Court Upholds Environmental Concerns, Directs Authorities to Consider Alternative Sites
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench has quashed the land acquisition process initiated for establishing a Rest Area near the Sariska Tiger Reserve, citing non-compliance with environmental restrictions. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anand Sharma, found that the proposed construction site fell within a restricted zone of the Critical Tiger Habitat, and the acquisition did not adequately address environmental and legal concerns.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Buddalal and other residents of Village Dhuarmala, who challenged the legality of the order passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi. The petitioners argued that their objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, were not meaningfully considered by the authorities, who failed to respect statutory restrictions and alternative site recommendations.
The petitioners highlighted that the proposed Rest Area was within one kilometre of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, a critical habitat for tigers, and cited a Government of Rajasthan order from 2015 that restricts new commercial and industrial activities within this zone. Despite recommendations to relocate the Rest Area, the authorities proceeded with the original site, prompting the legal challenge.
The court emphasized that the Competent Authority ignored binding environmental restrictions and failed to provide cogent reasons for dismissing alternative site options. It noted that public utility projects must adhere to environmental and forest laws, and the mere characterization of the site as a "public utility facility" does not exempt it from compliance.
In its decision, the court referenced the Division Bench judgment in the Rituraj Singh Rathore case, which upheld strict compliance with environmental restrictions near protected forests. The judgment stressed the importance of judicial review in ensuring that administrative decisions are legally sound and procedurally fair.
The court's ruling quashes the acquisition proceedings to the extent they concern the proposed Rest Area, instructing the respondents to explore legally feasible alternative sites. The judgment, however, allows for the continuation of land acquisition for other lawful purposes related to highway development, provided all statutory clearances are obtained.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in balancing developmental needs with environmental protection, reinforcing the significance of compliance with statutory and environmental regulations.
Bottom Line :
National Highways Act, 1956 - Objections under Section 3C regarding proposed acquisition and use of land for a Rest Area within restricted zone of Sariska Tiger Reserve - Non-application of mind to environmental restrictions and alternative site recommendations - Acquisition quashed to the limited extent of use for Rest Area.
Statutory provision(s): National Highways Act, 1956 Sections 3A, 3C; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Buddalal v. Union of India, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2964320
