LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can alienate common water bodies for industrial activities under the guise of providing alternatives.
CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation
Case Name: Jitendra Singh vs. Ministry of Environment & Ors.
Judgment Date: 25 November 2019
Date of the Judgment: 25 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 926
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Surya Kant, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a state government justify the destruction of a traditional village pond by promising a larger, alternative water body? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the allotment of village ponds to private industrialists. The Court unequivocally held that the State cannot alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, even if alternatives are provided, emphasizing the importance of preserving these natural resources for the community and the environment. This judgment underscores the constitutional duty to protect the environment and the rights of local communities.
Case Background
The appellant, a resident of village Saini, Gautam Budh Nagar, filed a case before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) after a private company, M/s Sharp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Sharp), attempted to take possession of a village pond on January 18, 2017. This pond had been used by the villagers for a century. The appellant, along with other villagers, objected to this takeover. Despite complaints to various authorities, including the District Collector, no action was taken. This inaction led the appellant to approach the NGT, seeking protection of the pond and other common village resources.
The appellant argued that the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) had acquired village lands, including some local ponds, and leased them to private industrialists like Sharp in 2012. The revenue records showed that Khasra Nos. 552 and 490 were recorded as ‘pokhar’ (pond) and Khasra Nos. 522 and 676 as ‘rajwaha’ (canal). These water bodies were vested in the Gram Sabhas under Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appellant contended that GNIDA had no right to transfer these lands to Sharp. He also alleged that mandatory environmental clearances had not been obtained and that the project would negatively impact the environment.
During the proceedings, GNIDA began filling up the existing ponds and developing an alternative water body, 1.25 times larger, to justify the allotment to Sharp. The appellant amended his prayers to challenge all illegalities concerning village commons. The NGT dismissed the application, stating that the appellant’s grievance had been addressed by the creation of the alternative water body.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 18.01.2017 | Sharp Enterprises attempted to take possession of the village pond. |
| 25.01.2017 | Appellant made a complaint to various authorities including the District Collector. |
| 2012 | GNIDA leased acquired lands, including some local ponds, to private industrialists, including Sharp. |
| 15.01.2019 | GNIDA filed an additional affidavit before the NGT stating that it was developing an alternate waterbody. |
| 06.03.2019 | NGT dismissed the appellant’s application. |
| 12.03.2019 | GNIDA filed an affidavit post adjudication of the application by the NGT. |
| 15.07.2019 | Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. |
| 25.11.2019 | Supreme Court delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) with an Original Application under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, seeking adjudication of environmental issues related to the illegal allotment of village ponds. The NGT, however, dismissed the application summarily based on an affidavit filed by GNIDA stating that it was developing an alternative water body. This dismissal occurred without any adjudication on the merits of the case or the appellant’s claims. The appellant then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of several key legal provisions:
- Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: This section vests water bodies in the Gram Sabhas, indicating that these lands are meant for community use and benefit.
- The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984: This Act mandates environmental clearances for projects that may impact the environment. The appellant argued that these clearances were not obtained by the industrialists.
- Rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010: This rule prohibits the reclamation of wetlands and the setting up or expansion of industries that could adversely affect the ecosystem.
- Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section provides for appeals to the Supreme Court and specifies that the nature of the appeal shall be akin to a second appeal as specified under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life, which the court interprets to include the right to a wholesome environment.
- Article 48A of the Constitution of India: This article places a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment.
- Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India: This article imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.
- Section 57 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006: This section vests the title of all lands, including lakes and ponds, in the State Government.
- Section 59 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006: This section specifies that the land is entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, and the State retains the power to alter such entrustment at any time.
These provisions, taken together, establish a framework for environmental protection and the preservation of community resources. The Supreme Court emphasized that these legal provisions should be interpreted to ensure the protection of the environment and community rights over common resources.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
-
Illegal Allotment: The appellant argued that the allotment of village ponds to private industrialists was illegal. The ponds were vested in the Gram Sabhas under Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and GNIDA had no right to transfer them. The appellant contended that the land was neither acquired nor resumed by GNIDA and hence, they had no power to transfer the same to Sharp.
-
Environmental Impact: The appellant contended that the project lacked mandatory environmental clearances under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984. The project would negatively impact the environment and human health, violating the Ramsar Convention and Rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, which prohibit reclamation of wetlands.
-
Constitutional Rights: The appellant argued that the actions of the authorities violated the public trust and the right to a wholesome environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appellant also cited Article 48A and Article 51A(g) to emphasize the State’s duty to protect the environment, including lakes and water bodies.
-
No alternative for the environment: The appellant argued that the disputed pond is situated near the Aravali hills which are in an arid zone with a low-water table. He demonstrated how the existing sparse flora and fauna in the region was hence unlikely to survive elsewhere.
Respondent (GNIDA)’s Submissions:
-
Government Order: GNIDA relied on a Government Order dated 03.06.2016, which permitted the destruction of existing ponds and allotment of filled-up land to third parties in certain extraordinary circumstances, provided that 25% larger alternative water bodies were developed elsewhere.
-
Nature of Land: GNIDA questioned the recording of Khasra Nos. 552 and 490 as ‘pokhar’ in the revenue record, arguing that it was merely ‘slightly low lying land’ where water accumulated during the rainy season and that there was no water on the pond-land since the past year. They also argued that Khasra No. 552 was only 1140 sq meters, a small portion of the total allotted land.
-
No other pond included: GNIDA stated that no other ‘pokhar’ had been included in the allotment and Khasra No. 490 had not been allotted to Sharp.
-
Appellant’s Motive: GNIDA alleged that the appellant was aggrieved by non-disbursement of compensation and was using the dispute to stall development for his private purposes.
Respondent (Sharp)’s Submissions:
-
Repeal of Act: Sharp argued that the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, had been repealed by the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The new Code specified that the title of all lands, including lakes and ponds, vested in the State Government. Through Section 59 of the Code, the land was merely entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, and the State retained power to alter such entrustment.
-
Payment of Consideration: Sharp claimed to have paid Rs 25 crores as sale consideration for leasehold rights and was suffering due to litigation-induced delays.
Submissions of the Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (GNIDA) | Sub-Submission (Sharp) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of Allotment | ✓ Allotment of village ponds to private industrialists was illegal. ✓ Ponds vested in Gram Sabhas under Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. ✓ GNIDA had no right to transfer the ponds, as the land was neither acquired nor resumed. |
✓ Relied on a Government Order dated 03.06.2016, permitting destruction of ponds and allotment of filled-up land in extraordinary circumstances, provided that 25% larger alternative water bodies were developed. ✓ Questioned the recording of Khasra Nos. 552 and 490 as ‘pokhar’, arguing they were merely low-lying lands. ✓ Stated that Khasra No. 552 was a small portion of the total allotted land. ✓ Asserted that no other ‘pokhar’ had been included in the allotment and Khasra No. 490 had not been allotted to Sharp. |
✓ UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was repealed by the UP Revenue Code, 2006. ✓ Title of all lands, including ponds, vested in the State Government. ✓ Land was merely entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, with the State retaining power to alter the entrustment. |
| Environmental Concerns | ✓ Project lacked mandatory environmental clearances under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984. ✓ Project would negatively impact the environment and human health. ✓ Violated the Ramsar Convention and Rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. ✓ Existing flora and fauna unlikely to survive elsewhere. |
||
| Constitutional Rights | ✓ Actions of authorities violated the public trust and the right to a wholesome environment under Article 21. ✓ State’s duty to protect the environment under Article 48A and Article 51A(g). |
||
| Motive of Appellant | ✓ Appellant was aggrieved by non-disbursement of compensation and was using the dispute to stall development for private purposes. | ||
| Financial Implications | ✓ Paid Rs 25 crores as sale consideration for leasehold rights and was suffering due to litigation-induced delays. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether it is permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, under the guise of providing alternatives?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether it is permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, under the guise of providing alternatives? | The Court held that it is not permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, even if alternatives are provided. The Court emphasized that ponds are a public utility meant for common use and cannot be allotted or commercialized. The Court also highlighted the importance of protecting these resources for a healthy environment and the well-being of the community. The Court found that the action of the respondent-authorities contravenes their Constitutional obligations under Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g). The Court also held that schemes which extinguish local waterbodies albeit with alternatives are violative of Constitutional principles. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya v. Palaguda Anjayya [1972] 1 SCC 521 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Communal rights in land are not abolished by the transfer of estates to the Government. Community rights originate elsewhere and are not affected by the destruction of rights of landholders. |
| Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi [2001] 6 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Ponds are a public utility meant for common use and cannot be allotted or commercialized. Material resources of the community like ponds maintain ecological balance and need to be protected for a healthy environment. |
| Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab [2011] 11 SCC 396 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Common lands vested in village communities for collective benefit are inalienable except in exceptional circumstances. Misappropriation of such lands is harmful and needs to be stopped. Long duration of illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions is not a justification for condoning the illegal act. |
| MC Mehta v. Union of India [1988] 1 SCC 471 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The State has a duty to ensure mandatory environmental education to all school students in pursuance of the fundamental duties enshrined in Article 51-A(g). |
| Section 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 | Considered | Water bodies are vested in the Gram Sabhas. | |
| The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984 | Considered | Mandates environmental clearances for projects that may impact the environment. | |
| Rule 4 of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 | Considered | Prohibits the reclamation of wetlands and the setting up or expansion of industries that could adversely affect the ecosystem. | |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Considered | Guarantees the right to life, which includes the right to a wholesome environment. | |
| Article 48A of the Constitution of India | Considered | Places a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment. | |
| Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India | Considered | Imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. | |
| Section 57 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 | Considered | Vests the title of all lands, including lakes and ponds, in the State Government. | |
| Section 59 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 | Considered | Specifies that the land is entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, and the State retains the power to alter such entrustment at any time. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Illegal Allotment of village ponds to private industrialists. | Upheld. The Court found the allotment to be illegal, emphasizing that the ponds were vested in the Gram Sabhas and GNIDA had no right to transfer them. |
| Appellant | Lack of Environmental Clearances and negative environmental impact. | Upheld. The Court noted the absence of mandatory environmental clearances and the potential negative impact on the environment and human health. |
| Appellant | Violation of Constitutional rights to a wholesome environment. | Upheld. The Court agreed that the actions violated the public trust and the right to a wholesome environment under Article 21, as well as the State’s duty to protect the environment under Article 48A and Article 51A(g). |
| GNIDA | Reliance on Government Order dated 03.06.2016, permitting destruction of ponds and allotment of filled-up land. | Rejected. The Court found the Government Order to be inapplicable retrospectively and not a valid justification for the alienation of common water bodies. |
| GNIDA | Questioning the nature of land as ‘pokhar’. | Rejected. The Court held that the revenue records clearly showed the land as ‘pokhar’ and the authorities could not contradict the record without empirical support. |
| GNIDA | Allegation that the appellant was aggrieved by non-disbursement of compensation and had set up the dispute as a rouse. | Not addressed. The Court did not give any weight to this allegation. |
| Sharp | Argument that the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, had been repealed by the UP Revenue Code, 2006 and the land was merely entrusted to the Gram Panchayat. | Rejected. The Court held that the repeal of the Act did not change the nature of the land or defeat the rights of the local people on commons. |
| Sharp | Payment of Rs 25 crores as sale consideration for leasehold rights. | Not considered a valid justification. The Court emphasized that long duration of illegal occupation or huge expenditure cannot be a justification for condoning the illegal act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya v. Palaguda Anjayya [1972] 1 SCC 521* to emphasize that communal rights are not abolished by the transfer of estates to the Government.
- The Supreme Court followed Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi [2001] 6 SCC 496* to reiterate that ponds are a public utility meant for common use and cannot be allotted or commercialized.
- The Supreme Court followed Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab [2011] 11 SCC 396* to emphasize that common lands vested in village communities for collective benefit are inalienable except in exceptional circumstances.
- The Supreme Court followed MC Mehta v. Union of India [1988] 1 SCC 471* to highlight the State’s duty to ensure mandatory environmental education.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the environment and the rights of local communities. The Court emphasized the following points:
- The importance of preserving common water bodies for the community and the environment.
- The constitutional duty to protect the environment under Article 48A and Article 51A(g).
- The fundamental right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
- The fact that ponds are a public utility meant for common use and cannot be allotted or commercialized.
- The fact that the State cannot alienate common water bodies for industrial activities even if alternatives are provided.
- The fact that the respondents’ scheme of allowing destruction of existing water bodies and providing for replacements exhibits a mechanical application of environmental protection.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Environment | 40% |
| Community Rights | 30% |
| Constitutional Duty | 20% |
| Illegality of Allotment | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and constitutional duties, with a secondary emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the NGT. The Court held that the allotment of water bodies, including Khasra Nos. 552 and 490, to Respondent No. 6 or any other third party in village Saini was illegal and quashed the same. The Court directed Respondents 1 to 5 to restore, maintain, and protect the subject water bodies in village Saini. The Court further directed the respondents to remove all obstructions from the catchment area through which natural water accumulates in the village ponds, all within a period of three months.
The Court reasoned that:
- The 2016 Government Order could not be applied retrospectively.
- The argument that Khasra No. 552 was merely a ‘slightly-sloped seasonal rainfall-catchment area’ was without merit as revenue records showed it was a ‘pokhar’.
- The repeal of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, did not change the nature of the land or defeat the rights of local people on commons.
- Ponds are a public utility meant for common use and cannot be allotted or commercialized.
- The State has a duty to protect and improve the environment.
- The scheme of allowing destruction of existing water bodies and providing for replacements exhibits a mechanical application of environmental protection.
The Court quoted from the judgment in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi:
“It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court also quoted from the judgment in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab:
“long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon cannot be a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession.”
The Court further stated:
“Schemes which extinguish local waterbodies albeit with alternatives, as provided in the 2016 Government Order by the State of UP, are violative of Constitutional principles and are liable to be struck down.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Common water bodies like ponds are essential for community use and environmental balance.
- ✓ The State cannot alienate these water bodies for industrial activities, even if alternatives are provided.
- ✓ The government must prioritize environmental protection and the rights of local communities.
- ✓ Revenue records are important and cannot be contradicted without scientific or empirical support.
- ✓ The constitutional duty to protect the environment is paramount.
Directions
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- The allotment of all water bodies (both ponds and canals), including Khasra Nos. 552 and 490, to Respondent No. 6, or any other similar third party in village Saini, was held to be illegal and was quashed.
- Respondents 1 to 5 were directed to restore, maintain, and protect the subject water bodies in village Saini.
- Respondents were further directed to remove all obstructions from the catchment area through which natural water accumulates in the village ponds, all within a period of three months.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State cannot alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, even if alternatives are provided. This judgment reinforces the principle that common water bodies are essential for community use and environmental balance and that the State has a constitutional duty to protect them. It also clarifies that the State cannot justify the destruction of existing water bodies by creating artificial alternatives. This is a significant development of the law, emphasizing the importance of preserving natural resources and the rights of local communities over them. The Court has also clarified that the State cannot justify the destruction of existing water bodies by creating artificial alternatives.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jitendra Singh vs. Ministry of Environment & Ors. is a landmark decision that reinforces the importance of protecting common water bodies and the rights of local communities. The Court clearly stated that the State cannot alienate these resources for industrial activities, even if alternatives are provided. This judgment emphasizes the constitutional duty to protect the environment and ensures that community rights over common resources are upheld. It serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving environmental protection and community rights.