Environmental Protection and Illegal Construction: Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Kant Enclave

The case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India is a landmark environmental judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on September 11, 2018. It deals with the illegal construction and environmental degradation in the Aravalli Hills, specifically in Kant Enclave, Haryana. The Court ruled that lands notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLP Act) are forest lands and must be protected. Consequently, unauthorized construction in these areas must be demolished.

The judgment highlights the tension between urban development and environmental conservation, holding the Haryana government accountable for allowing illegal constructions despite repeated court orders to protect the Aravalli hills.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a writ petition filed by M.C. Mehta, a renowned environmental activist, in 1985. The petition sought protection of forests and prevention of illegal mining in the Aravalli Hills, which are ecologically fragile and crucial for groundwater recharge in the National Capital Region (NCR).

The dispute in this case revolved around the unauthorized construction of Kant Enclave, a residential and commercial development located in Faridabad, Haryana. The land in question was notified under the PLP Act in 1992, which prohibited clearing or breaking up of the land for any non-forestry activity. However, R. Kant & Co., the developer, continued construction activities in violation of these laws.

Arguments by the Petitioner (M.C. Mehta)

The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, and the Amicus Curiae argued that:

• The land in question had been notified as protected forest under the PLP Act since 1992, prohibiting any non-forest activity.
• The Haryana government failed to enforce environmental laws, allowing illegal constructions that severely degraded the Aravalli ecosystem.
• Water bodies like Badkal Lake and Surajkund had dried up due to illegal mining and construction activities in the area.
• The principle of Polluter Pays must be applied, making the developers financially responsible for environmental damage.

Arguments by the Respondents (Haryana Government and R. Kant & Co.)

The respondents, including the Haryana government and the developer R. Kant & Co., argued that:

• The land was granted exemption under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, allowing development.
• Several plots were sold to buyers who built houses in Kant Enclave, and demolishing them would cause hardship.
• The Punjab Land Preservation Act does not automatically classify land as forest land, and development was permitted by town planning authorities.
• The construction was done with government approvals, and therefore should not be declared illegal.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the legal status of the land and the environmental impact of the construction. The key findings of the Court were:

Recognition of Forest Land

• The Court ruled that lands notified under the PLP Act must be treated as forest land.
• The Court rejected the claim that notification under the PLP Act does not make the land forest land.
• Haryana’s own records classified the land as forest, and several affidavits filed in previous cases confirmed this.

Illegal Construction

• The Court found that R. Kant & Co. constructed Kant Enclave in violation of the PLP Act notification issued in 1992.
• The Haryana Town & Country Planning Department allowed illegal construction despite the Forest Department’s objections.
• It was noted that the groundwater levels in the region had dropped alarmingly, and Badkal Lake had dried up due to these violations.

Demolition of Unauthorized Construction

• The Court ordered the demolition of all constructions made in Kant Enclave after August 18, 1992, when the PLP Act notification was issued.
• The State of Haryana was directed to ensure the demolition was completed by December 31, 2018.
• Construction made before 1992 would be allowed to exist.

Compensation to Homebuyers

• Buyers who purchased land in Kant Enclave but did not construct houses would be refunded their full investment with 18% interest per annum by R. Kant & Co.
• Those who built houses after 1992 and faced demolition would receive compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs, shared equally by R. Kant & Co. and the Haryana Town & Country Planning Department.

Polluter Pays Principle

• The Court applied the Polluter Pays Principle, directing R. Kant & Co. to deposit Rs. 5 crore for environmental rehabilitation.
• The funds were to be utilized for the restoration of the Aravalli Hills and other degraded areas.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment has significant implications for environmental governance and urban planning in India:

• It reinforces that lands notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act are forest lands and must be protected.
• It holds government authorities accountable for failing to enforce environmental laws.
• It sets a precedent for applying the Polluter Pays Principle to private developers violating environmental regulations.
• It underscores the importance of protecting groundwater resources and natural ecosystems.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India is a strong statement against illegal constructions and environmental degradation. By ordering the demolition of unauthorized buildings in Kant Enclave, the Court has upheld the rule of law and ensured that environmental conservation remains a priority. This case serves as a warning to developers and government authorities that ignoring environmental regulations will have serious consequences.

Petitioner Name: M.C. Mehta.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 11-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category