Summary
The Court upheld environmental compensation and restorative directions against two developers near Bengaluru lakes. It recognized the Tribunal’s independent restitution jurisdiction and rejected limitation and res judicata objections. With the applicants’ concession, the challenged general buffer-zone direction was set aside for the other appellants while preserved against the two developers.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal had independent jurisdiction to order environmental restitution and whether the application was timely.
- Whether the statutory appeals permitted a fresh factual appraisal or established res judicata.
- What relief was warranted regarding the general buffer-zone direction and the two project proponents.
Provisions considered
- Section 22 read with Section 100 CPC, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Appeal was confined to substantial questions of law and did not permit wholesale reappreciation of the factual record. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 55)
- Sections 14, 15 and 18, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Restitution jurisdiction under Section 15 operated independently of Section 14; its five-year limitation governed the pleaded environmental-restoration claim. (¶¶ 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50)
- Section 15(1)(c) read with Section 20, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Broad restorative powers were to be exercised through sustainable development, precaution and polluter-pays principles. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44)
- Section 33, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The overriding clause supported site-specific environmental restoration, including buffer zones despite inconsistent planning instruments. (¶ 47)
- Section 11: res judicata principles, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The environmental-restoration proceeding and pending land-acquisition and allotment litigation lacked materially identical issues, parties and causes of action; the objection failed. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59)
Held
- Section 15 supplies independent jurisdiction for restitution of property and environment. The application sought restoration of sensitive land and fell within its five-year limitation; failure to specify the correct section did not vitiate a proceeding within jurisdiction. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50)
- An appeal under Section 22 is confined to substantial questions of law. The developers could not use it for a new factual review of the evidence and expert reports. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 54, 55)
- The Tribunal’s findings of encroachment and environmental violations rested on the pleadings, documents, committee report and expert inspection. Its compensation and directions against the two proponents were sustainable, including Rs 117.35 crore against respondent 9 and the reduced Rs 13.5 crore against respondent 10. (¶¶ 18, 21, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62)
- The pending High Court proceedings concerned different issues of land acquisition, allotment and transfer. They did not bar the environmental-restoration application by res judicata, constructive res judicata or judicial propriety. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59)
- On the applicants’ concession, condition/direction 1 of the May 2016 order was set aside except insofar as it applied to respondents 9 and 10. Their appeals failed and the directions against them survived; the other appeals succeeded without adjudicating their broader objections on merits. (¶¶ 29, 60, 61, 62, 63)
Result
Developers’ Civil Appeals 5016/2016 and 8002–8003/2016 dismissed; impugned relief against respondents 9 and 10 sustained. Other appeals allowed; condition/direction 1 of 4 May 2016 set aside except against those two respondents. No costs.