# GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [2010] 15 S.C.R. 783 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2010-12-03 - **Case number:** I.A. Nos.! 2609-2610 of 2009 - **Bench:** S.H. Kapadia, Aftab Alam, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-ors-26758 - **Pages:** 71 ## Headnote Forest Conservation Act, 1980: s. 2 - Forest land - Project at NO/DA for building large scale memorial with extensive D stone work - Spread over an area of 33.43 hectares of land - Whether the project area, a forest land - Held: In the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the pr..oject area were ever shown as jungle or forest - The project are.a was treated as an urban park - Trees planted on it were E allowed to stand and grow for about 12-14 years when they were cut down to make the area clear for the project - Though man made forest may equally be a forest as a naturally grown one and non-forest land may also, with the passage of time, change its character and become forest land, but this cannot F be a rule of universal application and must be examined in the overall-facts of the case - The trees planted with the intent to set up an urban park cannot turn into forest within a span of 10 :to 12 years and the land that was forever agricultural would hot be converted into the forest land - The project site G . is not forest land - Construction of the project without the prior permission from the Central Government did not in any way contravene s. 2 of the Act - Environment Protection Act, 1986. Environment Protection Act, 1986: s. 3(3) - State 783 H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Government's project for building large scale memorial with extensive stone work - Project at NO/DA - Requirement of prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification S. 0. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Held: The project in question cannot be termed as a "Building and Construction s project" falling under item B(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification - Applying the test of 'Dominant Purpose or Dominant Nature' of the project or the "Common Parlance" test, the project could only be categorized under item B(b) of the schedule as a Township and Area Development project" c - But under that category it does not come up to the threshold marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33. 43 hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes to 1,05,544.49 square metres, i.e., much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres - D Therefore, the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification - EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Items B(a) and B(b) - Wild life. E Circular/Government order/Notification: EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Items B(a) and B(b) - "Building and Construction project" and "Township project" - Distinction between. EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 F - Ambiguity in - Held: The Notification calls for second look by the concerned authorities - Project activities under Item B(a) and B(b) of the schedule to the notification need description with greater precision and clarity - Environmental laws. G Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21 - Construction of project adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary - Continuation of the project challenged on the ground that it was a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the H Sanctuary- Held: Environment is one of the facets of the right IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 785 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution and if A the Court perceives any project or activity as. harmful or injurious to the environment it can step in - The question of the likelihood of the project causing any adverse effects on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, therefore, be examined from this angle - Environmental impact assessment of the project B was done by expert agencies - None of the expert bodies took the view that the project was so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary - The expert bodies gave recommendations which allowed the completi ## Text _Characters 0–39,763 of 134,019. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39763 for what follows._ [201 O] 15 (ADDL.) S.C:R. 783 I.A. NOS.2609-2610 OF 2009 A IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0.202 OF 1995 IN RE.: 'CONSTRUCtlON OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA & ANR. T.N. B GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DECEMBER 3, 2010 c [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, AFTAB ALAM AND K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Forest Conservation Act, 1980: s. 2 - Forest land - Project at NO/DA for building large scale memorial with extensive D stone work - Spread over an area of 33.43 hectares of land - Whether the project area, a forest land - Held: In the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the pr..oject area were ever shown as jungle or forest - The project are.a was treated as an urban park - Trees planted on it were E allowed to stand and grow for about 12-14 years when they were cut down to make the area clear for the project - Though man made forest may equally be a forest as a naturally grown one and non-forest land may also, with the passage of time, change its character and become forest land, but this cannot F be a rule of universal application and must be examined in the overall-facts of the case - The trees planted with the intent to set up an urban park cannot turn into forest within a span of 10 :to 12 years and the land that was forever agricultural would hot be converted into the forest land - The project site G . is not forest land - Construction of the project without the prior permission from the Central Government did not in any way contravene s. 2 of the Act - Environment Protection Act, 1986. Environment Protection Act, 1986: s. 3(3) - State 783 H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Government's project for building large scale memorial with extensive stone work - Project at NO/DA - Requirement of prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification S. 0. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Held: The project in question cannot be termed as a "Building and Construction s project" falling under item B(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification - Applying the test of 'Dominant Purpose or Dominant Nature' of the project or the "Common Parlance" test, the project could only be categorized under item B(b) of the schedule as a Township and Area Development project" c - But under that category it does not come up to the threshold marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33. 43 hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes to 1,05,544.49 square metres, i.e., much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres - D Therefore, the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification - EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Items B(a) and B(b) - Wild life. E Circular/Government order/Notification: EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 - Items B(a) and B(b) - "Building and Construction project" and "Township project" - Distinction between. EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006 F - Ambiguity in - Held: The Notification calls for second look by the concerned authorities - Project activities under Item B(a) and B(b) of the schedule to the notification need description with greater precision and clarity - Environmental laws. G Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21 - Construction of project adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary - Continuation of the project challenged on the ground that it was a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the H Sanctuary- Held: Environment is one of the facets of the right IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 785 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution and if A the Court perceives any project or activity as. harmful or injurious to the environment it can step in - The question of the likelihood of the project causing any adverse effects on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, therefore, be examined from this angle - Environmental impact assessment of the project B was done by expert agencies - None of the expert bodies took the view that the project was so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary - The expert bodies gave recommendations which allowed the completion of the project subject to certain c co 1nditions - Therefore, project allowed to be completed, subject to conditions suggested by the expert bodies - Environmental. laws - Wild life .. The petitioners/ applicants were residents' of NOIDA, U.P. According to them, the project, undertaken at the D · instance of Uttar Pradesh -Government was a "huge unauthorized construction". A very large number of trees that were felled down for the project formed a "forest" as the term was construed by the Supreme Court in its OJder dated December 12, 1996 and the action of the Uttar E Pradesh Government in cutting down a veritabie forest without the prior permission of the Central Government and then Supreme Court, was in gross violation of section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FP ACt). The project was spread over an area of 33.4J'. F hectares, equal to 334334.00 square metres of land surrounded by a boundary wall made of stone, 2 metres in height and 0.3 metres in thickness with the estimated cost at Rs. 685 crores. At the site of the project, there used to be a tree cover, thin to high- moderate in density G, and for clearing the ground for the project- 6186 trees were cut down and 179 were shifted during construction. The project involved massive constructions that. wer~ made without any prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or t~s5 state Level En.vironment H 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Impact Assessment Authority in complete breach of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EP Act) and the notification issued under the Act. The project was causing great harm, and was bound to further devastate the delicate and sensitive ecological balance B of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary to which the site of the project lay adjacent and, therefore, was in complete disregard of the Supreme Court's directions concerning 'buffer ·zones'. C The State of Uttar Pradesh denied all the allegations ma·de by the applicants. According to the State ·Government, it was setting up a park to 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. D 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, it was contended that the setting up of the park caused no harm to the bird sanctuary and E the objections raised by the applicants to the construction of the park were fanciful and imaginary and actuated by oblique motives. According to the State Government, the work on the project commenced in January 2008. The applicants filed IA before the Central F Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2009. The instant IA was filed by the applicants before the Supreme Court on April 22, 2009. The State Government contended that by that time 50% of the construction work of the project was G completed. The report from the CEC was received in the Supreme Court on September 4, 2009. On October 9, 2009, the Supreme Court by an interim order restrained the State Government from carrying on any further constructions till further orders. By that time, according IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 787 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. to the government, 70-75% of the construction work of A the project was completed. It was contended for the applicants that over 6000 trees were cut down for clearing the area for construction of the project and it was, thus, a case of forest land being 8 put to use for non-forest use in complete violation of Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act; that the construction of the project was started by the Uttar Pradesh Government without obtaining the prior environmental clearance in complete violation of the notification issued on September 14, 2006 under Section C 3(3) of the EP Act; and that the project being located· adjoining the Okhla Bird Sanctuary which was a serious concern. Disposing of the IA, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the revenue records, none of the khasras (plots) falling in the project area was ever shown D as jungle or forest. According to the settlement year 1359 Fasli (1952A.D.) all the khasras were recorded as E agricultural land, Banjar (uncultivable) or Parti (uncultivated). NOIDA was set up in 1976 and the lands of the project area were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act mostly between the years 1980 to 1983 (two or three plots were notified under sections 4/6 of the F Act in 1979 and one or two plots as late as in the year 1991). But the possession of a very large part of the lands under acquisition (that now form the project site) was taken over in the year 1983. From the details of the acquisition proceedings, it would appear that though on most of the plots there were properties of one kind or the G other, there was not a single tree on any of the plots under acquisition. The records of the land acquisition proceedings, thus, complemented the revenue record of 1952 in which the lands were shown as agricultural and not as jungle or forest. There is no reason not to give due H 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R A credence to these records since they pertained to a time when the impugned project was not even in anyone's imagination and its proponents were no where on the scene. According to the information from the Deputy Horticulture Officer, NOIDA, plantations were taken up B along with seed sowing of Subabul during the year 199495 to 2007-08. A total of 9,480 saplings were planted (including 314 saplings planted before 1994-95). NOIDA had treated this area as ·an "Urban Park". It is, thus, to be seen that on a large tract of land (33.45 hectares in c area) that was forever agricultural in character, trees were planted with the object of creating an urban park (and not for afforestation!). The trees, thus, planted were allowed to stand and grow for about 12-14 years when they were cut down to make the area clear for the project. The 0 satellite images tell that in October, 2006 there was thin to moderately dense tree cover over about half of the project site. But this fact was all but admitted; the State Government admitted felling of over 6000 trees in 2008. The trees planted with the intent to set up an urban park cannot turn into forest within a span of 10 to 12 years and E the land that was forever agricultural, would not be converted into forest land. [Paras 20 to 23] [813-F-H; 814A-H; 815-A] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. F (1997) 2 SCC 267 - relied on. T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28; Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 191; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 12 SCC G 118; State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, (1985) 3 SCC 643 - referred to. 1.2. No doubt, man made forest may equally be a forest as a naturally grown one. Non-forest land may also, with the passage of time, change its character and H become forest land. But this cannot be a rule of universal IN RE CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANAND 789 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.OJ lapplication and must be examined in the overall facts of A the case otherwise it would lead to highly anomalous conclusions. The contention of the applicants was that the two conditions in the guidelines adopted by the State Level Expert Committee, I.e., (i) "trees mean naturally grown perennial trees" and (ii) "the plantation done on B public land or private land will not be identified as forest like area" were not consistent with the wide definition of forest given in the December 12, 1996 order bf the Court and the project are'a should qualify as forest on· the basis of the main parameter fixed by the Committee. If the said c contention is accepted and the criterion fixed by the State Level Expert Committee that in the plains, a stretch of land, with an area of 2 hectares or above, with the minimum density of 50 trees/ hectare would be a deemed forest is applied mechanically and with no regard to the 0 . other factors a greater part of Lutyens Delhi would perhaps qualify as forest. This was obviously not the intent of'the order dated December 12, 1996. Th~ project . site is not forest land and the construction of the project without the prior permission from the Central E . 1 Government does not in any way contravene section 2 of the FC Act. [Paras 30, 31] [818-H; 819-A-E] 2.1. Before the CE~ the MoEF in its first response dated August 22/24, 2009 had taken the stand that the project would not require any prior environmental F clearance under the EIA notification 2006. It had further stated that in the EIA notifica·tion 2006, all building/ construction projects/ area development projects and townships, were categorized as category 'B' projects and the 'general condition' prescribed in the notification was G not applicable to construction projects. It went on to say that the project did not require any prior environmental clearance under the EIA notification 2006 even though~ "being within the prescribed distance from a wildlife ,~ 1 sanctuary/national park or inter-state boundary". The firs~ HI 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) SC R A response of the MoEF before the CEC was evidently based on the inputs received from the UP Government about the nature of the project and the extent of constructions involved in it. In the second response before the CEC dated September 2, 2009, the MoEF stated B that after its earlier letter of August 22, 24, 2009, the MoEF had received further information about tile prcject from various sources and the fresh findrngs raised farreaching issues of public concern that extended beyond the parameters set by the EIA notification of 2006. It c further stated that the certificate issued by the SEIAA of UP stated that the total built-up covlred area was only 9 ~!42 square metres and the report of the CCF wcs not clear :JS to the extent of the covered area vis-a-vis conc:rete landscaping, pil!ar(s), platform(s), lawn(s), tree lJ planting, etc. The MoEF was not fully in possession of the basic facts relating to the project and its likely impact on the environment. It left the decision in the hands of the CEC. The CEC in its report to this Court dated September 4, 2009 held that the project was covered by the EIA E notification 2006 and it requir-ed prior environmental clearanc0 in terms of the notification. When the matter finally cc1.ne up before the Court, the MoEF was once again asked to take a clear stand on the issue whether the project was covered by the EIA notification 2006. The MoEF filed a brief affidavit on Octob£:r 21, 2009 in which F it acknowledged that the CEC in its report dated September 4, 2006 had stated that the State c.~ UP should be directed to seek environmental clearance for the project from the MoEF in terms of the notification. The MoEF, however, reiterated its stand in very definite and G unequivocal terms that the project in question did not fall within the ambit of the EIA notification 2006 and no environmental clearance was required for such kind of projects. The stand of the MoEF was based on the premise that the area of the project (33.43 hectares) was H less than 50 hectares and its built up area (9,542 square ' IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 791 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.OJ metres) was less than 20,000 square metres. Having thus A made its stand clear, the MoEF went on to say that in case the Court desired the project to be appraised from the environmental angle it would do so and submit its recommendations. It, however, put in a caveat that such appraisals were made before the commencement of the B construction activity at the site and in the instant case the project was already in the advanced stage of construction. [Paras 34 to 37] [820-C-H; 821-A-C; 822-DH] 2.2. The EIA notification provided that all projects and C activities enumerated in its Schedule would require prior environmental clearance before any construction work or preparation of land for the project is started on the project or activity. The projects and activities depending upon . various factors such as the potential hazard to D environment, location, the extent of area involved, etc. are categorized in categories 'A' or 'B'. For projects or activities fa!!ing in category 'A', the competent authority to grant prior environmental clearance is the MoEF and for projects or activities falling in category 'B', the State E Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). In ~. certain cases a project or activity, though categorized in category 'B' may be treated as category 'A' by application of the general condition (on account of its location being within a distance of ten km from a protected area notified F under the Wildlife (Protection) Act etc.). Further, projects - or activities categorized as category 'B' may or may not require an environmental impact assessment before the grant of environmental clearance depending on the nature and location specificity of the project. The projects G requiring an EIA report shall be termed as category '81' and the remaining shall be termed as '82' and will not require an EIA report. For categorization of projects into 81 and 82, the MoEF issue appropriate guidelines from time to time. The schedule to the notification has a table H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R A that is divided into five columns. The first column contains the se~ial numbers, and the second the description of the project or activities; the third column lists those projects or activities that fall in category 'A' and the fourth, those falllng in category 'B'; the fifth column B against each Item Indicates whether any general or specific condition applies to the project or activity described In that Item. In some cases where the project or the activity Is shown In column 4 as category 'B', the application of the general condition is expressly indicated c in column 5 of the table. [Para 45] [830-A-H; 831-A] 2.3. For the project under consideration, the relevant entries in the schedule are 8(a) and 8(b). Both items 8 (a) and 8 (b) are listed in column 4, i.e., in category 'B'. In column 5, against any of the two items, there is no D mention of application of the general condition but it is expressly said that all projects in item 8(b) would be appraised as category '81', that is to say, for a project under item 8(b) the prior environmental clearance must be preceded by an environmental impact assessment. E Item 8(a) deals with Building and Construction projects and the threshold mark that would bring the project within the ambit of the notification is equal to or more than 20,000 square metres and less than 1,50,000 square metres of 'built-up area'. It is further clarified that these F - figures relate to built-up area for covered construction; in case of facilities open to the sky, the built up area would be the activity area. Item 8(b) deals with Townships and Area Development projects and the threshold mark for the project to come within the ambit of the notification G is an area equal to or more than 50 hectares or built-up area of more than 1,50,000 square metres. [Paras 46, 47] [831-B-E] 2.4. Since in the schedule to the notification "Building and Construction projects'' and "Townships and Area H IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 793 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. Developments projects" are enumerated separately, the A former in item 8(a) and the latter in item 8(b), this would normally suggest that the notification treats those two kinds of projects separately and differently. It would, therefore, be reasonable to say thatl an "Area Development project" though involving a good deal of B construction w.ould yet not be a "Byilding and Construction project". It is extremely difficult to accept the - contention that the categorization under' items 8 (a) and 8 (b) has no bearing on the nature and cha~acter of the project and is based purely on the built I up area. A c building and construction project is nothing but addition of structures over the land. A township p~oject is the development of a new area for residential, cdmmercial or industrial use. A township project is di*erent both quantitatively and qualitatively from a mere building and 0 construction project. Further, an area d~velopment project may be connected with the township development project and may be its first stage when grounds are cleared, roads and pathways are laid out and provisions are made for drainage, sewage, electricity and telephone lines and the whole range of other civic infrastructure. Or an area development project may be completely independent of any township development project as in case of creating an artificial lake, or an urban forest or setting up a zoological or botanical park or a recreational, amusement or a theme park. The essential difference between items 8(a) and 8(b) lie.s not only in the different magnitudes but in the difference in the nature and character of the projects enumerated there under. Therefore, the project in question cannot be termed as a "Building and Construction project". Applying the test of G 'Dominant Purpose or Dominant Nature' of the project or E F the "Common Parlance" test, i.e. how a common person using it and enjoying its facilities would view it, the project can only be categorized under item 8(b) of the schedule as a Township and Area Development project". H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) SC R A But under that category it does not come up to the threshold marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33.43 hectares) is less than 50 hectares and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes to 1,05,544.49 square B metn;is, i.e., much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square metres. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA ·notification S.O. 1533(E) dated September 14, 2006. This is not to say that this is the ideal or a very happy outcome . c but that is how the notification is framed and taking any other view would be doing gross violence to the scheme 9f the notification. [Paras 53, 55, 56, 57, 58] [834-G-H; 836D-F; 837-B-F] 3.1. The report of the CEC succinctly would sum up [, the situation. Though everyone, excepting the pr~ject proponents, viewed the construction of the project practically adjoining the bird sanctuary as a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance of the Sanctuary, there is no law to stop it. This unhappy E and anomalous situation arose simply because despite directions by this Court, the authorities in the Central and the State Governments had so far not been able to evolve a principle to notify the buffer zones around Sanctuaries and National Parks to protect the sensitive and delicate F ecological balance required for the sanctuaries. But the absence of a statute will not preclude this Court from examining the project's effects on the environment with particular reference to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. For, in the jurisprudence developed by this Court, Environment G is not merely a statutory issue. Environment is one of the facets of the right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution. Environment is, therefore, a matter directly under the Constitution and if the Cou.rt perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to the H environment it would feel obliged to step in. The question IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDAANAND 795 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. of the likelihood of the project causing any adverse A effects on the Okhla Bird Sanctuary must, therefore, be examined from this angle. [Paras 65, 66] [840-F-H; 841A-C] B 3.2. In pursuance of the Court's directions, the MOEF had asked the project proponents to have the environmental impact assessment of the project done by some expert agencies. NOIDA, the project proponent got three studies made of the impact assessment of the project. One is a joint study prepared by the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), C , Deccan Regional Station, Hyderabad and the All India Network Project on Agricultural Ornithology, Aacharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad; and the third by a group of three individuals that was vetted by the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. None of the D expert bodies has taken the view that the project is so calamitous or ruinous for the bird sanctuary that it needs to be altogether scrapped in order to save the Sanctuary. The expert bodies gave recommendations which allowed the completion of the project subject to certain conditions. On behalf of the State of U.P., it was unequivocally stated that all the conditions laid in the reports of the Expert Bodies were acceptable to the State Government/ NOIDA in their entirety. In the light of the two study reports and the report submitted by the EAC, there was no justification for directing the demolition of the constructions made in the project, as prayed for on behalf E F of the applicants. The project is allowed to be completed, subject, of course to the conditions suggested by the three expert bodies. The report of the Wll focused on the G felling of trees resulting in the disappearance of the woodland that acted as a protective buffer for the bird sanctuary and its first recommendation is to compensate the loss of vegetation. It secondly focused on the I increased artificial light at the project site, which is likely H 796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R A to affect the migratory bird population in the long run. Apart from this, the extent of stone and concrete constructions in the name of "hard landscaping" is highly out of proportion. In the modified layout plan, the project proponents reduced the area under hard surface to 8 35.54% of the total project area. Even that is unacceptable from the environmental point of view. The area under hard surface, whether covered, uncovered (including pathways and· boundary wall etc.) or of any kirid whatsoever must not exceed 25% of the total project · C area; of the rest, 25% should be used for soft/green landscaping and the remaining, preferably 50% must have a thick cover of trees of the native variety. The plantation of trees should be especially dense towards the Okhla Bird Sanctuary on the western side of the project area. Any construction work should commence D only on completion of the planting of the trees. [Paras 68, 75, 76] [841-G-H; 842-A; 845-8-H; 846-A] 3.3. In order to ensure full compliance with the recommendations of the expert bodies (which form part E of the judgment) and the directions of this Court, the construction of the project needs to be seen by an expert committee. One member of the committee, preferably an ornithologist will be nominated by the MoEF, the other member will be nominated by the CEC in consultation F with the amicus and the Chairman-cum-CEO of NOIDA will be the member-secretary of the committee. The said directions were given in the peculiar facts of this case and nothing said in the judgment would form precedent when the court hears the matter of the "buffer zones". The EIA G · notification dated September 14, 2006 urgently calls for a close second look by the concerned authorities. The projects/activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built-up H area with facilities open to the sky needs to be freed from IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA ANAND 797 ARYA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. its present ambiguity and vagueness. The question of A application of the· general condition to the projects/ activities listed in the schedule also needs to be put beyond any debate or dispute. The environmental impact studies in this case were not conducted either by the MoEF or any organization under it or even by any B agencies appointed by it. All the three studies that were finally placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee and which this Court has also taken into consideration, were made at the behest of the project proponents and by agencies of their choice. This Court would ~ave been c more comfortable if the environment impact st4dies were made by the MoEF or by any organization under it or at least by agencies appointed and re~ommended by it. [Paras 77 to 79] (846-B-H; 847-A] Case Law Reference: ' (1997) 2 sec 267 referred to . Paras 1, 6, 18, 25 (2006) 5 sec 28 referred to Paras 16 (1997) 8 sec 191 referred to Paras 18 (2004) 12 sec 118 referred to Paras 18, 29 (1985) 3 sec 643 referred to f)aras 26 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos.! 2609-2610 of 2009. IN I Writ Petition (Civil) No, 202 of 199$. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. I With I.A. Nos. 2896, 2900 & 2928 of 2010. D E .F G H A B 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 15 (ADDL I S C R IN I.A. Nos. 2609-2610 of 2009. IN Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995. H.P. Raval, ASG, Harish N. Salve, U.U. Lalit, Jayant Bhushan, K.K. Venugopal, Raju Ramachandra, S.C. Mishra, S.K. Dwivedi, AAG, Siddhartha Chowdhury, A.D.N. Rao, P.K. C Manohar, Mihir Chatterjee, Har;Jh Beeran, Manish Kumar Bishnoi, Gautam Talukdar, R.K. Gupta, Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Ankur Talwar, Kamlendra Mishra for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by o AFT AB ALAM, J. 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 app1icants who are residents of Sector 15A, NOIDA, U.P. They claim to be public spirited people, committed to the cause of environment. E 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 F 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 & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 267 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 G of section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereafter "the FC Act"). The project involved massive constructions that were m