NGT Chennai Delivers Split Verdict In G Square Realtor's Case; Judicial Member Imposes ₹1L Cost On Applicant While Expert Member Orders Stop On Construction
The NGT was hearing an Original Application, challenging the development of the township project and the construction of buildings without the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai has delivered a split verdict in a case relating to M/s. G Square Realtor Private Limited.
While the Judicial Member (JM) imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the Applicant, the Expert Member (EM) directed the State of Tamil Nadu to stop the ongoing construction. On account of the split verdict, the case has been directed to be listed before the Chairperson of the NGT.
The opposition in Tamil Nadu has been alleging that G Square Realtor Private Limited is linked to the ruling DMK and that it is linked to Chief Minister MK Stalin's family.
The NGT was hearing an Original Application, challenging the development of the township project and the construction of buildings without the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Judicial Member Pushpa Sathyanarayana held, “… it is held that the projects mentioned in the application developed by the 8th Respondent are independent projects having an extent within the permissible threshold and do not require Environmental Clearance. As the lands are developed on barren sites, the environmental damages as alleged are not proved by the applicant.”
On the other hand, the Expert Member Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati in his dissenting opinion, said, “It is noted that the DTCP has failed to assess the requirement of earmarking a separate space for the segregation, storage and decentralized processing of solid waste as per Rule 11 (g) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. No condition was imposed to ensure that a separate space is earmarked for segregation, storage and decentralized processing of solid waste.”
Senior Advocate S. Ravi represented the Applicant while Advocate G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff represented the Respondents.
Case Background
The Applicant, namely, R. Kalyanaraman, claimed himself to be the observer of a political party and stated that the G Square Company has developed a township project in Pattanam Village of Sulur Taluk in Coimbatore District in the name of ‘G Square City’. It was alleged that the project has two phases viz., ‘G Square City’ and ‘G Square City 2.0’ and according to the Applicant, it was advertised that the project has 240 amenities such as an open-air drive-in theatre, clubhouse, swimming pool, gymnasium, parks, library, etc. According to the Applicant, the total area of the extent of the project (Phase - 1 and 2) amounts to 93.28 Hectares and hence, it was alleged that the project comes under the purview of Item 8 (b) of the schedule to the EIA Notification, which requires the prior Environmental Clearance. The following grounds were alleged –
i. The project being a township one requires prior Environmental Clearance.
ii. As both Phase 1 and 2 are integrated projects and the total area of the project is more than the threshold limit of 50 Hectares, it comes under the purview of the EIA Notification.
iii. Without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance, G Square Realtor had started construction works and completed the same, which is violative of environmental laws and regulations.
iv. The project area has a natural stream and natural rainwater collection system, which is concealed by G Square by not obtaining Environmental Clearance.
v. The Cochin – Coimbatore – Karur (CCK) pipeline of M/s. Petronet Company is passing through the project’s survey field carrying the refinery from BPCL Kochin to Karur. The said aspect is not disclosed, the same being inflammable material.
Judicial Member’s Observations
JM Pushpa noted that it is an established principle that judicial intervention must be restricted to the scope defined by the pleadings, ensuring fairness to all parties and in this case, the Applicant’s primary contention pertains to Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, specifically regarding thresholds for built-up area and project extent.
“Operational aspects such as waste management, water supply, etc. are neither raised in the pleadings nor relevant to the question of whether the projects require prior Environmental Clearance. Introducing these issues at this stage transgresses the legal boundaries of the Original Application and contravenes established procedural norms”, she added.
JM was of the view that the case involves two distinct phases with separate approvals, owners, and timelines and the phases were not part of a deliberate strategy to evade Environmental Clearance but sequentially and factually independent projects.
“In the result, the Original Application [O.A. No.171 of 2023 (SZ)] is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The applicant is directed to pay the said amount to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of 2 (Two) weeks. As and when such a deposit is made, it may be used for the purpose of developing a green belt in the project area”, she directed.
Expert Member’s Observations
EM Satyagopal remarked, “I have perused the comprehensive opinion delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member of this Bench on the questions referred to in this Original Application. However, I respectfully dissent from the said opinion”
He held that G Square Realtor had deliberately and intentionally sliced the project to avoid obtaining prior Environmental Clearance, by splitting the land undertaken for development within the same Pattanam Village into Phase – 1 (G Square City) and Phase – 2 (G Square City 2.0).
“The SEIAA – Tamil Nadu is directed to take action against the 8th Respondent for having violated the provisions of environmental laws following due process of law. … The SEIAA – Tamil Nadu is also directed to stop on going constructions, if any, in the project site”, he further directed.
Accordingly, due to a conflict in verdict among the Members, the NGT referred the case to the Chairperson of the NGT as per Section 21 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Cause Title- R. Kalyanaraman v. Union of India
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate S. Ravi, Advocates A. Thirumalai Raja, V. Ramasubbu, and M. Kirubaharan.
Respondents: Advocates G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff, Meyappan, Me. Sarashwathy, D. Shanmuganathan, S. Sai Sathya Jith, Harishankar, K. Surendar, Chenthoori Pugazendhi, and B. Sasidaran.
