1    

                                                                           REPORTABLE                                           

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5016 OF 2016    MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD.    … APPELLANTS     

VERSUS    FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS.       … RESPONDENTS    

WITH    

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8002-8003 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12326 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9227 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1343 OF 2017  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10995 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10993 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10994 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2246 OF 2018  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10992 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12157 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12152 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12156 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12158 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12160 OF 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12159 OF 2016

2    

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4923-4924 OF 2017  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.14966 OF 2017  

J U D G M E N T        

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.    

1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 22 of the  

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity 'NGT Act')  

challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and  

04.05.2016 respectively passed by the Principal Bench of the  

National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal').   

2. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002-

8003 of 2016 are respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original  

Application No. 222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the  

respondent Nos. 9 and 10').  The said Application was filed by  

respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the  

applicants').  Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in these appeals are the State  

of Karnataka and other authorities. They were arrayed as  

respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the application. Respondent Nos. 12 and

3    

13 herein were subsequently impleaded in the application (for short  

'the impleaded respondents').   

3. The State of Karnataka has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4923-4924  

of 2017, challenging the general condition and direction No.(1)   

contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016.   The other  

appeals have been filed by different entities, who were not parties  

before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated  

04.05.2016 insofar as it directs a buffer/green zone of 75 meters in  

respect of lakes, 50 meters in respect of primary Rajakaluves, 35  

meters in case of secondary Rajakaluves and 25 meters in case of  

tertiary Rajakaluves with retrospective effect.  According to them,  

they are adversely affected by the aforesaid condition in the  

impugned order.    

4. The applicants filed O.A. No.222 of 2014 by contending that  

ecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial  

Area Development Board (for short 'the KIADB') to respondent Nos.  

9 and 10 vide Notifications dated 23.04.2004 and 07.05.2004  

respectively for setting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial  

and Residential complex, hotel and Multi Level Car Parks. The  

Master Plan formulated by the Bangalore Development Authority

4    

(for short the 'BDA'), identifies the allotted land as 'Residential  

Sensitive', though the same land was identified in the Draft Master  

Plan as 'Protected Zone'.  It was further contended that the Revenue  

Map in respect of properties as referred in the Land Lease  

Agreements has multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains).  The  

development projects in question sit right on the catchment and  

wetland area which feeds the Rajakaluves, which in turn drains  

rain water into Bellandur Lake. The project will thus encroach two  

Rajakaluves of 1.38 acres and 1.23 acres each.  

5. The Satellite Digital Images of the area from the year 2000 to  

2012 show encroachment upon these Rajakaluves, as well as the  

manner in which they are covered by the construction.  The State  

Level Expert Appraisal Committee (for short 'SEAC'), which was to  

assist the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority  

(for short 'SEIAA'), held its meetings on various dates to examine  

the project. It had required the appellant No.9 to submit a revised  

NOC from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for  

short 'BWSSB') for the project in question.  It was also observed  

that the project lies between the Bellandur Lake and the Agara  

Lake. Respondent No.9 was also directed to take protective

5    

measures to spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves and also to  

commit that no construction would be carried out in the buffer  

zone. In the meeting of 11.11.2011, it was recorded that the project  

proposes car parking facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentally  

sensitive area.  

6. It was alleged that NOC was issued covering an area of 17,404  

sq. mtrs. whereas the built up area, as noted by SEAC, is  

13,50,454.98 sq. mtrs.  Respondent No.9 obtained NOC from  

BWSSB by concealing material facts and by misrepresenting that  

NOC is required only for residential units which form a very  

minuscule part of the total project.  Respondent No.9 had  

approached the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short  

'the KSPCB') for obtaining clearance, which was granted on  

04.09.2012 subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stated in the  

consent order which included leaving the buffer zone all along the  

valley and towards the lake. It is further contended that the grant of  

consent by the KSPCB to respondent No.9 also contained a  

condition with regard to obtaining Environmental Clearance from  

the Competent Authority and no construction was to commence  

until such clearance was granted.

6    

7. Applicants further contended that respondent No.9 violated  

the conditions and commenced construction of the project.  There  

was also violation of the stipulations stated in the approval of SEAC  

in relation to buffer zone and construction over Rajakaluves.  The  

construction had been commenced over the ecologically sensitive  

area of the lake catchment area and valley, with utter disregard to  

the statutory compliances.  Referring to these blatant irregularities,  

the applicant submitted that the conversion of land from 'Protected  

Zone' to 'Residential Sensitive Area' is violative of the law. The  

project is right in the midst of a fragile wetland area which ought  

not to have been disturbed by the development activity. The fragile  

environment of the catchment area has been exposed to grave and  

irreparable damage. It has severely disturbed and damaged the  

Rajakaluves.  Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 started to level the land by  

filling it with debris, thus causing damage to the drains.  The  

conditions with regard to no-disturbance to the Storm Water  

Drains, natural valleys and buffer area in and around the  

Rajakaluves have been violated. It has in turn, affected the ground  

water table and bore wells which are the only source of water for  

thousands of households.  Fishing and agriculture which depends

7    

on Bellandur Lake are also severely affected.  The construction over  

the wetland between the two lakes is in violation of Wetlands  

(Conservation of Management) Rules, 2010 (for short 'Rules of  

2010').  

8. It was submitted that SEIAA in its meeting dated 29.09.2012,  

decided to close the file pertaining to respondent No. 10 due to non-

submission of requisite information and the application thereof was  

rejected in November, 2012.  Despite the rejection, respondent  

No.10 commenced construction on the project in full swing.  

9. The applicants also relied upon the findings of the Joint  

Legislative Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri  

A.T. Ramaswamy in the month of July 2005, which stated that  

there were 262 water bodies in the Bangalore city in 1961 which  

drastically came down because of trespass and encroachments. It  

was also affirmed that about 840 kms. of Rajakaluves have been  

encroached upon in several places and have become sewage  

channels. The applicants also relied on the Report of the Committee  

under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil  

suggesting immediate remedial action in order to remove  

encroachments on the lake area and the Rajakaluves and

8    

preservation of the lakes in and around Bangalore city.  It was  

further contended that other Expert Committees, including  

Lakshman Rau Expert Committee had also submitted proposals for  

preservation, restoration or otherwise of the existing tanks in  

Bangalore Metropolitan Area which recommended to maintain good  

water surface in Bellandur tank and to ensure that the water in the  

tank is not polluted.  The Central Government in August 2013 had  

issued an advisory on conservation and restoration of water bodies  

in the urban areas. The applicants claim to have obtained  

monitoring report of the project by respondent No.5, Ministry of  

Environment and Forests, through RTI on 21.08.2013.  The report  

dated 14.08.2013 revealed that the project proponents are in clear  

breach of their undertaking to carry out all precautionary measures  

to ensure that the Bellandur lake is not affected by the construction  

and operational phase of the project.  This approach is particularly  

with regard to the major alteration in natural sloping pattern of the  

project site and natural hydrology of the area.  

10. The Lake Development Authority (for short ‘the LDA’), after  

inspection in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake submitted  

its report dated 12.06.2013 which confirms that the project will

9    

have disastrous impact, including deleterious effect on the  

Bellandur Lake.  This report was brought to the notice of KIADB.  

The LDA has also opined that the land should be classified and  

maintained as sensitive area. The KIADB called upon respondent  

No. 9 to comply with the rules of Ecology and Environment  

Department and to obtain necessary approval from KSPCB and  

LDA. Despite all this,   respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have continued  

with their illegal constructions and have caused damage to the  

ecology and the environment by irreparably jeopardizing the  

ecological balance in this sensitive area. The applicants rely upon  

the Revised Master Plan, 2013 issued by BDA which specifically  

provides that 30 meters buffer zone is to be created around the  

lakes and 50 meters buffer zone to be created on either side of the  

Rajakaluves. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 9 had  

obtained the NOC from BWSSB only with regard to residential units  

and not for the entire project and that the Environmental Clearance  

obtained by  respondent No.9 is based upon the partial NOC issued  

by BWSSB which itself is a misrepresentation.  It was contended  

that the projects are bound to create water scarcity as the  

requirement of the project of respondent No. 9 alone is

10    

approximately 4.5 million liters per day, i.e. 135 million liters per  

month, which is more than what the BWSSB supplies to the entire  

Agaram Ward. The construction of respective projects by  

respondent Nos.9 and 10 respectively, besides having commenced  

without permission from the authorities and being in violation of  

the conditions imposed for grant of permission/consent, is bound to  

damage the environment, resulting in change in the topography of  

the area, posing potential threat of extinction of the Bellandur lake,  

causing traffic congestion, shortening and wiping out the wetlands,  

extinction of Rajakaluves and causing serious and potential threat  

of flooding and massive scarcity of water in the city of Bangalore,  

particularly the areas located near the water bodies.   

11.  Respondent No.9 in its objections contended that it was  

incorporated with the objective of establishing an Information  

Technology Park and R & D Centre with facilities such as  

residential complexes, parks, education centres and other allied  

infrastructure within a single compound. It had submitted the  

proposal to establish such Information Technology Park and other  

facilities to the State Government and requested for allotment of  

land for the project. Its proposal was considered in 78th High Level

11    

Committee meeting held on 21.06.2000 and after examining the  

proposal, it was approved by the Government on 06.07.2000. Before  

the State High Level Committee, it had informed that its  

requirement was 110 acres of land, 25 MW of power from the  

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short the  

‘KPTCL’), and four lakh litres of water per day from BWSSB. The  

lands for the project were initially notified vide Notification dated  

10.02.2004.  Subsequently, the lands were allotted vide letter dated  

28.06.2007 for which Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was signed on  

30.06.2007.  Considering the overall development of the State of  

Bangalore, this respondent proposed a Mixed Use Development  

Project consisting of an Information Technology Park, residential  

apartments, retail, hotel and office buildings with a total built up  

area of 13,50,454.98 sq mtrs.  The Project was conceived as a zero  

waste discharge project.  The project is located one and a half kms.  

away from the southern-side of the Bellandur Lake.  Towards the  

North, adjacent to the Project, lies vast stretches of lands belonging  

to the Defence and towards the East, lies the Project of respondent  

No. 10 and another developer is also developing a project on the

12    

western side. It has obtained sanction plan on 04.07.2007 which  

was renewed from time to time.   

12. Respondent No. 9 claims that it has obtained NOC from  

Airport Authority of India on 09.04.2010.  Bharat Sanchar Nigam  

Ltd, vide its communication dated 16.04.2010, granted clearance  

for the project construction. BWSSB, vide its communication dated  

26.04.2011 issued NOC for portion of the proposed construction to  

be built.  The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. also  

granted NOC for arranging power supply to the proposed residential  

and commercial building in its favour.  Environmental Clearance  

was granted by SEIAA vide communication dated 17.04.2012.  The  

Director General of Police has issued NOC and KSPCB vide order  

dated 04.09.2012 accorded its consent for construction of the said  

project subject to the conditions stated therein. It was further  

stated that after grant of the Environmental Clearance on  

17.09.2012, the same was published in the leading newspapers  

“Kannada Prabha” and "The Indian Express” on 12.03.2012 and  

14.03.2014 respectively.   

13. It submitted a modified the building plan which was approved  

by KIADB vide its letter dated 30.08.2012, which was valid up to

13    

10.08.2014. It started the construction of the project in November  

2012, taking all precautions as per terms and conditions of the  

orders issued by the competent authorities. It was also submitted  

that it has raised the constructions in accordance with the plans  

and conditions of the Environmental Clearance and consent orders  

and that it has not violated any of the conditions and has not  

caused any adverse impact on the ecology and environment of the  

area. It has denied the contention that its construction activity has  

blocked the Rajakaluves and has adversely affected the lake. It has  

already spent a sum of Rs 306.73 crores on the project towards  

procurement of men and materials, machinery, infrastructure,  

medical and sanitary facilities, etc. and that it has availed financial  

assistance from various banks and financial institutions towards  

the construction and execution of the project and that various  

contracts have been signed with the third parties. It is specifically  

pleaded that the petition is barred by time and suffers from defects  

and laches.  

14. Respondent No.10 pleaded that the applicants raised  

multifarious proceedings against it which is an abuse of the process  

of law and mala fide.  It had submitted a revised proposal in respect

14    

of its project in question and to obtain fresh clearance on  

31.08.2007 with an investment of Rs. 179.22 crores. The State High  

Level Committee had cleared the project which was communicated  

to it on 25.01.2008. Its properties are located in between Bellandur  

Lake and Agara Lake but there are no primary storm water drains  

and secondary storm water drains that exist in its properties.  It  

has clearances from various authorities, including Environmental  

Clearance and consent for establishment.   

15. KIADB stated that after possession of the land was handed  

over to respondent Nos. 9 and 10, one year time was granted for the  

implementation of the project which was extended from time to  

time. The building drawings were approved on 04.07.2007, and the  

modified building drawings were approved on 26.04.2011 and  

30.08.2012 with specific conditions. In its meeting held on  

16.07.2013, it was resolved to inform respondent No. 9 to fully  

comply with the Ecology and Environment Rules and to obtain  

approvals from the LDA and KSPCB. LDA vide its letter dated  

24.09.2013, had informed KIADB that the construction activity in  

the catchment area in the Bellandur Lake could drastically impact  

the Lake with deleterious effects and asked it to stop construction

15    

activity of respondent Nos. 9 and 10. However, the validity of the  

building drawings was again extended up to 10.08.2014. The  

Lokayukta on 17.12.2013 had written a letter in respect of  

complaint filed by the South East Forum for Sustainable  

Development where it had been averred that the decision had been  

taken by the Board on 21.12.2013 to keep in abeyance the approval  

accorded and even the re-validations of plans. This was also  

informed to respondent No.9.   The Board took a decision which  

was communicated to respondent No.9 on 02.01.2014, wherein it  

asked the respondent No.9 to stop all construction activities on the  

allotted lands.  The said communication was challenged by  

respondent No. 9 and on the stop-work notice, stay was granted by  

the High Court of Karnataka. The stop-work notice dated  

23.12.2013 issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for  

short 'BBMP') was also stayed vide order dated 21.01.2014.  The  

proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 9 and 10 had been  

approved by the State Government. The land allotted to respondent  

Nos. 9 and 10 does not consist of any Rajakaluves.  

16. The LDA took a stand that it was not at all aware of the project  

initiated by KIADB. It came to know about the entire project only

16    

when certain newspaper reports surfaced during the month of  

June, 2013 and till that time it was in the dark. After the  

complaints, it inspected the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake on  

12.06.2013 and prepared an inspection report. In the report, it was  

noticed that large scale construction activities were going on in the  

catchment area of Bellandur Lake and that there was a change in  

the land use, which in turn has directly affected the catchment of  

Bellandur Lake.  The wetland area of Agara Lake had also shrunk,  

which originally formed the irrigation area for the adjoining  

agricultural lands. Therefore, it had questioned the decision of  

KIADB vide letter dated 06.07.2013 and even requested it to stop  

the construction activity and to re-classify the land as non-SEZ  

area.  It was thereafter on 31.08.2013, that respondent No. 9 wrote  

a letter for according approval for the proposed development  

projects.  However, vide its letter dated 23.09.2013, LDA informed  

KIADB that it had no authority to grant or deny construction  

projects, but it also communicated its objections to KIADB  

mentioning that construction activity would be in contravention of  

the directions of the Supreme Court. Despite these warnings,  

KIADB granted approval to the extension of the building drawings of

17    

the project in favour of the project proponents with certain  

conditions, like ensuring that all natural valleys, valley zone,  

irrigation tanks and existing roads leading to villages in the said  

land should not be disturbed. Further, the natural sloping pattern  

of the project site was not to be altered and the lakes and other  

water bodies within and/or at the vicinity of the project area should  

be protected and conserved.  Despite the objections, the plans were  

approved and approvals were extended from time to time. It has  

taken a categorical stand that the projects as approved by the  

KIADB would have adverse impact on Bellandur and Agara Lakes.   

17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal  

framed the following questions for consideration and determination:  

1.  Whether the application filed by the applicants and  

supported by respondent Nos. 11 and 12, is barred by  

time and thus, not maintainable?  

2. Whether the petition as framed and reliefs claimed  

therein, disclose a cause of action over which this  

Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the  

application under the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010?  

3.  Whether the present application is barred by the  

principle of res judicata and/or constructive res judicata?

18    

4.  Whether the application filed by the applicants should  

not be entertained or it is not maintainable before the  

Tribunal, in view of the pendency of the Writ Petitions  

36567-74 of 2013, before the Hon'ble High Court of  

Karnataka? and  

5. What relief, if any, are the applicants entitled to?    

Should or not the Tribunal, in the interest of  

environment and ecology issue any directions and if so,  

to what effect?  

18. The Tribunal by its order dated 07.05.2015 at Annexure A-2,  

disposed of the applications with the following directions:  

1) We decline to pass any direction or order to stop  

further progress and/or demolition of the project or any  

part thereof at this stage. However, we constitute the  

following Committee to inspect the projects in question  

and submit a report to the Tribunal inter alia but  

specifically on the issues stated hereinafter:   

a) Advisor in the Ministry of Environment and Forest  

dealing with the subject of wetlands.   

b) CEO of the Lake Development Authority, Karnataka  

State.   

c) Chief Town Planner of BBMP, Bangalore.   

d) Chairman of SEAC which recommended the grant of  

Environmental Clearance to the projects in  

question.  

19    

e)  Sr. Scientist (Ecology) from the Indian Institute of  

Sciences, Bangalore.   

f)  Dr. Siddharth Kaul, former Advisor to MoEF.   

g)  A Senior Officer from the National Institute of  

Hydrology, Roorkee.   

2) Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution  

Control Board shall act as the Convener of the  

Committee and would submit the final report to the  

Tribunal.   

3) The Committee shall inspect not only the sites  

where the projects in question are located but even other  

areas of Bangalore which the Committee in its wisdom  

may consider appropriate, in order to examine the  

interconnectivity of lakes and impact of such activities  

upon the water bodies with particular reference to lakes.  

4) The Committee shall submit whether the projects in  

question have encroached upon or are constructed on the  

wetlands and Rajakaluves. If so, are there any adverse  

environmental and ecological impact of these projects on  

the lake, particularly Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake, as  

well the Rajakaluves.  The report should specify, if any  

Rajakaluves have been covered by the construction  

activities of respondent Nos. 9 and 10 or by any of the  

projects in the area in question.   

5) Committee should submit in its report, if these  

projects have any adverse impacts upon the surrounding

20    

ecology and environment, with particular reference to  

lakes and wetlands. If yes, then whether any part of the  

project is required to be demolished. If so, details thereof  

along with reasons.  

6) The Committee shall substantially notice if any of  

the conditions of the Environmental Clearance order in  

each case of respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have been  

violated. If so, to what extent and suggest remedial  

measures in that behalf to restore the ecology of the area.  

7) The Committee would also recommend what should  

be the buffer zone around the lake(s) and interconnecting  

passages and wetlands. The Committee shall also report,  

whether activities of multipurpose projects which have  

serious repercussions on traffic, air pollution,  

environment and allied subjects should be permitted any  

further or not, particularly, in wetlands and catchment  

areas of water bodies.   

8) Recommendations should be made with regard to  

the steps and measures that should be taken for  

restoration of lakes, particularly in the city of Bangalore.  

9) The Committee shall also find out that whether the  

construction of the projects is in accordance with the  

sanctioned drawings and bye-laws in accordance with the  

letters dated 4th July, 2007 and 22nd April, 2008  

respectively. Further, the Committee would also report  

whether both respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have installed

21    

ETP/STP and have taken full measures for recycling of  

used water for washing and flushing, etc. in terms of  

letters dated 11th October, 2013 and 3rd January, 2013,  

issued by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development  

Board to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 respectively.   

10) In the event, the Committee is of the opinion that  

the adverse impacts noticed are redeemable, then what  

directions need to be issued in that behalf and the cost  

involved for achieving the said conservation and  

restoration of lakes and water bodies.   

11) Till the submission of the report by the Committee  

and directions passed by the Tribunal in that regard,  

both respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are hereby restrained  

from creating any 3rd party interests or part with the  

possession of the property in question or any part  

thereof, in favour of any person.   

12) The Committee shall submit its report to MoEF and  

to this Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and in any  

case not later than three months from today.  During  

that period we restrain MoEF, SEIAA and/or any public  

authority from sanctioning any construction project on  

the wetlands and catchment areas of the water bodies in  

the city of Bangalore.   

13) The Committee shall report if the project proponents  

are proposing to discharge their trade or domestic

22    

effluents into the lake or any of the water bodies in and  

around of the area in question.   

14) For the reasons stated in the judgment, respondent  

No. 9 is liable and shall pay a sum of Rs. 117.35 crores,  

while respondent No. 10 shall pay a sum of Rs. 22.5  

crores respectively being 5 per cent of the project value,  

within two weeks from today. The said amount would be  

paid to the KSPCB, which shall maintain a separate  

account for the same and would spend this amount for  

environmental and ecological restoration, restitution and  

other measures to be taken to rectify the damage  

resulting from default and non–compliance to law by the  

Project Proponent in that area, after taking approval of  

the Tribunal.   

15) We make it clear that the said respondents would  

not be entitled to pass on the amount in terms of  

direction 14, on to the purchasers because this liability  

accrues as a result of their own intentional defaults,  

disobedience of law in force and carrying on project  

activities and construction illegally and unauthorizedly.  

 19. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 9 and 10  

filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4829 and 4823 of 2015 before this Court.  

This Court by its Order dated 20th May, 2015 passed the following  

order:

23    

"One of the main contentions raised by  

the Appellants in these Appeals is that though  

the Tribunal had heard the matter only on  

preliminary issues and no arguments on merit  

were advanced, final judgment decides the  

merits of the disputes as well and above all a  

penalty of Rs.117.35 crores against the  

original Respondent No.9 (the Appellant in  

C.A. No. 4832 of 2015) and Rs. 22.5 crores  

against Original Respondent No. 10 (the  

appellant in C.A. No. 4829/2015) is imposed.   

On the aforesaid averment, we feel that it  

would be more appropriate for the appellant to  

file an application before the Tribunal with the  

prayer to recall the order on merits and decide  

the matter afresh after hearing the counsel for  

the parties, as the Tribunal knows better as to  

what transpired at the time of hearing.   

With the aforesaid liberty granted to the  

petitioners, the appeals are disposed of.  

Certain preliminary issues are decided against  

the appellants which are also the subject  

matter of challenge. However, it is not  

necessary to deal with the same this stage. We  

make it clear that in case the said application  

is decided against the appellants or if

24    

ultimately on merits, it would be open to the  

appellants to challenge those orders by filing  

the appeal and in that appeal all the issues  

which are decided in the impugned judgment  

can also be raised.   

The counsel for the appellants state that  

they would file the requisite application within  

one week. Till the said application is decided  

by the Tribunal, there shall be stay of the  

direction pertaining the payment of aforesaid  

penalty. Mr. Raj Panjwani points out that the  

Tribunal has allowed the appellants to proceed  

with the construction only on the payment of  

the aforesaid fine/penalty. We leave it to the  

Tribunal to pass whatever orders it deems fit  

in this behalf, after hearing the parties."  

 20. In relation to Issue No.5, an opportunity of hearing was  

granted to the respondents. The Tribunal passed order dated  

06.04.2016 on these applications as under:  

"M.A. No. 603 of 2015 and M.A. No. 596 of  2015   

These Applications have been filed on  

behalf of the Respondent 9 & 10 respectively.  

It is not necessary for us to refer to any details

25    

in view of the directions that we propose to  

issue in this case.  

Without prejudice to the rights and  

contentions of the parties and subject to just  

exception we would hear the parties in terms  

of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of  

India primarily on the question of imposition of  

Environmental Compensation and merits  

attached in relation thereto. Parties are given  

liberty to address their submissions on that  

behalf.  

With the above directions the M.A. No.  

603 of 2015 and M.A. No. 596 of 2015 stand  

disposed of without any order as to cost."  

    21. It is evident from the above orders that the Tribunal had  

granted opportunity to the parties to address it "limited question",   

as aforementioned. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an  

order dated 04.05.2016 as under:   

“General Conditions or directions:   

1. In view of our discussion in the main  

Judgment, we are of the considered view that  

the fixation of distance from water bodies  

(lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from the inbuilt

26    

contradiction, legal infirmity and is without  

any scientific justification. The RMP – 2015  

provides 50m from middle of the Rajkalewas as  

buffer zone in the case of primary Rajkalewas,  

25m in the case of secondary Rajkulewas and  

15m in the tertiary Rajkulewas in  

contradiction to the 30m in the case of lake  

which is certainly much bigger water body and  

its utility as a water body/wetland is well  

known certainly part of wet land. Thus, we  

direct that the distance in the case of  

Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 from Rajkulewas,  

Waterbodies and wetlands shall be maintained  

as below:-   

(i) In the case of Lakes, 75m from the  

periphery of water body to be maintained  

as green belt and buffer zone for all the  

existing water bodies i.e. lakes/wetlands.   

(ii) 50m from the edge of the primary  

Rajkulewas.   

(iii) 35m from the edges in the case of  

secondary Rajkulewas   

(iv) 25m from the edges in the case of  

tertiary Rajkulewas   

This buffer/green zone would be treated  

as no construction zone for all intent and

27    

purposes. This is absolutely essential for the  

purposes of sustainable development  

particularly keeping in mind the ecology and  

environment of the areas in question.   

All the offending constructions raised by  

Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 of any kind  

including boundary wall shall be demolished  

which falls within such areas. Wherever  

necessary dredging operations are required,  

the same should be carried out to restore the  

original capacity of the water spread area  

and/or wetlands. Not only the existing  

construction would be removed but also none  

of these Respondents - Project Proponent  

would be permitted to raise any construction  

in this zone.   

All authorities particularly Lake  

development Authority shall carry out this  

operation in respect of all the water bodies/  

lakes of Bangalore.   

2. The capacity of the existing STPs to treat  

sewage is 729 MLD, whereas another 500 MLD  

sewage is proposed to be treated in 10  

upcoming STPs. In this context, all the STPs  

operating in the area whether Government or

28    

privately owned, should meet the revised  

standards notified by CPCB/MoEF.   

3. Bangalore city receives treated potable  

water of 1360 MLD from river Cauvery whereas  

the requirement is for another 750 MLD and  

the entire area falls in critical zone in terms of  

ground water exploitation. Information reveals  

that only one million litre per month of STP  

treated water is used by builders for  

construction purposes. For this reason, the  

BWSSB issues partial NOC to various  

residential and commercial projects in respect  

of supply of potable water. In this context,  

following directions need to be issued:   

i.  At the time of grant of EC, the water  

requirement for the construction  

phase and operation phase should be  

considered separately. Due   

consideration should also be given for  

identification of source of supply of  

water and this should be a pre-

requisite for grant of EC.   

ii. All the project proponents should  

necessarily use only treated sewage  

water for construction purpose and

29    

this should be reflected in EC as a  

condition for construction phase.   

iii. Wherever the quality of treated sewage  

water does not conform to the quality  

needed for construction, necessary  

upgradation in STP should be  

undertaken immediately.   

Specific Conditions/ Directions for  

Respondent 9;  

 In addition to the above directions which  

should be equally part of EC condition in  

respect of respondents nos. 9 & 10, following  

specific conditions shall apply to respondent  

no. 9:   

i. Reclaimed area of the lake to the  

extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in  

survey No. 43 should be restored to  

its original condition at the cost of  

project proponent. The possession of  

this area should be restored by  

Respondent No. 9 to the concerned  

Authorities immediately. In addition,  

a buffer zone of 75 m should be  

provided between the lake and the  

project area and this should be  

maintained as green area.  

30    

ii.  In the remaining area, where  

primary Rajkalewa is abutting the  

project area, 50 m buffer zone on  

the side of the project area from the  

edge of the rajkalewa should be  

maintained as green belt.   

iii. Several irrigation canals or tertiary  

rajkalewas taking off from the Agara  

tank were passing through the area  

of respondent No. 9, and serve the  

dual purpose of irrigating paddy  

fields and disposal of surface run off  

(storm water drains) during rainy  

season. However on account of the  

activities of the project, these drains  

have been totally obliterated. For the  

purpose of proper disposal of storm  

runoff from the entire area falling  

between the Agara lake and the  

Belandur Lake, respondent No. 9  

must provide required number of  

storm water drains based on proper  

hydrological study. These storm  

drains should have a buffer zone of  

15 m on either bank maintained as  

green belt.  

31    

iv. The cumulative quantity of earth  

excavated for the construction of  

project is around 4 lakhs cubic  

meters in the depth range of 0 to 9  

meters. This has created huge  

hillock like structure obstructing the  

natural flow pattern of surface  

runoff from Agara Lake side to  

Balendur Lake side or primary  

Rajkalewas. For this purpose,  

during construction phase garland  

drain should be constructed around  

the existing dumping site for safe  

disposal of runoff to the Rajkalewas.  

For the disposal of excavated  

material, a proper muck disposal  

plan duly approved by SIEAA shall  

be prepared. In any case the plan  

should ensure that no  

muck/sediment flows into  

Rajkalewas and/or Belandur lake.   

v. The Kharab land identified by  

Revenue Dept. admeasuring 1 acre  

2 guntas should be demarcated and  

maintained separately as green belt.  

32    

vi. The entire green belt created under  

the directions of this Tribunal  

should not to be considered as part  

of green belt of the project as part of  

EC condition and will be over and  

above the green belt as indicated in  

the EC.   

vii. In view of the heavy traffic load in  

the adjoining Sarjapur road, a  

proper study on the basis of traffic  

density,foot falls expected, etc., a  

proper plan needs to be prepared  

and the concept of service road  

exclusively for the project needs to  

be worked out and additional  

parking space created within the  

project area and incorporated as a  

part of the overall project layout,  

within a period of 3 months.   

10. Though, at the time of hearing prior to  

passing the Judgment, we had heard the  

parties on all aspects but still we have  

provided re-hearing to the parties on all issues  

with emphasis on imposition of environmental  

compensation including the quantum. Upon  

hearing, we are of the considered view that

33    

environmental compensation imposed upon  

Respondent No. 9 calls for no variation and the  

Respondent No. 9 should be called upon to pay  

the said amount of Rs. 117.35 Crores  

determined under the Judgment prior to  

commencement of any project activity at the  

site. Respondent No. 10 has not commenced  

any actual construction activity but has  

carried out various preparatory steps including  

excavation and deposition of huge earth by  

creating a hillock at the premises in question  

and a site office.  

Thus, considering cumulative effect on  

environment and ecology due to various  

breaches in that behalf by Respondent No. 10  

and the fact that the remedial measures can  

more effectively be taken by the Respondent  

No.10, we reduce environmental compensation  

payable by Respondent No. 10 to Rs. 13.5  

crores (3% of the stated project cost instead of  

5% as imposed in the original judgment).  

General Directions:   

1. We direct SEIAA, Karnataka to issue  

amended order granting Environmental  

Clearance within four weeks from today  

incorporating all the conditions stated in this

34    

judgement and such other conditions as it may  

deem appropriate in light of this judgment and  

Inspection Note of the Expert Members. The  

Project Proponents would be permitted to  

commence activity only after issuance of  

amended Environmental Clearance order.   

2. SEIAA Karnataka and MoEF shall ensure  

regular supervision and monitoring of the  

project and during the construction and even  

upon completion to ensure that activity is  

carried out strictly in accordance with the  

conditions of the order granting Environmental  

Clearance, this Judgment, Notification of 2006  

and other laws in force.   

3. The distances in respect of buffer zone  

specified in this judgment shall be made  

applicable to all the projects and all the  

Authorities concerned are directed to  

incorporate such conditions in the projects to  

whom Environmental Clearance and other  

permissions are now granted not only around  

Belandur Lake, Rajkulewas, Agara Lake, but  

also all other Lakes/wetlands in the city of  

Bengluru.   

4. We hereby direct the State of Karnataka  

to submit a proposal to the MoEF for

35    

demarcating wetlands in terms of Wetland  

Rules 2010 as revised from time to time. Such  

proposal shall be submitted by the State  

within four weeks from today and the MoEF  

shall consider the same in accordance with law  

and grant its approval or otherwise within four  

weeks thereafter. After such approval is  

granted by MoEF, the State would issue  

notification notifying such areas immediately  

thereafter in accordance with Rules and law.   

5. Both the Respondents Nos. 9 and 10  

shall ensure that debris or any construction  

material that has been dumped into the  

Rajkulewas, or on their Banks and on the  

buffer zone of wetlands should be removed  

within four weeks from today. In the event they  

fail to do so, the same shall be removed by the  

Lake Development Authority along with the  

State Administration and recover charges  

thereof from the said Respondents.   

6. There is a serious discrepancy even in  

regard to the measurement of land as far as  

Respondent No. 9 is concerned. Admittedly the  

Respondent has been allotted and is in  

possession of land admeasuring 63.94 acres,  

though Environmental Clearance has been

36    

granted for 2,92,636.03 Sq. Meters which is  

equivalent to 72.22 acres. For this reason  

alone, Environmental Clearance cannot be  

given effect to. While issuing the amended  

Environmental Clearance, SEIAA Karnataka  

shall take into consideration all these aspects  

and, if necessary, would require Respondent  

No. 9 to submit a fresh layout plant and the  

entire project may be revised in accordance  

with law.   

7. Both the Respondents (Project  

Proponents) shall submit an appropriate plan  

in view of the conditions imposed in this  

judgment and the amended Environmental  

Clearance that would be issued.   

8. The amount of environmental  

compensation will be deposited prior to  

issuance of amended Environmental  

Clearance.  

 With the above directions, the Original  

Application No. 222 of 2014 and Misc.  

Applications Nos. 596/2016 and 603/2016 are  

finally disposed of while leaving the parties to  

bear their own costs."  

22. Appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.5016 of 2016, Shri  

Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the

37    

State Government in exercise of the power conferred under the  

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short 'KIAD Act')  

declared the land in question as an industrial area.  Thereafter, the  

land in question has been acquired by the State Government in the  

year 2004. Following the acquisition, on 28.06.2007, the land was  

allotted to the appellant by the KIADB. The SEIAA granted  

environmental clearance which was followed by public notice  

concerning clearance on 14.03.2012.  Neither the allotment of land  

nor the environmental clearance was challenged before the  

Tribunal.  Thus, none of the statutory decisions or processes, are  

the cause of action for the purpose of the application. The  

averments made in the original application does not satisfy or meet  

the requirements of Section 14(1) and (3) of the NGT Act and the  

original application does not spell out the cause of action relevant  

for the purpose of said provision.  Since the statutory processes and  

clearances could not have been challenged for being hit by Section  

14(3), the construction activities which were the alleged cause of  

action could not have been challenged.  Therefore, the Tribunal  

ought to have held that the application was not maintainable.

38    

23. Further the application is barred by limitation.  Though  

environmental clearance was granted on 17.02.2012 and it was  

published in two leading newspapers on 12.03.2012 and  

14.03.2012, modified plan was approved by the KIADB on  

30.08.2012, the application ought to have been filed within six  

months from the date on which cause of action for the dispute first  

arose in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act.  The present  

application has been filed in March, 2014 which was much beyond  

the prescribed period of limitation. No application seeking  

condonation of delay has been filed accompanying the       

application.  Hence, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the  

application on the ground that as it is barred by time.  

24. It was also argued that buffer zone laid down by the NGT is  

substantially higher as compared to buffer zone which is required to  

be maintained as per the Revised Master Plan, 2015 issued on  

22.06.2007.   This is contrary to the Karnataka Town and Country  

Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Planning Act').    

25. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul  and Shri R.Venkataramani, learned  

senior counsel appearing for the appellants, in this case have also  

made similar submissions.  It was argued that the direction

39    

imposing penalty/compensation is illegal on the ground that the  

applicants did not allege that the construction work of the project  

has caused environmental wrong. No wrong or injury either to  

Bellandur lake water body or to Bellandur lake area, has been  

alleged and established.  As such, there is no question of any  

enquiry relating to imposition of penalty or any compensation.   

26. Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

appellants, in C.A. Nos.5016 and 10995 of 2016, while supporting  

the submissions made by Shri Rohatgi, has submitted that the  

appellant has obtained sanction and approvals for the project from  

the competent authorities.  It could not start construction despite  

grant of all the permissions, including environmental clearance as  

early as possible i.e. 30.09.2013. Hence, imposing  

penalty/compensation is entirely unsustainable.    

27. Learned Advocate General, Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the  

appellant-State of Karnataka in C.A.Nos.4923-4924 of 2017, has  

submitted that the State of Karnataka is also aggrieved by the order  

of the NGT to the extent of setting aside the buffer zone in respect of  

water bodies and drains specified in the Revised Master Plan, 2015,   

and enlargement of the buffer zone in respect of lakes and

40    

Rajakaluves.  It is also aggrieved by the order of the NGT directing  

the authorities to demolish all the offending constructions  

raised/built in the buffer zone, which will result in demolition of  

95% of the buildings in Bengaluru.  It is submitted that the Revised  

Master Plan is statutory in nature and NGT has no power,  

competence or jurisdiction to consider the validity or vires of any  

statutory provision/regulation.  Therefore, the order of the NGT to  

that extent is liable to be set aside.  

28. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in other  

cases, have also supported the arguments of the learned Advocate  

General.  It was contended that the Revised Master Plan provides  

for a 30 meters buffer zone around the lakes and a buffer zone of 50  

meters, 25 meters and 15 meters from the primary, secondary and  

tertiary drains, respectively to be measured from the centre of the  

drain.  Vide the impugned judgment, the NGT has revised these  

buffer zones and has directed that the buffer zone be maintained for   

75 meters around the lake and 50, 35 and 25 meters respectively  

from the primary, secondary and tertiary drain, respectively.   

Variation of buffer zone, as directed by the NGT is without any legal  

and scientific basis and has the effect of amending the Revised

41    

Master Plan, 2015, without there being any challenge to the same  

or any relief sought with respect to the said Revised Master Plan.  

29. On the other hand, Shri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior  

counsel, appearing for the applicants, has fairly submitted that the  

applications were filed only against the appellants in C.A Nos. 5016  

of 2016 and 8002-8003 of 2016 (respondent Nos. 9 & 10).  He has  

no objection to set aside the order in so far as the appellants in  

other appeals including the State of Karnataka are concerned. He  

has also no objection to set aside the general conditions and  

directions of the NGT in paragraph (1) of the order dated  

04.05.2016 except the directions issued against respondent Nos. 9  

and 10.  In view of the above, it is not necessary to examine the  

contentions of the learned Advocate General in Civil Appeal Nos.  

4923-4924 of 2017. It is also not necessary to consider the  

contentions urged in the other civil appeals except the appeals filed  

by respondents Nos. 9 and 10.  

30. Shri Poovayya has strongly opposed the submissions made by  

the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.  

5016 of 2016 and C.A. Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016.  It is submitted  

that the Tribunal is a specialized body for effective and expeditious

42    

disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and  

conservation of forests and other natural resources including  

enforcement of any legal right relating to environment.  The  

jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under Sections 14, 15 and  

16 of the NGT Act.  Section 14 provides for the jurisdiction over all  

civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is  

involved. However, such question should arise out of  

implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The  

Tribunal has the jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the NGT Act  

to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and  

other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified  

in Schedule I.  Under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c), the Tribunal  

can provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution  

of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may  

think fit. Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) have not been made  

relatable to enactment specified in Schedule I of the Act. Section  

15(1)(c) is an entire island of power and jurisdiction read with  

Section 21 of the Act.  He submits that whenever ecology is being  

compromised and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20  

for taking restorative measures in the interest of environment.  The

43    

limitation provided in Section 14 is period of six months from the  

date on which cause of action first arose whereas in Section 15 it is  

five years.  Therefore, the petition is not barred by time.    

31. He has further submitted that the provisions of Section 33  

shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent  

contained in any other law for the time being in force.  This gives  

the Tribunal overriding powers over anything inconsistently  

contained in KIAD Act, Planning Act, Revised Master Plan of  

Bangalore, 2015 and Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976  

(for short 'KMC Act').  Therefore, the Tribunal while providing for  

restoration of environment in an area can specify buffer zone  

around specific lakes and water bodies in contravention with zoning  

regulation.    

32. Regarding limitation, he has submitted that the application  

filed by respondents 1 to 3 was not an application simplicitor under  

Section 14 of the Act.  It was an application where a specific prayer  

has been made with reference to Lake Development Authority's  

report dated 12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment Forest  

and Climate Change Monitoring Committee report dated  

14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically sensitive land and for

44    

maintaining sensitive area in its natural condition so that ecological  

balance of the area is not disturbed.  Therefore, the petition was  

under Section 15 of the Act and it can be filed within five years from  

the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first  

arose.   

33. It was further submitted that right to appeal under Section 22  

is not a vested right unless provided by statute. Exercise of  

Appellate Jurisdiction without the fulfillment of statutory mandate  

would be without jurisdiction.  Section 22 of the Act provides for an  

appeal on the ground specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC').  Under Section 100 of the  

CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case  

involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the  

Appellate Court.  In the instant case, the appeal does not involve  

any substantial question of law hence it has to be dismissed in  

limine.  He has taken us through various materials placed on record  

in order to substantiate that the direction passed and penalty  

imposed by the Tribunal upon to project proponents are  

sustainable.  He prays for dismissal of the appeals.

45    

34. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned  

counsel of the parties and perused the materials placed on record.    

35. Before considering the other contentions of the learned  

counsel for the parties, let us first consider the scope of enquiry in  

appeals filed under Section 22, which is as under:  

"22. Appeal to Supreme Court.- Any person  

aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the  

tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme  

Court, within ninety days from the date of  

communication of the award, decision or order of  

the Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the  

grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of  

Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):  

Provided that the Supreme Court may,  

entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety  

days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was  

prevented by sufficience cause from preferring  

the appeal."  

 36. It is settled that there is no vested right of appeal unless the  

statute so provides.  Further, if a statute provides for a condition  

subject to which the appropriate Appellate Court can exercise  

jurisdiction, the Court is under an obligation to satisfy itself

46    

whether the condition prescribed is fulfilled.  Exercise of appellate  

jurisdiction without the fulfillment of statutory mandate would be  

without jurisdiction.  Therefore, the right of appeal provided under  

Section 22 is to be read subject to the conditions provided therein.    

37. Section 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on the  

grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC.  Under Section 100  

CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case  

involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the  

Appellate Court.  The scope of appeal under Section 22, therefore, is  

restricted to substantial question of law arising from the judgment  

of the Tribunal.  The test to determine whether the question is  

substantial question of law or not was laid down by a Constitution  

Bench of this Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v.  

Century Spinning and Manufacturing, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 549.  

This Court has laid down the test as under:  

"The proper test for determining whether a  question of law raised in the case is substantial  would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general  public importance or whether it directly and  substantially affects the rights of the parties and if  so whether it is either an open question in the sense  that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the  Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free  from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative

47    

views.  If the question is settled by the highest court  or the general principles to be applied in  determining the question are well settled and there  is a mere question of applying those principles or  that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question  would not be a substantial question of law."  

 38. It is equally settled that merely because the remedy of appeal  

is provided against the decision of the Tribunal on a substantial  

question of law alone, that does not ipso facto permit the appellants  

to agitate their appeal to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix  

of the entire matter.  The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their  

entire case to seek wholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the  

factual matrix that has been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie  

impermissible under Section 22. There cannot be fresh appreciation  

or re-appreciation of facts and evidence in a statutory appeal under  

this provision.    

39. The first question raised by the learned counsel is in relation  

to the maintainability of the application before the Tribunal.  

40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional  

mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the  

Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at the United  

Nations Conference on Environment and Development.  The

48    

Tribunal is a specialized judicial body for effective and expeditious  

disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and  

conservation of forests and other natural resources including  

enforcement of any legal right relating to environment.  The right to  

healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right to  

life under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements. Therefore,  

the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of  

environmental rights.    

41. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under Sections 14,  

15 and 16 of the Act.  Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all  

civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment  

(including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is  

involved. However, such question should arise out of  

implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.    

42. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the  

Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution  

and other environmental damage arising under the enactments  

specified in Schedule I.  Further, under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c)  

the Tribunal can provide for restitution of property damaged and for  

restitution of the environment for such area or areas as the

49    

Tribunal may think fit.  It is noteworthy that Section 15(1)(b) & (c)  

have not been made relatable to Schedule I enactments of the Act.   

Rightly so, this grants a glimpse into the wide range of powers that  

the Tribunal has been cloaked with respect to restoration of the  

environment.  

43. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and  

jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act.  The principles of  

sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays,  

propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial  

pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of  

environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore,  

wherever the environment and ecology are being compromised and  

jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative  

measures in the interest of the environment.  

44. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed  

upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation  

which furthers the interests of environment must be given a  

broader reading. (See Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State  

Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579, para 17). The existence of the  

Tribunal without its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c)

50    

read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and  

toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a  

specialized Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns.   

The Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well  

as with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to  

provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of  

the environment.  

45. Section 15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction,  

independent of Section 14 thereof.  Further, Section 14(3)  

juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for  

filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods  

of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the  

Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the  

Act) independently.  The limitation provided in Section 14 is a  

period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first  

arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years.  Therefore, the  

legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and 15 as self contained  

jurisdictions.  

46. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file  

applications each under Sections 14 as well as 15.  Therefore, it

51    

cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the  

Tribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same with  

powers.  As stated supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, its  

breadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of the  

Act as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves no  

manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these  

provisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour of  

cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority.  An interpretation  

that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred  

rather than one taking away jurisdiction.  

47. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the  

provisions  of the Act over anything  inconsistent contained  in  any   

other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other  

than this Act.  This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over  

anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, Planning Act,   

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act”); and the  

Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 (“RMP”).  A Central  

legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII of the  

Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over State  

legislations.  The corollary is that the Tribunal while providing for

52    

restoration of environment in an area, can specify buffer zones  

around specific lakes & water bodies in contradiction with zoning  

regulations under these statutes or the RMP.    

48. The second question raised by the appellants is that the  

petition is barred by time. According to appellants, environmental  

clearance was granted to the respondent No. 9 on 17.02.2012 for  

which notice was published in the leading newspaper on  

12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012.  Modified building plan was approved  

on 30.08.2012, which was followed up to 10.08.2014.  Similar  

events had taken place in regard to the project of respondent No. 10   

who had been granted environmental clearance on 30.09.2013.  The  

application had to be filed within a period of six months from the  

date on which cause of action for such dispute has first arisen in  

terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act.  Admittedly, the present  

application has been filed in March, 2014 and according to them, it  

is much beyond the prescribed period of limitation.  Also, there is  

no application for condonation of delay accompanying the main  

application. Therefore, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to  

condone the delay.  

53    

49. The OA No. 222 of 2014 was not an application simpliciter  

under Section 14 of the Act.  It was an application where a specific  

prayer has been made with reference to Lake Development  

Authority's ("LDA") Report dated 12.06.2013 and the Ministry of  

Environment, Forest and Climate Change ("MoEF") Monitoring  

Committee Report dated 14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically  

sensitive land and for maintaining the sensitive in its natural  

condition so that the ecological balance of the area is not disturbed.   

It is clear from the documentary evidence supported by data, that  

the project proponents have committed breaches and the  

implementation of the project is bound to have serious adverse  

impact on the ecology, hydrology and the environment in the  

catchment area of Bellandur Lake. The environmental degradation  

as established from the documents would give rise to an  

independent cause of action. Therefore, this was a petition under  

Section 15 of the Act and thus it could be filed within 5 years from  

the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first  

arose.  

50. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal there  

was no mention of the provision under which it was being filed. It is

54    

well settled principle of law that non-mention of or erroneous  

mention of the provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the  

Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. It would be a  

mere irregularity and would not vitiate the application or the  

judicial order of the Tribunal.     

51. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, appearing for  

the appellant in CA No.5016 of 2016 has submitted that the  

constructions had not commenced before the grant of environment  

clearance. The inspection report dated 11.01.2012 of the Chairman  

of the KSPCB observes that "no construction" had commenced on  

the date of inspection. This report cannot be overlooked on the  

basis of some dumping of debris which could not be attributed to  

the appellant.  He has pointed out the report of the Committee  

appointed by the Tribunal in the month of August 2015, wherein it  

was stated that "it started construction after obtaining clearance".  

In this regard he has also taken us through various documents  

placed on record and submits that there is absolutely no  

justification in imposing monitoring penalty/compensation without  

assessment of impact.   

55    

52. The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of the Committee  

report of August 2015, that the appellant had encroached 3 acres  

10 guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundary wall has been raised  

around the said land.  The Tribunal has also found that the project  

proponents have violated the Master Plan. They have not obtained  

the mandatory clearance from the Sensitive Zone Committee  

constituted by the Government of Karnataka.  It is also clear from  

the materials on record that there are several other violations by the  

project proponents.  The Tribunal has discussed all these issues  

from para 52 onwards.  It is also clear from the materials on record  

that there is a definite possibility of environment, ecology, lakes,  

and wetland being adversely affected by these projects. That is why,  

the Tribunal has observed as under:  

"72. In light of the above scope of the project  

and records before the Tribunal and the  

defaults on the part of the Project Proponents,  

the cumulative adverse effects of the activities  

undertaken by the respondents before us can  

be summed up as under:   

1) The construction of both the projects had  

started prior to the grant to Environmental  

Clearance.  

56    

2) The EIA Notification of 2006 requires that  

without grant of Environmental Clearance, no  

project can commence its activity. This  

restriction applies not only to  

operationalization of the project but even for  

the purposes of establishment.   

3) Revenue Map images shows multiple  

Rajakaluves flowing through the project(s) in  

question. The images further show  

encroachment on Rajakaluves.   

4) Digital images of the land available on  

Google satellite images showing encroachment  

on two major Rajakaluves.   

5) Google Satellite images retrieved from  

Google archives clearly reflect two distinct  

features. Firstly, change in the wetland area  

between the period of 13th November, 2000  

and 23rd November, 2010. Secondly, it reveals  

the excavation work carried out by Respondent  

Nos. 9 and 10 commenced prior to obtaining  

Environmental Clearance.   

6) Restriction in regard to extraction of ground  

water was not strictly complied with as  

permission of Central Ground Water Authority  

was not obtained before construction.  

57    

7) The conditions with regard to the natural  

slopping pattern of the project site to remain  

unaltered and natural hydrology of the area to  

be maintained as it is, to ensure natural flow  

of storm water as well as in relation to Lakes  

and other water bodies within and/or at the  

vicinity of the project area to be protected and  

conserved: The inspection report by the MoEF  

clearly notes that condition nos. (xxxix) and  

(xl) in the Environmental Clearance of  

respondent no. 9 cannot be complied with as it  

will necessarily result in some alteration of the  

natural slopping pattern of the project site and  

the natural hydrology of the area. It noted that  

the project area is located in the catchment  

area of the Bellandur Lake and the project  

authorities have informed that they will take  

all precautionary measures to ensure that the  

lake will not be affected by project activities  

either during construction or operation phase."  

 53. In paragraph 81, the Tribunal has observed as under:  

 "81. …………Another very important  

aspect which cannot be overlooked by the  

Tribunal is with regard to the respondent  

nos. 9 & 10 carrying on their project activity

58    

fully knowing that they were incapable of or  

it was not possible for them to comply with  

condition no. xxxix and xl (or alike  

conditions) in the order granting the  

Environmental Clearance. This has even  

been noticed by the MoEF in its monitoring  

report dated 14th August, 2013. These  

respondents never applied for variation or  

amendment of these conditions and  

continued with their construction activities.  

This renders these respondents entirely  

liable for environmental and ecological  

damage and the restoration and restitution  

thereof."  

54. In our view, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not  

only based on the documents that were available on record but also  

on the pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the  

Committee's report and the inspection note of the Expert Members.  

Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty imposed by the  

Tribunal on both project proponents are valid and sustainable and  

do not suffer from any perversity.  

55. We are also of the view that it is impermissible for the  

appellants to seek a factual review through the methodology of re-

59    

appreciation of factual matrix by this Court under Section 22 of the  

NGT Act.  

56. Shri R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel has also raised  

a subsidiary issue relating to res judicata. According to him,  

respondent Nos. 12 and 13 filed Writ Petition Nos.3656-57/2013  

seeking similar reliefs in a representative capacity. The issues  

raised therein are same as those canvassed in the application  

before the Tribunal.  The reliefs sought for are essentially the same.  

Hence, the applications are barred by the principle of res judicata.   

57. The Tribunal has answered this issue in paragraphs 47 to 51  

of the order. There was no dispute in so far as filing of the writ  

petitions is concerned. However, the parties are not common nor  

the issues in application and the writ petitions are directly and  

substantially the   same.    After   examination of the pleadings, the  

Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there is no  

commonality of a cause of action or likelihood of a conflict between  

the judgments. The prayers and the geneses of the respective  

proceedings are entirely distinct and different in their scope and  

relief. The issues before the Tribunal would essentially relate to  

environment ecology and its restoration while the proceedings

60    

before the High Court relate to entirely different issues with  

acquisition of land, its allotment and transfer to the third party.   

These issues in both the proceedings are neither substantial nor  

materially identical.   

58. After elaborately considering this question, the Tribunal has  

concluded as under:  

"51.….For these reasons, we find no merit in  

this contention of respondent Nos. 9 and  

10. The purpose of the doctrine of res  

judicata is to provide finality and  

conclusiveness to the judicial decisions as  

well as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In  

the present case, the question of re-

agitating the issues or agitating similar  

issues in two different proceedings does not  

arise. The ambit and scope of jurisdiction is  

clearly decipherable. The jurisdictions of the  

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and this  

Tribunal are operating in distinct fields and  

have no commonality in so far as the issues  

which are raised directly and substantially  

in these petitions, as well as the reliefs that  

have been prayed for before the Hon’ble  

High Court and the Tribunal are concerned.

61    

There is no commonality in parties before  

the Tribunal and the High Court. The ‘cause  

of action’ in both proceedings is different  

and distinct. The matters substantially and  

materially in issue in one proceedings are  

not the same in the other proceeding. There  

is hardly any likelihood of conflicting  

judgments being pronounced by the  

Tribunal on the one hand and the High  

Court on the other. Therefore, we are of the  

considered view that the present  

applications are neither hit by the principles  

of res judicata nor constructive res judicata.  

We also hold that culmination of  

proceedings before the Tribunal into a final  

judgment would not offend the principle of  

‘judicial propriety’, because of the Writ  

Petitions pending before the Hon’ble High  

Court of Karnataka."  

59.   We do not find any error in the aforesaid conclusion of the  

Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in  

holding that the objections taken by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10  

do not satisfy the basic ingredients to attract the application of res  

judicata or constructive res judicata.

62    

60. The State of Karnataka is aggrieved by the following offending  

portion of the order dated 04.05.2016:  

"1. In view of our discussion in the main  

Judgment, we are of the considered view  

that the fixation of distance from water  

bodies (lakes and Rajkalewas) suffers from  

the inbuilt contradiction, legal infirmity and  

is without any scientific justification. The  

RMP – 2015 provides 50m from middle of  

the Rajkalewas as buffer zone in the case of  

primary Rajkalewas, 25m in the case of  

secondary Rajkulewas and 15m in the  

tertiary Rajkulewas in contradiction to the  

30m in the case of lake which is certainly  

much bigger water body and its utility as a  

water body/wetland is well known certainly  

part of wet land. Thus, we direct that the  

distance in the case of Respondents Nos. 9  

and 10 from Rajkulewas, Waterbodies and  

wetlands shall be maintained as below:-   

(i) In the case of Lakes, 75m from the  

periphery of water body to be maintained as  

green belt and buffer zone for all the  

existing water bodies i.e. lakes/wetlands.  

63    

(ii) 50m from the edge of the primary  

Rajkulewas.   

(iii) 35m from the edges in the case of  

secondary Rajkulewas   

(iv) 25m from the edges in the case of  

tertiary Rajkulewas   

This buffer/green zone would be  

treated as no construction zone for all intent  

and purposes. This is absolutely essential  

for the purposes of sustainable development  

particularly keeping in mind the ecology and  

environment of the areas in question.   

All the offending constructions raised  

by Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 of any kind  

including boundary wall shall be  

demolished which falls within such areas.  

Wherever necessary dredging operations are  

required, the same should be carried out to  

restore the original capacity of the water  

spread area and/or wetlands. Not only the  

existing construction would be removed but  

also none of these Respondents - Project  

Proponent would be permitted to raise any  

construction in this zone.   

All authorities particularly Lake  

development Authority shall carry out this

64    

operation in respect of all the water bodies/  

lakes of Bangalore."   

61. We have already noticed that Shri Poovayya has no objection  

to set aside the aforesaid impugned portion of the order in so far as  

the appellants in all the appeals except the appeals filed by  

respondent Nos.9 and 10. The aforesaid portion of the order  

contains not only general directions but also certain directions  

against respondent Nos. 9 and 10.  Therefore, only that portion of  

the order which does not pertain to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 needs  

to be quashed.               

62. In the light of the above discussion, we pass the following  

order:  

i) Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal  

Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016 filed by the  

appellants/respondent nos. 9 and 10 are  

hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment  

and order in so far as appellants/respondent  

Nos. 9 and 10 are concerned is sustained.     

ii) All the other appeals are hereby allowed and  

the direction/condition No. (1) in the order

65    

dated 4.5.2016 is hereby set aside except the  

direction issued against respondent Nos. 9 and  

10.    

63. There will be no order as to costs.  

      …………………………………J.  

          (A.K. SIKRI)                        …………………………………J.  

          (S. ABDUL NAZEER)      

    …………………………………J.  New Delhi;         (M.R. SHAH)  March 5, 2019.