Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(d) Disputed project violates various provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‗Wetland Rules, 2017');

(e) Impugned EC has been granted without any application of mind and suffers from patent errors of law and facts.

10. Elaborating above grounds, appellant has pleaded that there are 3 Rajakaluves/nallas, one primary and two secondary, passing through the project site of disputed project, around which, 50 meters and 35 meters ‗buffer zone' is to be maintained which has to be ―No Development Zone‖; the excavation work required for execution for raising two towers would involve digging of 50000 m3 of earth for Phase-1 and 85000 m3 for Phase- 2 which will be carried out in an Eco-fragile land, within the ‗buffer zone' that is ―No Development Zone‖ of lake and Rajakaluve, is bound to affect Eco-system; PP is planning to raise the area, since it has been stated that excavated earth will be reused within the site for ground leveling and also in Green Belt Development activities, within the ‗buffer zone' of lake and Rajakaluves, whereby, it will create a virtual embankment within the catchment area and qualitatively destroy Eco-system of Water Bodies; PP's claim that re-use of excavated earth is only ground leveling, is nothing but an eye-wash, and an attempt to mislead the authorities that it would not cause any ecological harm to environment; it is in fact a way to dam lake and Rajakaluves within the project site, altering its natural flow and spread around the area; PP, while stating in the application that excavated earth will be re-used for backfilling and landscape development, in fact, contradicts own stand with respect to Green Belt Development and Landscape Development in as much as, plan to develop landscape around and within ‗buffer zone' is an admitted plan of action of PP and this information has been concealed; the project site is within ‗buffer zone'; the sprawling lake touches boundary of project; the area is an extremely Eco-Sensitive Zone; land of project site is an undeveloped site with no population residing thereon; with an expected 655 units of apartment and 877 number of cars to be parked within the site in question; it would be incorrect to claim that there would be no effect on Eco-system of the surrounding areas and no long term effects of such load would fall on Eco-fragile region; the project, if allowed, could obliterate the region in as much as the magnitude of project would place unsustainable load, both in terms of pollution caused and usage of water, amenities, waste discharge and other environmentally harmful activities; the information that disputed project abuts the lake and that there are three Rajakaluves going through the project site, has been concealed; PP on one hand has stated before SEIAA, Karnataka that requirement of water shall be met by Bore-well, but, in fact, record shows that the said requirement shall be met solely from water supplied by Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (respondent-9) (hereinafter referred to as ‗BWSSB'); the project site is within 75 meters of ‗buffer zone' in relation to lake; 50 meters ‗buffer zone' in relation to Primary Rajakaluve and 35 meters ‗buffer zone' from the edges of Secondary Rajakaluve; any construction within ‗buffer zones' is illegal and not only violates Wetland Rules, 2017 but also judgment of this Tribunal in Forward Foundation & Ors. (supra) rendered on 04.05.2016; EC has been granted by Competent Authority over-looking specific provisions of Environmental laws, judgment of Tribunal, in a mechanical manner without application of mind, and in fact, in collusion with PP; the project, if allowed to proceed, would cause irreparable harm to the Sensitive Environment, destroy Eco-system of fragile area and Eco-system services associated with the lake and Rajakaluves; Competent Authority is also violating environment laws in as much as one of the conditions in EC states that the provisions of environmental and other laws shall be followed ignoring the fact that under RMP-2015, 30 meters is the ‗buffer zone' provided for ―No Development Zone‖ while the said distance has been extended to 75 meters by Tribunal in Forward Foundation & Ors. (supra); further, note to Regulation 4.12.1 (ii)(iii) of RMP-2015 states that drains are categorized into three types namely Primary, Secondary and Tertiary and these drains will have a buffer of 50, 25 and 15 meters, respectively, measured from the centre of drain, on either side; Tribunal's order dated 07.05.2016 in Forward Foundation & Ors. (supra) has expanded ‗buffer zone' in relation to Rajakaluves to the extent of 50 meters, 35 meters and 20 meters but these provisions are being violated by allowing construction in ‗buffer zone'; PP has proceeded with construction, without a sanctioned building plan, and, also consent under Section 25 of Water Act, 1974; impugned EC also violates provisions of Wetland Rules, 2017 in as much as site of the Project falls in extremely Eco- sensitive wetland and construction allowed therein despite prohibition would violate statutory provisions as above; SEIAA, Karnataka was under

Schedule-II (Building Bye-law No.3.2) i.e. Form of application for building license required that:

―3. Site Plan, showing the existing features like trees, well etc. (Block levels to be furnished in cases where the gradient of the land exceeds 5% (1:20) or where basement/cellar floors are proposed below ground level).

10. No objection certificate from agencies like, BDA, BESCOM, BWSSB, KSCB District Magistrate, Director of Factories and Boilers, Controller of Explosives, Railways, Fire Force Department, Airport Authority of India, Government Health Department and any other authority wherever applicable.‖

g) The mandatory requirements contemplated vide para 3.2 (3) & (10) at Serial nos. 3 and 10 were not complied with by PP, despite Show Cause Notice-cum-Stop Work Notice dated 13.07.2018 wherein BBMP requested PP to produce documents stated in para no.19 of the said Notice. However, PP has not furnished these required documents till date. BBMP in para no.19 of the notice specifically sought for mandatory permission i.e. Consent to Establish (CFE) from KSPCB and No Objection Certificate (NOC) from BWSSB, for the project in question;

i) The project site discloses illegal construction activity at the far end (on the Eastern side) of the project. There is vast extent of earth excavated even as on 14.05.2018 and dumping this excavated earth in the form of hillocks along the periphery of ―Kaikondarahalli Lake‖ and in other parts of the project site;

j) Respondent-9 (BWSSB), in its letter dated 23.09.2017, addressed to PP, regarding request for issue of statutorily required permission/No Objection Certificate/NOC, has stated: