Summary
The developer’s construction application for two Pachmarhi plots had to be objectively decided within two months, rather than deferred solely because a title-related writ appeal was pending. Its unchallenged purchase and mutation could not be displaced merely by later Nazul entries when it had never been impleaded. Any activity remained subject to the applicable eco-sensitive-zone notification and the writ appeal’s outcome; the Court did not directly grant construction permission.
Issues
- Whether pending litigation to which the applicant was not a party justified withholding consideration.
- How revenue entries affected the unchallenged purchase and mutation.
- What environmental and litigation conditions governed construction consideration.
Provisions considered
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaUnchallenged proprietary rights could not be infringed merely because of a pending writ appeal in proceedings in which the purchaser had not been impleaded. Relief remained conditional on the appeal’s outcome. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Notified boundaries and activity restrictions, MoEFCC Eco-Sensitive Zone Notification, dated 9 August 2017The competent authorities must assess the plots’ location and applicable restrictions; the applicant could establish that the plots were beyond the ESZ. Any activities must strictly comply where the notification applied. (¶¶ 21, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- The applicant’s sale deed and mutation order had never been challenged, and it had not been impleaded in the related revenue or High Court proceedings. The State could not claim rights merely from subsequent Nazul entries. Its affidavit also acknowledged the plots’ urban location and inclusion in the area excluded from the sanctuary. (¶¶ 9, 10, 19, 20)
- The pending writ appeal alone did not justify opposition to consideration of construction permission. However, because that appeal concerned the title rights of the applicant’s vendor, any activity undertaken remained subject to its eventual outcome. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The Court did not conclusively exempt the plots from eco-sensitive-zone controls or grant an unrestricted building right. Activities must strictly follow the 9 August 2017 notification, with liberty to show the authorities that the plots lay beyond the notified zone. (¶¶ 21, 23)
- CEC/the competent local-body authority must objectively decide the application by reference to the notified ESZ boundaries and also bear in mind the applicant’s case that numerous public-authority resorts existed on adjoining areas. Decision was required within two months; an adverse order could be challenged according to law. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- The interlocutory applications were disposed of on these terms without costs. (¶ 26)
Result
Applications disposed of: competent authorities to decide construction request objectively within two months. ESZ compliance and writ-appeal outcome preserved; adverse decision open to lawful challenge. No costs.