Summary
UltraTech Cement held a letter of intent for limestone mining leases in Jhunjhunu district. The Collector's 2012 approval for allocating government land in the lease area required it to obtain High Court permission for land recorded as 'gair-mumkin johad' (pond). Two Tehsildar inspections, the Collector and the gram panchayat confirmed that no pond, catchment or water source existed there, but the State refused allotment because of the revenue entry. The High Court directed allotment. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal. The State never disputed the inspection reports, and its belatedly produced 2014 letter could not displace them. Abdul Rahman and Jagpal Singh do not bar correcting a wrong revenue entry, and with no pond there was no environmental uncertainty for the precautionary principle to address.
Issues
- Whether land recorded as 'gair-mumkin johad' could be allotted for a cement plant and mining lease where official inspections found no pond, catchment area or water source on it
- Whether the public trust and precautionary principles, and the decisions in Abdul Rahman and Jagpal Singh, barred such allotment
Provisions considered
- Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g), Constitution of IndiaThese underpin the precautionary and polluter-pays principles. Those principles were inapplicable where the State's own inspections showed no water body that could be harmed. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- The State never questioned the Tehsildar's two spot-inspection reports, the Collector's repeated recommendations or the gram panchayat's resolution that no water ever collected on the land. A 2014 Tehsildar letter produced belatedly and without explanation could not displace that consistent record. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
- Circulars on recovering encroached gram panchayat land, and the Jagpal Singh directions on evicting illegal occupants, do not apply to a company that applied through proper channels, held environmental clearances and a letter of intent, and sought correction of an erroneous revenue entry. (¶¶ 9, 15)
- The precautionary principle and the burden on a project proponent apply where the extent of environmental harm is uncertain. Here the State's own inspections showed no pond to be affected, and the company had undertaken to develop an alternative johad, water harvesting and recharge structures. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Abdul Rahman directed restoration of catchment areas but did not bar correcting a revenue entry recording a pond where none exists. Following Director General, Research and Development, that decision was no impediment to the allotment. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the State was directed to process the allotment within four weeks, and the company to file a fresh undertaking with the State on compensatory village-benefit measures within the same period; parties to bear their own costs.