Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a resident of village Saini in Gautam Budh Nagar, filed an original application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) alleging that a private entity, M/s Sharp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., attempted to forcibly take possession of a common pond that had been used by villagers for a century. The appellant contended that the pond was recorded as 'pokhar' in revenue records and vested in the Gram Sabha under Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and that the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) had illegally leased it to Sharp in 2012 without environmental clearances. During the NGT proceedings, GNIDA filed an affidavit claiming it was developing an alternative waterbody 1.25 times larger. The NGT dismissed the application summarily on 06.03.2019, holding that the grievance was redressed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act. The Supreme Court framed the question whether the State can alienate common water bodies for industrial activities under the guise of providing alternatives. The Court held that ponds are public utilities meant for common use and cannot be commercialized, relying on Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab. It rejected the argument that the UP Revenue Code, 2006 changed the nature of land, noting that repeal of the earlier Act does not defeat community rights. The Court set aside the NGT order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the NGT to consider all issues including the validity of the Government Order dated 03.06.2016 and the environmental impact.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Protection of Common Water Bodies - Public Trust Doctrine - State cannot alienate common ponds for industrial use even if alternative water bodies are provided - The court held that ponds are public utilities meant for common use and cannot be commercialized, relying on Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Paras 14-16). B) Property Law - Vesting of Land - UP Revenue Code, 2006, Sections 57, 59 - Repeal of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not change nature of land or defeat community rights - The court held that vesting of ponds in the State does not permit alienation contrary to revenue records or defeat long-established rights of local people (Paras 12-13). C) Environmental Law - Wetland Protection - Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, Rule 4 - Reclamation of wetlands and setting up of industries prohibited - The court noted that the appellant relied on these rules to seek cancellation of illegal allotments (Para 4). D) Constitutional Law - Right to Environment - Article 21, 48A, 51A(g) - Right to wholesome environment guaranteed - The court recognized that protection of water bodies is essential for quality life under Article 21 (Paras 9, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether it is permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, under the guise of providing alternatives?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the NGT dated 06.03.2019, and remanded the matter to the NGT for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The NGT was directed to consider all issues raised by the appellant, including the validity of the Government Order dated 03.06.2016 and the environmental impact of the allotments.
Law Points
- Public trust doctrine
- Right to wholesome environment under Article 21
- Duty of State under Articles 48A and 51A(g)
- Protection of common water bodies
- NGT Act Section 22 appeal akin to second appeal under CPC Section 100
- Wetland Rules 2010
- UP Revenue Code 2006 Sections 57 and 59
- UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 Section 117
