ANAND ARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the centre of the controversy is a very large project of the Uttar Pradesh Government at NOIDA. Objecting to the project are the two applicants who are residents of Sector 15A, NOIDA, U.P They claim to be public spirited people, committed to the cause of environment. According to them, the project, undertaken at the instance of Uttar Pradesh Government is a "huge unauthorized construction". The applicants state that a very large number of trees were cut down for clearing the ground for the project. The trees that were felled down for the project formed a "forest" as the term was construed by this Court in its order dated December 12, 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 267 : (AIR 1997 SC 1228 : 1997 AIR SCW 1263) and the action of the Uttar Pradesh Government in cutting down a veritable forest without the prior permission of the Central Government and this Court, was in gross violation of section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereafter "the FC Act"). The project involved massive constructions that were made without any prior environmental clearance from the Central Government based on Environment Impact Assessment. The constructions were, therefore, in complete breach of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter "the EP Act") and the notification issued under the Act. More importantly, the project was causing great harm, and was bound to further devastate the delicate and sensitive ecological balance of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary to which the site of the project lay adjacent. The project was, thus, in complete disregard of this Court's directions concerning 'buffer zones'.

(2.) THE State of Uttar Pradesh, of course denies, equally strongly, all the allegations made by the applicants. According to the State, it was setting up a park that would develop and beautify the area in a unique way. THE park was conceived as a fine blend of hard and soft landscaping with memorial structures and commemoration pieces. THE construction of the park did not violate any law or the order of the Court. THEre was no infringement of the provisions of the FC Act or the EP Act or the notification made under it. Further, the setting up of the park caused no harm to the bird sanctuary. THE applicants' objections to the construction of the park were fanciful and imaginary and actuated by oblique motives. THE PROJECT:

(3.) MR. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that over six thousand trees were admittedly cut down for clearing the area for the construction of the project and it was, thus, clearly a case of forest land being put to use for non-forest purpose in complete violation of section 2 (ii) of the FC Act. Section 2 of the FC Act, insofar as relevant for the present, provides as follows: