal shall also ensure that an accountable mechanism is set up in the State of Uttar Pradesh to take stock of the performance of the STPS, providing for adequate funds for up- gradation and maintenance as required and for attending to all other administrative issues and problems."
Conclusion:-
"33. In the light of above, way forward has to be in according high priority to the subject and strict monitoring and higher levels of the Administration in the States as well as in Central Government by constituting specialised monitoring cells fixing accountability for deviation from laid down timelines. As already noted, issue of solid waste management has been monitored from 1996 to 2014 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Tribunal for the last nine years. There are statutory Rules and policies like swachh bharat but action on the ground is inadequate. There are mountains of garbage generating methane and other gases which are source of diseases and deaths, apart from occupying huge valuable public resource. Our conclusion is that enacting laws and directions of Courts/Tribunals are not substitute for unless good governance and the Administration accords high priority of the subject, undesirable situation as found may not be remedied. Taking people on board and change of mindset is need of the hour. Similarly, not preventing sewage discharge into the sources of drinking water is offence under the criminal law as well as under 30
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Discharge of sewage into drains/rivers/water bodies results in scarcity of drinking water for all living beings apart from degradation of environment and damage to public health. Large number of persons suffer due to water pollution. The matter has been monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of pollution of Ganga and Yamuna for several decades and lastly passed order dated 22.2.2017 in Paryavaran Surakhsha fixing deadline which has been monitored by the Tribunal in the last six years. Gaps in compliance have been noted earlier. Water quality of large number of rivers (including Ganga and Yamuna), lakes, coastal areas and other water bodies are receiving such pollution. This needs to be addressed on war footing, using indigenous technology wherever viable or such other technology but no drop of sewage can be allowed to be mixed in drinking water. Timelines are deviated without accountability. There is no justification for delay in remedial action having regard to adverse impact on biodiversity and citizens' right of access to drinking water. We need not repeat the steps for remedial action which are mentioned in detail in each of the orders of the subject passed separately for all the States sand available on the website of this Tribunal. Meaningful implementation of citizens right to clean environment, which is part of right to life, and which is one of the significant facets of sustainable development cannot be wished away. Apart from concerned States/UTs who are responsible for executing plans for waste treatment under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, Central Ministries - MoEF&CC, Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Chemicals and Fertilizers and Agriculture have also to play their role as pointed out in the orders of the Tribunal. With regard to liquid waste management also, the Central Government Ministries such as Jal Shakti, MoEF&CC, Urban Development also have role. We hope that the said Ministries of Central Government will perform their statutory obligation under the rules, apart from monitoring compliance by the concerned States/UTs. We expect the concerned Ministries of Central Government to file their respective action taken reports in the matter within three months with the Registrar General of this Tribunal by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. If found necessary, the Registrar General, NGT may place the matter before the bench for further directions."31
O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
45. We have examined the records and heard the learned Counsel for the parties and found that the project is plotted area and less than the prescribed for essentiality of grant of Environmental Clearance (less than 50 hectare). Thus, Environmental Clearance is not required.
46. Further that consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act is based on notification issued in year 2021 whereas the township in question relates back to 2008-2009, thus, in light of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee versus Splendor Landbase Ltd. (2012) SCC Online Del 400 and Auroville Foundation Vs. Navroz Kersasp Mody (2025) 4 SCC 150, it is not applicable to this project and there is no requirement of consent condition by the State PCB.
47. So far as, the matter of the development project is concerned, the matter is pending before Hon'ble the High Court and the property has been taken into the custody of the Chief Municipal Officer, Multai and in view of the order passed by the Collector dated 28.08.2023, Chief Municipal Officer has been directed to recover the prescribed fee/charges of development permission in terms of the notification quoted above. Thus, it will be the responsibility of the Chief Municipal Officer to develop all the required facilities in accordance with the rules subject to order of Hon'ble the High Court.
48. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the reply and records. Our directions are as follows:-
1. Since the project area is less than 50 hectare and less than 1,50,000 sq. meter built up area, thus, there is no requirement of Environment Clearance.
2. In view of the above discussion the consent condition is not required by the State PCB.
3. The property has been taken into custody of Chief Municipal Officer, Multai and the District Collector, Multai had directed the transfer of open land in favour of 32 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.
municipality to ensure the proper development and maintenance of residential township and the District Magistrate has also directed the Chief Municipal Officer to develop the plotted area, thus, the Chief Municipal Officer, Multai is directed to develop it, according to rules.
4. This is subject to compliance of the order of Hon'ble the High Court passed or to be passed in Writ Petition No.32848/2024 and further activities, ownership of the land, transfer of the land and related matter will be governed by the order of Hon'ble the High Court.
5. The District Collector, Multai and the Chief Municipal Officer, Multai is directed to ensrue that no untreated water/sewage water be discharged in the open land violating the environmental norms and to take remedial measures immediately within a time frame.
With these observations, the Original Application No.21/2024 (CZ) along with pending I.A.s, if any, stands disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM 14th May, 2026, Original Application No.21/2024(CZ) I.D. 33 O.A. No.21/2024(CZ) Mr. Vijay Sawarkar Vs. Urban Development and Housing Department & Ors.