The legal case delves into the intricacies of land acquisition and environmental clearance for National Highway expansion projects, emphasizing the court’s thorough legal analysis. The court’s stance on project segmentation to avoid clearance and the requirement to adhere to environmental regulations showcases the significance of balancing economic development with environmental preservation. This summary provides insight into the essential legal considerations surrounding infrastructure projects of national importance.
Facts
- The Committee recommended that expansion of National Highways projects up to 100 km with additional right of way or land acquisition up to 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses may be exempted from the purview of the Notification.
- The Appellant disagreed with this recommendation.
- Process was initiated for the acquisition of lands required for the project.
- Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras by certain aggrieved farmers and public interest litigants questioning the commencement of the project without obtaining environmental clearance.
- The present project of expansion of NH-45A, covering a stretch of 179.555 km, is to be put on hold and status quo maintained.
- NHAI must conduct an EIA study and obtain environmental clearance for the project.
- NHAI must also secure approval from CRZMA for CRZ clearance for the two specified locations.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Seniority Fixation in Contempt Petitions
Arguments
- Environmental clearance is necessary for expansion projects pertaining to National Highways greater than 100 km with additional right of way or land acquisition above specified limits.
- The proposed project is important for public goods and services movement, requiring speedy execution.
- Dividing the project into four packages is in the public interest due to the scale and financial requirements.
- Balancing economic development with environmental preservation is crucial.
- Offer to limit construction of toll plazas and rest areas within permissible limits if necessary.
- Clarification that right of way limits apply only to road construction, not other amenities like toll plazas.
Also Read: Vertical Mobility and Selection Process in Police Department
Analysis
- Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 22.08.2013 require prior environmental clearance for new National Highways and expansions greater than 30km involving additional right of way or land acquisition passing through multiple states.
- Environmental clearance is required for National Highway expansions over 100 km with additional right of way greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses.
- The High-Level Committee recommended clearance for expansions beyond 100 km with specified right of way limits, which was accepted by the Government in the Notification dated 22.08.2013.
- Expert committee needed to determine permissibility of segmenting National Highways beyond 100 km, as segregation cannot be used to avoid environmental impact assessment.
- The Central Government has the authority to prohibit or restrict the location of industries and carrying on processes in different areas.
- The power is conferred by Sub-Clause (i) and Clause (v) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- This power is exercised in accordance with Clause (b) of Sub rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
- The High Court relied on judgments in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Citizens for Green Doon v. Union of India to reject the contention of project segmentation for administrative expediency.
- The High Court emphasized that segmenting national highway projects to avoid environmental clearance would render certain Notifications ineffective.
- Citing the United States District Court and the European Court of Justice judgments, the High Court deemed segmentation to avoid environmental clearance impermissible.
- The High Court highlighted the need for profit-related activities to be integral or implied in the purpose of a trust or institution.
- Reference was made to a judgment in CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers’ Association regarding the interpretation of the term ‘involving’ in the context of activities for profit.
- The issues relating to acquisition of land being in contravention of the National Highways Act, 1956 were not dealt with in the case.
- No submission was made regarding this matter before the High Court or the Court that issued the judgement.
Also Read: Interpretation of Section 80-IA Deductions
Decision
- Requirement of reafforestation to be fulfilled in accordance with existing legal regime.
- No requirement for obtaining environmental clearances for NH 45-A Villuppuram – Nagapattinam Highway as land acquisition is within specified limits.
- Directions to strictly conform to land acquisition limits as per specified notifications.
- Ministry to form an Expert Committee to examine permissibility of segmentation for National Highway projects beyond 100 kms.
Case Title: THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. PANDARINATHAN GOVINDARAJULU (2021 INSC 29)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004035-004037 / 2020
