Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an application seeking review of its earlier judgment dated 10.08.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016. The applicant, M/s. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd., contended that the two-Judge Bench had erred in interpreting 'built-up area' under Item 8(a) of the Schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006, by failing to consider the three-Judge Bench judgment in Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary (NOIDA Park case). In the NOIDA Park case, the Court had observed that the definition of built-up area with facilities open to the sky needed greater precision and clarity. The applicant argued that this observation created ambiguity, and the two-Judge Bench should not have held that all covered construction is built-up area. The Court, however, distinguished the factual context. In the NOIDA Park case, the dispute was whether open-to-sky facilities like pathways and fountains (activity area) should be included in built-up area; all parties agreed that covered construction was built-up area. The present case dealt solely with whether non-FSI covered area should be excluded from built-up area for environmental clearance. The Court reaffirmed that under the EIA Notification, 'built-up area' means all covered construction, irrespective of FSI or non-FSI classification under municipal laws. The Court noted that FSI/FAR concepts are irrelevant for environmental clearance as both types of construction impact the environment. The application was dismissed as meritless.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Built-up Area Interpretation - Item 8(a) of Schedule to EIA Notification, 2006 - All covered construction, whether FSI or non-FSI, constitutes built-up area for environmental clearance - The Court held that the concept of FSI or non-FSI has no concern with grant of EC; both FSI and non-FSI areas impact the environment equally (Paras 3-4). B) Precedent - Binding Effect of Three-Judge Bench - Observations in Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, (2011) 1 SCC 744 - The three-Judge Bench's observation about ambiguity in definition of built-up area was made in a different factual context where the dispute was about open-to-sky activity area, not covered construction - The present judgment's holding that all covered construction is built-up area was not an issue in NOIDA Park case, hence not bound by it (Paras 4-6). C) Environmental Law - Relevance of Municipal Laws - FSI/FAR under municipal laws have no linkage with grant of environmental clearance - The authority granting EC is concerned only with environmental impact, not municipal building regulations (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-consideration of a three-Judge Bench judgment in Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary led to wrong conclusions regarding interpretation of built-up area under Item 8 of Schedule of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the application (I.A. No.64665 of 2019) as meritless, holding that the earlier judgment's interpretation of built-up area was correct and not inconsistent with the NOIDA Park case.
Law Points
- Interpretation of built-up area under EIA Notification 2006
- Item 8(a) includes all covered construction
- FSI/FAR irrelevant for environmental clearance
- Three-judge bench observation in NOIDA Park case not binding on issue not raised
