Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of NGT on land use change: Raza Ahmad vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 7 March 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 177

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Surya Kant, J

Can a challenge to a land use change be heard by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) if it is argued that the change violates the conditions of an existing Environmental Clearance (EC)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Raza Ahmad vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The core issue was whether the NGT had the jurisdiction to hear a case where a land use change was challenged for violating the terms of an EC, even if the challenge to the EC itself was time-barred. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant, with Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud writing the opinion.

Case Background

In April 2007, Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and Jayprakash Associates agreed to establish a cement grinding unit in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. They formed Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited for this purpose. SAIL leased 34.59 acres of land in Hingna and Maroda villages to Bhilai Jaypee Cement for 30 years, starting June 16, 2007. This land was designated as a “green belt” in the 1991 Bhilai Development Plan. On May 1, 2008, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted an Environmental Clearance (EC) to the cement grinding unit. This EC was published in newspapers on May 8, 2008.

The appellant, Raza Ahmad, claimed that the EC was incorrectly issued and the construction by Bhilai Jaypee Cement was illegal. The Director of Town and Country Planning and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Bhilai issued notices to revert the land to its original condition. Bhilai Jaypee Cement then applied to change the land use of the 34.59 acres. On May 22, 2010, the State of Chhattisgarh proposed changing the land use from “green belt” to “industrial purpose,” citing an “urgent public purpose.” Public objections were invited through newspaper advertisements between July 13 and July 15, 2010. Despite objections, the State government issued a notification on February 3, 2011, changing the land use, which was published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on February 18, 2011.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Raza Ahmad filed a public interest petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on September 8, 2011, challenging the land use change notification of February 3, 2011, and the EC granted on May 1, 2008. The High Court transferred the petition to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on January 28, 2013, based on a Supreme Court decision. The NGT dismissed the appeal on August 2, 2013, citing the time bar for challenging the EC and its lack of jurisdiction over the land use change notification under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). Section 14 of the NGT Act grants the tribunal original jurisdiction over civil cases involving substantial questions related to the environment, arising from the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I of the Act. Section 14(3) specifies that applications must be made within six months of the cause of action, with a possible extension of 60 days for sufficient cause. Section 16 provides the NGT with appellate jurisdiction over orders granting Environmental Clearances (EC), with a 30-day appeal period and a possible 60-day extension. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 is listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act.

Section 38(1) of the NGT Act repeals the National Environment Tribunal Act 1995 and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997. Section 38(5) provides for the transfer of cases pending before the National Environment Appellate Authority to the NGT. The NGT Act has overriding effect as per Section 33.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “Tribunal to have original jurisdiction in respect of disputes relating to environment. (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.”
• Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “No application for adjudication of a dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
• Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “Appeals to the Tribunal. Any person, aggrieved by, – (h) an order made, on or after the commencement of this Act, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the communication of the order, decision, direction or determination, file an appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
• Section 33 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “Act to have overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that while the challenge to the EC was indeed time-barred, the challenge to the notification dated February 3, 2011, which changed the land use, was a separate issue. The appellant contended that this change of land use violated the conditions of the EC, specifically the requirement to develop a green belt.
• The appellant submitted that the EC was issued under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, which is listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Therefore, any violation of the EC conditions falls under the NGT’s jurisdiction.
• The appellant argued that the NGT had the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act to address the violation of EC conditions caused by the change of land use notification.
• The appellant emphasized that the NGT Act has overriding effect over other laws as per Section 33.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State of Chhattisgarh argued that the appellant had invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the NGT under Section 16, which is why the proceedings were numbered as an appeal and not as an original application.
• The State of Chhattisgarh contended that the NGT does not have jurisdiction over the land use change notification as the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 is not listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in that it separated the challenge to the EC from the challenge to the land use change notification, arguing that the latter violated the conditions of the former, thus bringing it within the NGT’s jurisdiction even if the EC challenge was time-barred.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the challenge to the Environmental Clearance (EC) was barred by limitation.
2. Whether the NGT has jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the notification of the State government altering the land use, when it is contended that the change violates the conditions of the EC.
3. Whether the NGT can condone the delay in filing the application under Section 14 of the NGT Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any case laws or books in this judgment.

The following legal provisions were considered by the court:

• Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “Tribunal to have original jurisdiction in respect of disputes relating to environment. (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.”
• Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “No application for adjudication of a dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
• Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “Appeals to the Tribunal. Any person, aggrieved by, – (h) an order made, on or after the commencement of this Act, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the communication of the order, decision, direction or determination, file an appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
• Section 33 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “Act to have overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
• Section 38 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: “(1) The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 (27 of 1995) and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of 1997) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the repealed enactments shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. (3) The National Environment Appellate Authority established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of 1997) shall stand dissolved. (4) On the dissolution of the National Environment Appellate Authority under sub-section (3), the persons appointed as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the National Environment Appellate Authority shall vacate their respective offices. (5) All cases pending before the National Environment Appellate Authority shall, on the date of commencement of this Act, stand transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall proceed to hear and dispose of such cases in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The Court interpreted this section to define the NGT’s original jurisdiction, stating that it extends to cases where a substantial environmental question arises from the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I, which includes the Environment (Protection) Act 1986.
• Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The Court used this section to determine the NGT’s appellate jurisdiction and the limitation period for challenging Environmental Clearances (ECs). The Court concluded that the challenge to the EC was time-barred as it was not made within the prescribed period.
• Section 33 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The Court acknowledged the overriding effect of the NGT Act, meaning that its provisions prevail over any inconsistent laws.
• Section 38 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The Court referred to this section to clarify that the repeal of previous acts and the transfer of pending cases did not apply in this case, as no challenge was pending when the NGT Act came into force.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed effectively by the NGT. The Court emphasized that while the challenge to the Environmental Clearance (EC) itself was time-barred, the challenge to the land use change notification, if it violated the conditions of the EC, could still be within the NGT’s jurisdiction. This was to ensure that the conditions of the EC, which are meant to protect the environment, are not violated. The Court also considered the overriding effect of the NGT Act, which gives it precedence over other laws, in ensuring that environmental issues are given due consideration.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The court focused on interpreting the provisions of the NGT Act and their application to the specific situation. The factual aspects of the case were considered to understand the context but the legal framework was the primary driver of the decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the NGT Act. It separated the challenge to the EC from the challenge to the land use change notification. The court concluded that if the land use change violates the EC conditions, the NGT has jurisdiction under Section 14. The court remitted the matter back to the NGT to decide on the condonation of delay.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “The challenge to the EC, as we have already noted above, is barred by limitation.”
• “However, the challenge to the change of land use, on the ground that such a change would violate a condition of the EC, is something which in the submission of the appellant would fall within the jurisdiction of the NGT provided the NGT decides to exercise its discretion to condone the delay within the meaning of Section 14(3) read with its proviso.”
• “Whether the delay should be condoned is entirely a matter for the NGT to decide.”

Key Takeaways

• The NGT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to land use changes if they violate the conditions of an existing Environmental Clearance (EC), even if the challenge to the EC itself is time-barred.
• The NGT can condone delays in filing applications under Section 14 of the NGT Act if sufficient cause is shown.
• The NGT Act has an overriding effect over other laws, emphasizing the importance of environmental concerns.
• The decision ensures that the conditions of an EC are not violated through subsequent actions such as land use changes.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The challenge to the EC dated 1 May 2008 is barred by limitation.
2. The proceedings are remitted back to the NGT to determine if the challenge to the proposed modification of the land use can be entertained within the extended period prescribed by the proviso to Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.
3. The NGT is at liberty to determine if sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay.
4. The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. If the delay is condoned, the NGT is free to decide on all issues raised by the parties.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the NGT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to land use changes if they violate the conditions of an existing Environmental Clearance (EC), even if the challenge to the EC itself is time-barred. This clarifies the scope of the NGT’s jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act and ensures that environmental safeguards are not circumvented through subsequent actions. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing laws in a specific context.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Raza Ahmad vs. State of Chhattisgarh clarifies the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) jurisdiction, stating that the NGT can hear challenges to land use changes if they violate the conditions of an existing Environmental Clearance (EC), even if the challenge to the EC itself is time-barred. The court remitted the matter back to the NGT to decide if the delay in filing the application could be condoned. This decision ensures that environmental safeguards are not easily bypassed and that the NGT plays an effective role in environmental protection.

Category:

Parent Category: Environmental Law

Child Categories: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Environmental Clearance; Land Use Change; Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Parent Category: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Child Categories: Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 16, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Raza Ahmad vs. State of Chhattisgarh case?

A: The main issue was whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a land use change notification when it is alleged that the change violates the conditions of an existing Environmental Clearance (EC), even if the challenge to the EC itself is time-barred.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the challenge to the Environmental Clearance (EC)?

A: The Supreme Court held that the challenge to the Environmental Clearance (EC) was barred by limitation because it was not filed within the prescribed time period.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the challenge to the land use change notification?

A: The Supreme Court decided that if the land use change violates the conditions of the EC, the NGT has the jurisdiction to hear the matter under its original jurisdiction, even if the challenge to the EC itself is time-barred.

Q: What does it mean for the NGT to have “original jurisdiction”?

A: Original jurisdiction means that the NGT can hear cases directly without them having to go through lower courts first, as long as the case involves a substantial question relating to the environment and falls under the laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act.

Q: What is the significance of Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?

A: Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, grants the NGT original jurisdiction over civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment is involved. This section was central to the court’s decision on whether the NGT had the power to hear the challenge to the land use change.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: The judgment ensures that environmental safeguards are not easily circumvented. It clarifies that even if an EC cannot be challenged directly due to time limitations, violations of its conditions through subsequent actions like land use changes can still be brought before the NGT. This reinforces the importance of compliance with EC conditions and strengthens environmental protection.

Q: Can the NGT condone delays in filing applications?

A: Yes, the NGT has the power to condone delays in filing applications under Section 14 of the NGT Act, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the prescribed time period. The court remitted the matter to the NGT to decide on the condonation of delay.