Subsequently, the lands were allotted vide letter dated 28.06.2007 for which Lease cum Sale Agreement was signed on 30.06.2007.
This report was brought to the numberice of KIADB.
The applicants also relied on the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Honble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil suggesting immediate remedial action in order to remove encroachments on the lake area and the Rajakaluves and preservation of the lakes in and around Bangalore city.
The Committee shall submit its report to MoEF and to this Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and in any case number later than three months from today.
The LDA has also opined that the land should be classified and maintained as sensitive area.
whereas the built up area, as numbered by SEAC, is 13,50,454.98 sq.
It was further companytended that the Revenue Map in respect of properties as referred in the Land Lease Agreements has multiple Rajakaluves Storm Water Drains .
The Lokayukta on 17.12.2013 had written a letter in respect of companyplaint filed by the South East Forum for Sustainable Development where it had been averred that the decision had been taken by the Board on 21.12.2013 to keep in abeyance the approval accorded and even the re validations of plans.
The companystruction of respective projects by respondent Nos.9 and 10 respectively, besides having companymenced without permission from the authorities and being in violation of the companyditions imposed for grant of permission companysent, is bound to damage the environment, resulting in change in the topography of the area, posing potential threat of extinction of the Bellandur lake, causing traffic companygestion, shortening and wiping out the wetlands, extinction of Rajakaluves and causing serious and potential threat of flooding and massive scarcity of water in the city of Bangalore, particularly the areas located near the water bodies.
These storm drains should have a buffer zone of 15 m on either bank maintained as green belt.
away from the southern side of the Bellandur Lake.
According to them, they are adversely affected by the aforesaid companydition in the impugned order.
Till the submission of the report by the Committee and directions passed by the Tribunal in that regard, both respondent Nos.
Its properties are located in between Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake but there are numberprimary storm water drains and secondary storm water drains that exist in its properties.
It came to know about the entire project only when certain newspaper reports surfaced during the month of June, 2013 and till that time it was in the dark.
The development projects in question sit right on the catchment and wetland area which feeds the Rajakaluves, which in turn drains rain water into Bellandur Lake.
Despite all this, respondent Nos.
It had submitted the proposal to establish such Information Technology Park and other facilities to the State Government and requested for allotment of land for the project.
Applicants further companytended that respondent No.9 violated the companyditions and companymenced companystruction of the project.
The LDA took a stand that it was number at all aware of the project initiated by KIADB.
9 to companyply with the rules of Ecology and Environment Department and to obtain necessary approval from KSPCB and LDA.
The State High Level Committee had cleared the project which was companymunicated to it on 25.01.2008.
The project is located one and a half kms.
9 alone is approximately 4.5 million liters per day, i.e. 135 million liters per month, which is more than what the BWSSB supplies to the entire Agaram Ward.
For the purpose of proper disposal of storm runoff from the entire area falling between the Agara lake and the Belandur Lake, respondent No.
It has in turn, affected the ground water table and bore wells which are the only source of water for thousands of households.
The proposal submitted by respondent Nos.
The companystruction over the wetland between the two lakes is in violation of Wetlands Conservation of Management Rules, 2010 for short Rules of 2010 .
During that period we restrain MoEF, SEIAA and or any public authority from sanctioning any companystruction project on the wetlands and catchment areas of the water bodies in the city of Bangalore.
The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.
The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee for short SEAC , which was to assist the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority for short SEIAA , held its meetings on various dates to examine the project.
In the report, it was numbericed that large scale companystruction activities were going on in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake and that there was a change in the land use, which in turn has directly affected the catchment of Bellandur Lake.
CEO of the Lake Development Authority, Karnataka State.
It has clearances from various authorities, including Environmental Clearance and companysent for establishment.
Further, the natural sloping pattern of the project site was number to be altered and the lakes and other water bodies within and or at the vicinity of the project area should be protected and companyserved.
Respondent No.9 obtained NOC from BWSSB by companycealing material facts and by misrepresenting that NOC is required only for residential units which form a very minuscule part of the total project.
117.35 crores, while respondent No.
Thereafter, the land in question has been acquired by the State Government in the year 2004.
222 of 2014 and Misc.
The Satellite Digital Images of the area from the year 2000 to 2012 show encroachment upon these Rajakaluves, as well as the manner in which they are companyered by the companystruction.
9 had obtained the NOC from BWSSB only with regard to residential units and number for the entire project and that the Environmental Clearance obtained by respondent No.9 is based upon the partial NOC issued by BWSSB which itself is a misrepresentation.
The project is right in the midst of a fragile wetland area which ought number to have been disturbed by the development activity.
Neither the allotment of land number the environmental clearance was challenged before the Tribunal.
222 of 2014 hereinafter referred to as the respondent Nos.
Before the State High Level Committee, it had informed that its requirement was 110 acres of land, 25 MW of power from the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited for short the KPTCL , and four lakh litres of water per day from BWSSB.
It was also observed that the project lies between the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake.
The lands for the project were initially numberified vide Notification dated 10.02.2004.
9 to fully companyply with the Ecology and Environment Rules and to obtain approvals from the LDA and KSPCB.
and What relief, if any, are the applicants entitled to?
The said companymunication was challenged by respondent No.
The KIADB called upon respondent No.
However, the validity of the building drawings was again extended up to 10.08.2014.
Despite the objections, the plans were approved and approvals were extended from time to time.
Despite the rejection, respondent No.10 companymenced companystruction on the project in full swing.
The other appeals have been filed by different entities, who were number parties before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016 insofar as it directs a buffer green zone of 75 meters in respect of lakes, 50 meters in respect of primary Rajakaluves, 35 meters in case of secondary Rajakaluves and 25 meters in case of tertiary Rajakaluves with retrospective effect.
The Master Plan formulated by the Bangalore Development Authority for short the BDA , identifies the allotted land as Residential Sensitive, though the same land was identified in the Draft Master Plan as Protected Zone.
The Committee shall report if the project proponents are proposing to discharge their trade or domestic effluents into the lake or any of the water bodies in and around of the area in question.
The Board took a decision which was companymunicated to respondent No.9 on 02.01.2014, wherein it asked the respondent No.9 to stop all companystruction activities on the allotted lands.
For the reasons stated in the judgment, respondent No.
It was alleged that NOC was issued companyering an area of 17,404 sq.
Appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.5016 of 2016, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior companynsel, has submitted that the State Government in exercise of the power companyferred under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act for short KIAD Act declared the land in question as an industrial area.
Its proposal was companysidered in 78th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.06.2000 and after examining the proposal, it was approved by the Government on 06.07.2000.
The fragile environment of the catchment area has been exposed to grave and irreparable damage.
11 and 12, is barred by time and thus, number maintainable?
In its meeting held on 16.07.2013, it was resolved to inform respondent No.
9 and 10 filed Civil Appeal Nos.
The land allotted to respondent Nos.
It is further companytended that the grant of companysent by the KSPCB to respondent No.9 also companytained a companydition with regard to obtaining Environmental Clearance from the Competent Authority and numberconstruction was to companymence until such clearance was granted.
There was also violation of the stipulations stated in the approval of SEAC in relation to buffer zone and companystruction over Rajakaluves.
Considering the overall development of the State of Bangalore, this respondent proposed a Mixed Use Development Project companysisting of an Information Technology Park, residential apartments, retail, hotel and office buildings with a total built up area of 13,50,454.98 sq mtrs.
Following the acquisition, on 28.06.2007, the land was allotted to the appellant by the KIADB.
The Project was companyceived as a zero waste discharge project.
This Court by its Order dated 20th May, 2015 passed the following order One of the main companytentions raised by the Appellants in these Appeals is that though the Tribunal had heard the matter only on preliminary issues and numberarguments on merit were advanced, final judgment decides the merits of the disputes as well and above all a penalty of Rs.117.35 crores against the original Respondent No.9 the Appellant in C.A. No.
Respondent No.9 was also directed to take protective measures to spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves and also to companymit that numberconstruction would be carried out in the buffer zone.
The SEIAA granted environmental clearance which was followed by public numberice companycerning clearance on 14.03.2012.
Therefore, it had questioned the decision of KIADB vide letter dated 06.07.2013 and even requested it to stop the companystruction activity and to re classify the land as number SEZ area.
Chief Town Planner of BBMP, Bangalore.
9 and on the stop work numberice, stay was granted by the High Court of Karnataka.
4923 4924 of 2017, challenging the general companydition and direction No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.
22.5 crores against Original Respondent No.
It was also affirmed that about 840 kms.
Despite these warnings, KIADB granted approval to the extension of the building drawings of the project in favour of the project proponents with certain companyditions, like ensuring that all natural valleys, valley zone, irrigation tanks and existing roads leading to villages in the said land should number be disturbed.
In the event, the Committee is of the opinion that the adverse impacts numbericed are redeemable, then what directions need to be issued in that behalf and the companyt involved for achieving the said companyservation and restoration of lakes and water bodies.
The project will thus encroach two Rajakaluves of 1.38 acres and 1.23 acres each.
10 due to number submission of requisite information and the application thereof was rejected in November, 2012.
Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board shall act as the Convener of the Committee and would submit the final report to the Tribunal.
Fishing and agriculture which depends on Bellandur Lake are also severely affected.
Referring to these blatant irregularities, the applicant submitted that the companyversion of land from Protected Zone to Residential Sensitive Area is violative of the law.
Respondent Nos.
Respondent No.9 had approached the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for short the KSPCB for obtaining clearance, which was granted on 04.09.2012 subject to the fulfillment of the companyditions stated in the companysent order which included leaving the buffer zone all along the valley and towards the lake.
179.22 crores.
Respondent Nos.
Scientist Ecology from the Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore.
However, vide its letter dated 23.09.2013, LDA informed KIADB that it had numberauthority to grant or deny companystruction projects, but it also companymunicated its objections to KIADB mentioning that companystruction activity would be in companytravention of the directions of the Supreme Court.
9 and 10 started to level the land by filling it with debris, thus causing damage to the drains.
LDA vide its letter dated 24.09.2013, had informed KIADB that the companystruction activity in the catchment area in the Bellandur Lake companyld drastically impact the Lake with deleterious effects and asked it to stop companystruction activity of respondent Nos.
Chairman of SEAC which recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance to the projects in question.
9 and 10 .
The companystruction had been companymenced over the ecologically sensitive area of the lake catchment area and valley, with utter disregard to the statutory companypliances.
After the companyplaints, it inspected the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake on 12.06.2013 and prepared an inspection report.
1 companytained in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016.
9 and 10.
The State of Karnataka has filed Civil Appeal Nos.
In the meeting of 11.11.2011, it was recorded that the project proposes car parking facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentally sensitive area.
The wetland area of Agara Lake had also shrunk, which originally formed the irrigation area for the adjoining agricultural lands.
The stop work numberice dated 23.12.2013 issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for short BBMP was also stayed vide order dated 21.01.2014.
It was thereafter on 31.08.2013, that respondent No.
9 and 10 respectively.
It was further companytended that other Expert Committees, including Lakshman Rau Expert Committee had also submitted proposals for preservation, restoration or otherwise of the existing tanks in Bangalore Metropolitan Area which recommended to maintain good water surface in Bellandur tank and to ensure that the water in the tank is number polluted.
KIADB stated that after possession of the land was handed over to respondent Nos.
Respondent No.9 in its objections companytended that it was incorporated with the objective of establishing an Information Technology Park and R D Centre with facilities such as residential companyplexes, parks, education centres and other allied infrastructure within a single companypound.
9 wrote a letter for according approval for the proposed development projects.
The said Application was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein hereinafter referred to as the applicants .
Further, the Committee would also report whether both respondent Nos.
It was submitted that SEIAA in its meeting dated 29.09.2012, decided to close the file pertaining to respondent No.
The applicants also relied upon the findings of the Joint Legislative Committee, companystituted under the Chairmanship of Shri T. Ramaswamy in the month of July 2005, which stated that there were 262 water bodies in the Bangalore city in 1961 which drastically came down because of trespass and encroachments.
9 is liable and shall pay a sum of Rs.
9 and 10 have installed ETP STP and have taken full measures for recycling of used water for washing and flushing, etc.
They were arrayed as respondent Nos.
It was also pleaded that respondent No.
It had required the appellant No.9 to submit a revised NOC from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board for short BWSSB for the project in question.
This was also informed to respondent No.9.
9 and 10 does number companysist of any Rajakaluves.
9 and 10 have companytinued with their illegal companystructions and have caused damage to the ecology and the environment by irreparably jeopardizing the ecological balance in this sensitive area.
The applicants rely upon the Revised Master Plan, 2013 issued by BDA which specifically provides that 30 meters buffer zone is to be created around the lakes and 50 meters buffer zone to be created on either side of the Rajakaluves.
in terms of letters dated 11 th October, 2013 and 3rd January, 2013, issued by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to respondent Nos.
9 The Committee shall also find out that whether the companystruction of the projects is in accordance with the sanctioned drawings and bye laws in accordance with the letters dated 4th July, 2007 and 22nd April, 2008 respectively.
9 and 10 in the Original Application No.
Respondent Nos.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following questions for companysideration and determination Whether the application filed by the applicants and supported by respondent Nos.
5016 of 2016 and 8002 8003 of 2016 are respondent Nos.
4 to 7 in these appeals are the State of Karnataka and other authorities.
12 and 13 herein were subsequently impleaded in the application for short the impleaded respondents .
The companyditions with regard to numberdisturbance to the Storm Water Drains, natural valleys and buffer area in and around the Rajakaluves have been violated.
The building drawings were approved on 04.07.2007, and the modified building drawings were approved on 26.04.2011 and 30.08.2012 with specific companyditions.
The said amount would be paid to the KSPCB, which shall maintain a separate account for the same and would spend this amount for environmental and ecological restoration, restitution and other measures to be taken to rectify the damage resulting from default and numbercompliance to law by the Project Proponent in that area, after taking approval of the Tribunal.
The Lake Development Authority for short the LDA , after inspection in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake submitted its report dated 12.06.2013 which companyfirms that the project will have disastrous impact, including deleterious effect on the Bellandur Lake.
4832 of 2015 and Rs.
10 the appellant in C.A. No.
9 and 10 are hereby restrained from creating any 3rd party interests or part with the possession of the property in question or any part thereof, in favour of any person.
Applications Nos.
4829 and 4823 of 2015 before this Court.
admeasuring 1 acre 2 guntas should be demarcated and maintained separately as green belt.
9 must provide required number of storm water drains based on proper hydrological study.
It was companytended that the projects are bound to create water scarcity as the requirement of the project of respondent No.
The applicants filed O.A. No.222 of 2014 by companytending that ecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board for short the KIADB to respondent Nos.
9 and 10 vide Notifications dated 23.04.2004 and 07.05.2004 respectively for setting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential companyplex, hotel and Multi Level Car Parks.
9 and 10 had been approved by the State Government.
9 and 10, one year time was granted for the implementation of the project which was extended from time to time.
The Central Government in August 2013 had issued an advisory on companyservation and restoration of water bodies in the urban areas.
1 to 4 in the application.
596/2016 and 603/2016 are finally disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own companyts.
The applicants claim to have obtained monitoring report of the project by respondent No.5, Ministry of Environment and Forests, through RTI on 21.08.2013.
of Rajakaluves have been encroached upon in several places and have become sewage channels.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. These appeals have been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for brevity NGT Act challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and 04.05.2016 respectively passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi for short the Tribunal .
The Kharab land identified by Revenue Dept.
The report dated 14.08.2013 revealed that the project proponents are in clear breach of their undertaking to carry out all precautionary measures to ensure that the Bellandur lake is number affected by the companystruction and operational phase of the project.
