|
Green Belt in
India refers to a buffer zone created beyond which industrial
activity may not be carried on. This concept has developed through
a long line of cases and today, green belts are present not only
for the purpose of protecting sensitive areas to maintain
ecological balance, but are also be found in urban areas so as to
act as a sink for the harmful gases released by vehicles and
industries operating in the city area. In this regard,
comprehensive Guidelines for Developing Green Belts have been
compiled by the Central Pollution Control Board [Refer
Probes/75/1999-2000].
Though the
exact delimitation of the area to be left as constituting
green belt
varies
from case to case on the type of industrial activity carried out,
an inference can be drawn by analogy from case laws that at least
minimum of 1 km has to necessarily be left as the green area from
the outer periphery of the protected region.
The same is
highlighted through the following cases:
Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri. C. Kenchappa & Ors.
(2006) 6 SCC
371
Facts:
The respondent agriculturists, who possessed certain gomal lands
(grazing lands for cattle), were affected by the acquisition of
lands by KIADB. These lands were part of the green belt in the
comprehensive development plan and also included lands reserved
for the residential purposes.
Judgment
:
The Karnataka High Court had held that for maintaining ecological
equilibrium and pollution free atmosphere of the villages, KIADB
is to leave land of 1 km. as a buffer zone from the outer
periphery of the village in order to maintain a
green area
towards preservation of land for grazing of cattle, agricultural
operation and for development of social forestry. This measure
would preserve the ecology without hindering the much needed
industrial growth, thus striking a balance between the industrial
development and ecological preservation. The Court had also
directed that whenever there was an acquisition of land for
industrial, commercial or non-agricultural purposes, except for
the residential purposes, the authorities must leave 1 km. area
from the village limits as a free zone or green area to maintain
ecological equilibrium.
The Supreme
Court, in addition to dealing at length with the principles of
sustainable development, polluter pays, precautionary principle,
public trust doctrine, also emphasized on the requirement of
carrying on an impact assessment and obtaining necessary clearance
from the State Pollution Control Board and the Department of
Ecology and Environment before execution of an industrial
activity.
M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India & Ors. [Mining Activities near lakes in Haryana]
(2004) 12 SCC
118
Facts:
The Haryana Pollution Control Board was directed by orders of the
Supreme Court dated 20th November, 1995 to inspect and ascertain
the impact of mining operation on the Badkal Lake and Surajkund,
certain ecologically sensitive areas falling within the State of
Haryana.
Judgment
:
It was held that the Environmental Management Plan should be
prepared by mine lease holders for their mines and actual mining
operation be made operative after obtaining approval from the
State Departments of Environment or HPCB. The report submitted by
NEERI recommended stoppage of mining activities within a radius of
5 kms from Badkal Lake and Surajkund. It was also stated that
mining leases were not to be renewed without prior no objection
certificate from HPCB and also from CPCB. The Haryana Government,
has on the basis of the recommendations made in the report,
stopped mining operations within the radius of 5 kms of Badkal
Lake and Surajkund.
M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India & Ors. M/s. Delhi Development Authority [Surrender
of Industrial lands to DDA]
(2001) 4 SCC
577
Facts ? This
case was in the nature of a PIL directing surrender of plots upon
relocation of 'H' categories industries. More than four years had
passed since the date of the order, but the purpose of the order,
which was to provide some open space and green verge for the
benefit of the people in Delhi, stood unfulfilled, thus resulting
in deprivation of lung space in the city.
Judgment
:
It was held that on one hand housing, sports activity and
recreational areas are also part of the ?community need?, but the
most important community need that is wholly deficient and
urgently needed is to provide for the ?lung spaces? in the city of
Delhi in the shape of green belts and open spaces. Therefore, the
bench took the view that the total land, which has been
surrendered and dedicated to the community by the owners/occupiers
of the relocated/shifted industries, ought to be used for the
development of these green belts and open spaces.
T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.
(1997) 2 SCC 267
Amongst the
several orders passed pertaining to the felling of trees in forest
areas, Court held that all saw mills, veneer mills and ply-wood
mills in Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a
distance of 100 kms, from its border, in Assam, should also be
closed immediately. Moreover, for Jammu & Kashmir, it was held
that these operations would be permitted at a distance of less
than 8 kms from the boundary of any demarcated forest areas. Thus,
in this case too without direct reference to green belts, Court
delimited the area of industrial operations.
M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India & Ors. [Taj Trapezium case]
(1996) 8 SCC 462
Facts ?
Petition for the relocation of industries from Taj Trapezium (TTZ)
to prevent damage to Taj from air pollution through emissions
generated by coke or coal consuming industries. It is contended
that these air pollutants and have damaging effect on Taj and
people living in TTZ.
Judgment
:
The Court took into consideration the recommendations of the
Varadarajan Committee. Amongst its several recommendations, it
stated that studies should be undertaken by competent agencies to
explore the possibility of protecting the Taj monuments by
measures such as provision of a green belt. Even NEERI, in its
report, suggested the setting up of a green belt around the
Mathura Refinery. It is to be noted that this was the first time,
that the Court conceptualized a ?green belt? as an effective mode
of environmental protection. Through its final judgment in this
case, the green belt became a reality. However, it was only in its
subsequent orders that the Court was able to draw up the exact
framework i.e. in terms of area to qualify within the green belt.
M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India & Ors. [Follow up of Taj Trapezium
case I] (1998) 9 SCC 93
This was an
application seeking various directions pertaining to taking action
against the authorities responsible for damaging and destroying
the green belt within 500 metres of Taj Mahal, use of vehicles,
generators or sound equipments within 500 metres etc. As a result
of this order, presently there is no access into the green belt
for the visitors.
M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India & Ors. [Follow up of Taj Trapezium
case II] (2002) 9 SCC 534
This order
given by the Court pertained to the maintenance of cultural
heritage and historical importance within the Taj trapezium. It
was found that despite the presence of monitoring stations, the
air quality had still not improved. In consequence with this, a
direction was given to State Govt. to find out whether
unauthorized factories were still functioning within 20 kms radial
circle of Taj monuments. Though there was no direct reference to
?green-belt?, this case marked an attempt to curb encroachment and
illegal construction which had still not stopped, resulting in
serious damage to the ecology and cultural heritage of the place.
Observation:
Therefore, it can be inferred that
green belt
is a highly feasible technique not only as a precautionary method
in environmental protection, but also in restoring ecological
balance after destructive commercial activities are restrained.
|
Green Belt As A Mode Of Maintaining Ecological Balance
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at: sangeethamugunthan@legalserviceindia.com /
