JITENDRA SINGH V. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS., SUPREME COURT, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5109/2019
JITENDRA SINGH V. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS., SUPREME COURT, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5109/2019, DECIDED ON 25 NOVEMBER 2019
FACTS
The instant statutory appeal has been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter “NGT Act”) against the order dated 06.03.2019 of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), whereby appellant’s grievance against allotment of local ponds to private industrialists has been dismissed summarily without any adjudication of the lis or merits, but merely on the basis of an affidavit filed by Respondent No. 5 (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority – hereinafter “GNIDA”) claiming that it was developing bigger alternative waterbodies
CASE HISTORY
The appellant is a permanent resident of village Saini, tehsil Dadri, of district Gautam Budh Nagar. The Petitioner that the Original Application before the NGT was triggered when the agents of a private entity (Respondent No. 6 M/s Sharp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Hereinafter “Sharp”) using excavataors and other heavy machinery attempted to forcibly take over possession of a ‘common pond’, which had been in use by local villagers for a century. This was objected to by the villagers, and the appellant subsequently made a complaint to various authorities including the District Collector. However, there was no action on his representation for more than 10 days, leading to another attempt by Sharp at dispossession, compelling the appellant to seek police help. A few days later, the Petitioner submitted another representation to the Collector, but to no avail. Aggrieved, the Petitioner was left with no recourse but to approach the NGT by way of an Original Application under Section 14 (read with Sections 15 and 18) of the NGT Act for adjudication of these environmental issues.
ISSUE
Whether it is permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, under the guise of providing alternatives?
REFERRED CASE LAWS
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi [(2001) 6 SCC 496]: The Court settled that ‘ponds’ were a public utility meant for common use and held that they could not be allotted or commercialised. It had refused to give any weight to similar arguments of the pond having become levelled, with merely some portion getting covered during rainy season by water.
“It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment 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 nonabadi sites.”
Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 396]: Since time immemorial, certain common lands had vested in village communities for collective benefit. Except in exceptional circumstances when used exclusively for the downtrodden, these lands were inalienable.
JUDGEMENT
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. 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.
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.