Holding

The 1992 notification under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 prohibits clearing or breaking up of land, thereby barring construction, and the notified areas are to be treated as forest for purposes of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980; thus the petitioners’ claims are untenable.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined petitions filed by developers who had created plots in the Aravalli Range and sold them to non‑resident buyers, seeking relief from a 1992 notification under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 that prohibited certain activities for 30 years. The petitioners argued that the earlier M.C. Mehta judgment, which dealt with forest‑conservation issues, did not apply to their construction activities. The Court held that the notification expressly bars clearing or breaking up of land, which is a prerequisite for any construction, and that clause (g) of Section 4 benefits only inhabitants of nearby towns and villages, not the petitioners’ buyers. It further affirmed that the notified areas are to be treated as ‘forest’ for purposes of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and therefore the restrictions in the earlier judgment continue to operate. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. The decision reinforced the applicability of the Punjab Land Preservation Act and the Forest Conservation Act to prevent environmentally harmful construction in the Aravalli region.

Issues considered

The applicability of the 1992 notification under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 to construction activities on the notified land.
Whether the areas notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act are to be treated as ‘forest’ under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The effect of the earlier M.C. Mehta judgment on the present case.
Whether clause (g) of Section 4 permits construction by non‑resident plot buyers.

Legislation cited

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2
Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900s. 3, s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

environmental lawforest conservationland preservationPunjab Land Preservation Actconstruction prohibitionground water depletionAravalli hillsmining restrictionssustainable development

Judgment

12ooar8 s-:-c. R~ 828

A M.C. MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
I.A. NO. 1901
IN
B I.A. NO. 1888
IN
(W.P.(c) No. 4677 Of 1985)
... •
MAY 14, 2008

c [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKE$HWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Environmental Laws:
Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 - ss. 3, 4 and 5 -
D Notification dated 18th August, 1992 - Issued by State Gov-
ernment under s.4, prohibiting activities contained in the said
notification for 30 years- I.A. relating to land situated in Aravalli
Range - Effect of decision of this Court in the earlier M. C.
Mehta 's case - Held: Decision of this Court in the earlier M. C.
E Mehta's case dealt with applicability of the Conservation Act
to areas treated as forest by the State Forest Department -
This Court was not only examining the mining activity in the
area upto 5 km on the Haryana side of the Ridge, but also in
the Arava/li Hills causing environmental degradation - Gen- ~
y
F tral Ground Water Board's report shows that the area in ques-
tion has been notified as a very precarious ground water situ-
ation - Any construction activity therein without adequate wa-
ter reserves will also have a negative effect - Therefore it is
not correct as contended by the applicant that the nature of
lands of the applicant were considered by this Court in the
G
earlier case and the restrictions did not operate so far as they A
are concerned - Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
•
The State Government decided to notify the area in
question under s.4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act,
H 828
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 829
& ORS.
.. . ' 1
1900, prohibiting activities contained in the said notifica- A
tion dated 18th August, 1992 for a period of 30 years.
The effect of the decision of this Court in M. C. Mehta's
case* on the areas declared under ss.4 and 5 of the Act
arose for consideration in the present I.As.
B
I.A. 1901 of 2005 relates to the land situated in Aravalli
• 'y Range. The applicants herein have developed plots in the
area in question and have sold it to persons who are not
inhabitants of towns and vmages within the specified liv-
ing area. It is the contention of the applicants that in view c
of the decision in the earlier MC. Mehta's case*, the re-
strictions did not operate so far as they were concerned.
Dismissing the I.As, the Court
HELD:1.1. s.3 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act,
D
1900 inter-alia provides that whenever the State Govern-
ment with a view to conserve - (a) sub-soil water; (b) ero-
sion in any area; may make a notification for the said pur-
pose and s.4 thereof provides as to what activities can be
prohibited. A perusal of ss. 4 and 5 would show that what
can be prohibited is- (a) the clearing or breaking up of any E
area/land which was not under cultivation; (b) the quarry-
ing of stone or burning of lime which was not so being
done earlier; (c) the cutting of trees or timber or collection
+ or removal of any forest produce except for bonafide do-
" mestic use; (d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest F
produce; (e) the admission, herding, retention or pastur-
ing of animals; (f) the examination of forest produce and
(g) the grant of permits to the inhabitants of the towns and
villages to take any tree or timber or forest produce for their

•
..
own use or to pasture sheep or camel or to cultivate or to
make building etc. [Para 11] [839-E-H; 840-A]
G

1.2. In view of the notification under s.4 when the
clearing or breaking up of the land is not permitted that
itself is a bar from fresh construction because a construe-
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A tion only can take place if clearing and breaking of an areal
land taking place. This prohibition is clearly contained in
the notification of 1992. The reliance placed by the appli-
cants on clause (g) is clearly misconceived, inasmuch as
the permissible activity allowed within clause (g) is in
B favour of inhabitants of town and villages within the lim-
•
its or vicinity of any such area. The admitted case is that
the applicants herein have developed plots in the area in
question and have sold it to persons who are not inhabit-
ants of towns and villages within such specified living
c area, but could be anybody from all over the country or
outside, and therefore clause (g) in s.4 has no applica-
tion. The factum of developing a plot and then construct
therein would amount to clearing or ·breaking up of an
area or land. [Para 12] [840-B-E]
D 1.3. The decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta's case*
dealt with the applicability of the Conservation Act to the
areas treated as forest by the State Forest Department.
The said decision notes the argument, which is presently
reiterated that the State Forest Department has been treat-
E ing and showing the areas notified under ss. 3, 4 and 5 as
forest. This Court was not only examining the mining ac-
tivity in the area upto 5 km on the Haryana side of the
Ridge, but also in the Aravalli Hills causing environmen-
tal degradation. Further, it has been noted that the appli-
F cation that was filed by Delhi Ridge Management Board
not only sought for a direction to stop all mining activities
but also of pumping of ground water in and from areas
upto 5 km from Delhi Haryana border on the Haryana side
of the Ridge, inter-alia stating that this was in the larger
G interest of maintaining ecological balance of the environ-
ment. As per the Amicus Curie, location of the applicant
company's plots are in the Ridge and in the Aravalli chain.
[Paras 7, 13 and 14] [834-A-B; 840-E-H; 841-A]
1.4. Under the orders of th:s Court, the Environmen-
H tal Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) was directed to give.
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 831
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

a report with regard to the Environment in the area pref- A
erably after a personal visit. The Central Ground Water
Board's report shows that the area in question in Village
Anangpur has been notified as a very precarious ground
water situation. Any construction activity therein without
adequate water reserves will also have a negative effect. B
In M. C. Mehta's* case it is noted that ground water table is
already at critical stage in Faridabad. Therefore it is not
• .,.. correct as contended by the applicant that the nature of
lands of the applicant were considered by this Court in
the earlier case and the restrictions did not operate so far c
as they are concerned. [Paras 15, 19, 20] [841-B; 842-F,G]

. * M.C. Mehta v Union of India & Ors., 2004 (12) SCC
118 - referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA No. 1901 in I.A. No. 1888
D
IN
Writ petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (Under article 32 of
the constitution of India)
WITH E
I.A. No. 1955 IN
I.A.No. 1888 in W.P. (c) No. 4677of1985

~ Ranjit Kumar, (AC)Arun Jaitley, P.S. Patwalia, K.K. Venugopal,
Vijay Lakshmi Menon, C.A. Sundaram, Kamal Gupta, (AC), Pijush F
" Sharma, Dinesh C. Pandey, Gopal S. Narayan, Sharmila Upadhyay,
Sanjay Hegde, Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhan Jha and Yashraj Singh
Deora (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Appellant.
Manjit Singh, AAG, TV. George, Vijay Panjwani, V.K. G
Verma, Sheil Sethi, Anil Katiyar, Sharmila Upadhyay, C.S. Ashri
.- ~
and Ajay Siwach for the Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. I.A. 1901 of 2005 relates to
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A the land situated in Aravalli Range. Challenge basically is to
the communication dated 31.1.2005 by the Divisional Forest
officer, Faridabad requesting the Commissioner, Faridabad,
the Administration Haryana, Urban Development Authority (in
short the 'HUDA') and the District Town Planner, Faridabad
B forwarding list of area closed under Sections 4 & 5 of the Punjab
Land Preservation Act, 1900 (in short the 'Act'). It was indicated
that these areas have been declared by this Court to be "forest"
and, therefore, penal action is required to be taken for any non
'
forest activities under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (in short
c the 'Conservation Act'). This communication was issued pur-
portedly on the basis of this Court's order. Similar communica-
tion was made by the Senior Town Planner, Gurgaon Circle,
Gurgaon intimating Dr. Mathan Singh Kanwar that he has to
obtain "NOC" from the forest department and produce the same
D before the Senior Town Planner so that the next course of ac-
tion with regard to granting occupation certificate can be car-
ried out. Reference has also been made to a letter dated
19.9.1999 by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government,
Haryana Forest and Wildlife Department addressed to the Prin-
cipal Chief Conservator, Forest Conservation, Haryana on the
E subject of prohibition in the areas covered under the Notifica-
tion issued under the Act. It has been indicated therein that the
Forest Department will not declare areas notified, under Sec-
tions 4 & 5 of the Act as "forest".
F 2. The background facts show that the State Government
decided to notify the area in question under Section 4 of the
Act, prohibiting activities contained in the said notification dated
181h August, 1992 for a period of 30 years. The effect of the
decision in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (2004 (12)
G sec 118) on the areas declared under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Act, have to be noted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the I.A. No. 1901
and I.A. No.1999 filed by Kant Enclave Residents Welfare As-
sociation, I.A. 1955 filed on behalf of Karamyogi Shelters Pvt.
H Ltd. and certain other I.As. i.e. I.A. Nos. 1965-66 and 2024 in
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 833
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

I.A. 1901-1904 for impleadment and directions are filed by PCL A
Industries. It is the stand that the decision of this Court in M. C.
Mehta's case (supra) fully takes care of the situation. It is sub-
mitted that the decision was mining centric. In the instant case
the development started in 1992. The earlier judgment clearly
excluded constructions already undertaken. There cannot be B
any retrospective effect in the inter-fraction of forest and in the
instant case the first and in most of the cases the first licence
•¥ was granted prior to the Conservation Act. Reference is also
made to Faridabad Complex Requisition and Development Act,
1971 (in short the '1971 Act') the National Capital Region Plan- c
ning Board, 1985 and also to the object of 1971 Act. It is pointed
out that the situation for pre 21.12.1992 period has been dealt
with in paras 80 & 81 of the earlier judgment. Similar stand has
been dealt with and rejected in para 82. It is pointed out that
there is an overriding effect so far as Section 27 is concerned
0
and the1971 Act has to be kept out of consideration because
of Section 27.
4. Learned Amicus curie on the other hand submitted that
this Court nowhere has kept the cases of the applicant out of
consideration. In fact the other questions like the effect of Sec- E
lion 4 were examined.
5. In the order dated 181h August, 1992 issued by the For-
est Department of the Government, Serials 9 to 16 become
relevant.
F
" 6. It is to be noted that Section 4 is subject to Section. 3
Notification. Conservator of Forest in his letter to Mis R. Kant &
Company dated 15.5.1996 noted as follows:
"Mis. R. Kant & Co. 407 Vishal Vhawan 95 Nehru Place,
new Delhi 110019 is allowed to proceed ahead with their G
plan in Khasra No. 9 to 16 Viii. Anangpur, Faridabad in
accordance with the agreement signed with Haryana
Government. Through Commissioner and Secretary. Town
and Country Planning Haryana dated 27 May 1992."
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
~

A 7. It is to be noted that earlier the focus was on areas and 'r'
. not on khasra numbers. The stand of the applicants regarding
pre 21.12.1992 has been dealt with in paras 80 &81 of the ear-
'
lier judgment. The decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta's case
(supra) dealt with the applicability of the Conservation Act to
B the areas teated as forest by the State Forest Department in
Parag(aphs 78 ,79, 80, 81 & 82. It was inter alia observed as
follows: •
/
/ '1
"78. The provisions of the Act provide for the conservation
of forest and for matters connected therewith or ancillary
c or incidental thereto. Any forest land or portion thereof
cannot be used for any non-forest purposes or assigned
by way ofleases or otherwise to any private person or to
any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation
not owned, managed or controlled by the Government,
D .except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
Mining activity within forest area cannot be permitted in
contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Act makes
the contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2 as
an offence punishable in the manner provided in the Act.
E 79. The controversy is in respect of certain leases where
area under the lease is covered under notification issued
under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation
Act, 1900. The question is whether such area is "forest" of
any kind. ,:+-
F ~

80. Under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, whenever it
appears to the State Government that it is desirable to
provide for the conservation of subsoil water or the
prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion or
likely to become liable to erosion, such Government may
G
by notification make a direction accordingly. Under Section
-f....
4(b), the State Government has power to regulate, restrict •
or prohibit the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime at
places where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been
so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 835
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

notification under Section 3. Under Section 5(b) in respect A
of any specified village or villages, or part or parts thereof,
comprised within the limits of any area notified under
Section 3, the State Government may, by special order,
temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit the quarrying of
any stone or the burning of any lime at places where such B
stone or lime had ordinarily been so quarried or burnt
prior to the publication of the notification under Section 3.
" .)' In respect of some mining areas notifications have been
issued under Section 4 and in respect of some,
notifications have been issued both under Sections 4 and
5. The submission is that invoking of Sections 3, 4 and 5
c
is only to conserve subsoil water and prevention of the
area from erosion of land and is not to create any forest.
It has been pointed out that in cases where the notifications
have been issued, only felling of trees had been prohibited
D
and not quarrying of stone.
·+ 81. It cannot be disputed that the State Forest Department
has been treating and showing the aforesaid areas as
"forest". The contention urged on behalf of the State
Government is that it was on account of erroneous viewpoint E
of the Forest Department. In fact and law, such area is not
"forest" and mining is not prohibited and, therefore the
question of seeking permission under Section 2 of the FC
Act does not arise .
.J-
" 82. In the instant case, it is not necessary to decide the F
legal effect of issue of the notification under Sections 4
and/or 5 of the Act. Not only in their record has the area
been shown as forest but affidavits have been filed in this
Court stating the area to be "forest". In TN. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad v. Union of lndialQ this Court held that the G

•>-
term "forest" is to be understood in the dictionary sense
and also that any area regarded as a forest in government
records, irrespective of ownership, would be a forest. The
State of Haryana, besides having filed affidavits in the
forest matters treating such areas as forest for the H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A purposes of the FC Act has been seeking prior approval r '"' -
from the Central Government for diversion of such land for ti
non-forestry purpose. Reference in this connection may
also be made to the affidavit dated 8-12-1996 filed by
Banarsi Das, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
B .Chandigarh, Haryana in Environmental Awareness Forum
v. State ofJ&Kll. Our attention has· also been drawn to
letter dated 26-11-2002 addressed by the Divisional Forest •
Officer, Faridabad to the Mining Officer, Faridabad --f
forwarding to him a list of blocked forest areas of
c Faridabad district and requesting him to ensure that the
said forest areas are not affected by any mining operations
as also to a letter dated 17-9-2001 sent by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana (Panchkula) to the
Director of Environment, Haryana stating therein that no
mining activity can be permitted in the area. On the facts
D
and circumstances of the case, we cannot permit the State
Government to take a complete somersault in these -r
proceedings and contend that the earlier stand that the
area is forest was under some erroneous impressions. In
the present case, for the purposes of the FC Act, these
E areas shall be treated as forest and for use of it for non- ·1-

forestry purpose, it would .be necessary to comply with the
provisions of the FC Act.~'
8. In para 82 it has been noted that it is not necessary to
~
F decide the legal effect of the issue of the notifications under •
Sections 4&5 of the Act.
9. Conclusions in the said case were to the following ef-
feet:
, "96. 1. The order dated 6-5-2002! as clarified hereinbefore
G
cannot be vacated or varied before consideration of the
report of the Monitoring Committee constituted by this "-·•
judgment.
2. The notification of environment assessment clearance
H dated 27-1-1994 is applicable also when renewal of mining
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 837
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

lease is considered after issue of the notification. A
3. On the facts of the case, the mining activity in areas
covered under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the Punjab Land
Preservation Act, 1900 cannot be undertaken without
approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
B
4. No mining activity can be carried out on area over which
, plantation has been undertaken under the Aravalli Project
)-
by utilisation of foreign .funds.

5. The mining activity can be permitted only on the basis
of sustainable development and on compliance of stringent c
conditions.

6. The Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost.
In case despite stringent conditions, there is an adverse
irreversible effect on the ecology in the Aravalli hill range
D
. .+ area, at a later date, the total stoppage of mining activity
in the area may have to be considered. For similar reasons
such step may have to be considered in respect of mining
in Faridabad district as well.
7. MOEF is directed to prepare a short-term and long- E
term action plan for the restoration of environmental quality
of Aravalli hills in Gurgaon district having regard to what is
stated in final report of CMPDI within four months .
.A 8. Violation of any of the conditions would entail the risk
• of cancellation of mining lease. The mining activity shall F
continue only on strict compliance of the stipulated
conditions."
10. It is to be noted that in the counter affidavit filed by the
State of Haryana on 10.9.2006 it has been inter alia stated as G
follows:
"This notification covers Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 of the village
Anangpur. Since then this land is being treated as forest
and it was also included in the list of forests in the
Government record. The affidavit filed by the forest H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A department, Haryana in case of CWP No. 202 of 1995
in TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India &
Ors., this area was shown as a forest. Section 2 of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 restricts the de-reservation
of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purposes."
8 "M/s. R.Kant & Co. present applicant applied for exemption
from Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area
Act, 1975 for establishment of Films Studio and Allied
Complex at village Anangpur. The Government exercising
the powers conferred by Section 23 of Haryana
c Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1975') vide letter dated
17.4.1984 granted the exemption subject to certain
conditions. Prior to notification under Section 4 of Punjab
Land Preservation Act, 1900, the said land was not shown
D as forest in Government records. The conditions were:
(a) The company gets the layout plan finally approved +. .
from DTCP within 60 days of the grant of the
exemption letter.
E (b) The company shall submit a bank guarantee equal
to 10% of the total cost of all development works as
certified by the Director within 60 days of the issue
of this letter.
(c) That the exemption is conditional and subject to the ,.i..
F production of title deeds as proof of ownership of the •
land in question by Mis. R.Kant and Company."
17. That the applicant failed to comply with the terms
and conditions of the agreement and undertaking of
the exemption granted u/s 23 of the Act of 1975.
G
Therefore a show cause notice dated 19.12.1986
was issued to the applicant for withdrawal of the ~~
exemption. The copy of the show cause not!ce dated
19.12.1986 is as Annexure R-5.

H 21. That Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide
• M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 839
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"I
letter dated 27 .1.2006 informed the Director A
Town & Country Planning Department that
Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 of Anangpur is notified
under Section 4 of Punjab Land Preservation
Act, 1900 vide notification dated 18.8.1992.
Hence the above area was treated as Forest in B
view of the order dated 18.3.2004 passed by
'+' this Court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra). Since
the applicant never submitted any proposal with
the Forest Department for diversion of Forest
land for non-forestry use under the Forest c
Conservation Act, 1980, therefore the Director
Town & Country planning asked the -applicant
vide letter dated 27 .6.2006 to seek the
diversion of Forest land in Khasra Nos. 9 to 16
of village Anangpur for non-forestiy use under
"+ D
the ForestConservation Act. 1980."
11. Reference can be made to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the
Act. Section 3 inter-alia provides that whenever the State Gov-
ernment with a view to conserve - (a) sub-soil water; (b) erosion
in any area; may make a notification for the said purpose and E
Section 4 thereof provides as to what activities can be prohib-
ited. A perusal of Section 4 and 5 would show that what can be
_... prohibited is-
t (a) The clearing or breaking up of any area/land which
was not under cultivation; F

(b) The quarrying of stone or burning of lime which was
not so being done earlier;
(c) The cutting of trees or timber or collection or removal of
~>- any forest produce except for bonafide domestic use; G
(d) The setting on fire of trees, timber or forest produce;
(e) The admission, herding, retention or pasturing of animals;
(f) The examination of forest produce;
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. ,. .
-
A (g) The grant of permits to the inhabitants of the towns
and villages to take any tree or timber or forest
"" !II
produce for_their own use or to pasture sheep or
camel or to cultivate or to make building etc."
12. In view of the notification under Section 4 when the
B . clearing or breaking up of the land is not permitted that itself is
'abarfrom fresh construction because a construction only can
"+'
"
take place if clearing and breaking of an area/land taking place. {Iii

This\prohibition is clearly contained in the notification of 1992.
...
·)-

The reliance placed by the applicants on clause (g) is clearly )

c misconcew~d, inasmuch as the permissible activity allowed
within clause'{~ is in favour of inhabitants of town and villages
within the limits Qr vicinity of any such area. The admitted case
is that the applicartts herein have developed plots in the area in
question and have sdkl it to persons who are not inhabitants of
D towns and villages withrn such specified living area, but could
be anybody from all over "th~ country or outside,. and therE>fore +' =
clause (g) in Section 4 has n&~plication. The factum of devel- I
oping a plot and then construct Qerein would amount to clear-

E
ing or breaking up of an area 9r lcihcl;
"
13. The judgment in M. C. Mehta's'cgise (supra) notes the
•
argument, which is presently reiterated that the State Forest
Department has been treating and showing"th~ areas notified
under Sections 3, 4 and 5 as forest. This Court,noted this in ,i...
para-82 of the judgmentwhich has been extracted above. ,
F
14. This Court was not only examining the mining activity
in the area upto 5 km on the Haryana side of the Ridge, but also
in the Aravalli Hills causing environmental degradation as is
apparent from para-1 of the judgment. Further in para-8, it has
been noted that the application that was filed by Delhi Ridge 1;;
G
Management Board not only sought for a direction to stop all .J... ~
mining activities but also of pumping of ground water in and
from areas upto 5_km from Delhi Haryana border on the Haryana
side of the Ridge, inter-alia stating that this W2.S in the larger
interest of maintaining ecological balance of the environment.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 841
& ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
""!
As per learned Amicus Curie location of the applicant company's A
plots are in the Ridge and in the Aravalli chain.
15. Under the orders of this Court dated 22.7.2002, the Envi-
ronmental Pollution Control Authority (EPCA for short) was directed
to give a report with regard to the Environment in the area prefer-
ably after a personal visit. The objective of the visit by the EPCA B

• --+- members has been noted in para 12 of the judgment as under:
1. Assessment of the level of compliance with the
conditions laid down in the regulatory procedures
like the no-objection certificate (NOC) granted by c
authorities to the mine-owners.
2. Evidence of land and habitat degradation in and
around the mining sites.
3. Evidence of misuse and shortage of ground water in
D
'1- the area.
4. Assessment of the implication of such activities for the
local ecology and drinking water sources in the area.
16. During the visit, it appears EPCA found clear evidence
E
of violation of some of the key conditions of order of this Court,
dated 10.5.1996.
17. EPCA referred to the notification of August, 1992 which
_._
report is extracted at para-14 of the judgment. In fact the EPCA,
~
in its report regarding compliance of environmental manage- F
ment plans recommended by NEERI as directed by this Court
on 10.5.1996 at Sl.No.4 noticed as under:
S1. No. Directive Enforced or not
4 Green belt on either side We saw large-scale G
? of the road between construction on this
Surajkund and Badkal road from schools to
(P.S. The applicant's management colleges
H
~
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.

~\;'c'
~
A near the Surajkund) and housing colonies ~
18. The recommendation of EPCA are as under:
'Not only must further degradation be halted but all efforts
must be made to ensure that the local economy is
B rejuvenated, with the use of plantations and local water L
harvesting-based opportunities. It is indeed sad to note the
plight of people living in these hills who are caught between •
losing their water-dependent livelihood and between losing '""'"
their only desperate livelihood to break stones in the quarries.
c It is essential that the Government of Haryana seriously
implements programmes to enhance the land based
livelihood of peoµle - agriculture, animal care and forestry.
Local people must not be thrown into making false choices,
which may secure their present but will destroy their future.
Already, all the village visited by EPCA complained of dire
D
and desperate shortages of drinking water. Women talked
about long queues before taps to collect water. Clearly water --\'-
resources of the region are critical inputs to development
and cannot be wasted and destroyed like this. The State
Government must come up with strategies to involve local
E communities in the future development of this region'.
19. Central Ground Water Board's report referred to in para-
16 shows that the area in question in Village Anangpur has been
notified as a very precarious ground water situation. Any con- >..
F struction activity therein without adequate water reserves will also ~

have a negative effect. ln para-24 of M. C. Mehta's case it is noted
that ground water table is already at critical stage in Faridabad.
20. Therefore it is not correct as contended by the appli-
cant that the nature of lands of the applicant were considered
G by this Court in the earlier case and the restrictions did not op-
erate so far as they are concerned. ~
'·
21. l.A.s are accordingly dismissed.
8.8.8. lAs dismissed.
H