Green & Green Lawyers vs State of M.P. and Ors

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 17.06.2020 and it was directed as follows:-

"We have been informed by the Learned Counsels for the parties that after the last date of hearing, respondent no. 2 had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 25.02.2020. The Hon'ble Court has directed that the application (34/2020) with regard to clarification/modification filed by respondent no. 2 be decided on the next date i.e. 17th June, 2020.

Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties in I.A. No. 34/2020. The application has been filed by respondent no. 2 for clarification/modification of the order dated 25.02.2020. On the said date, the Tribunal had granted an interim order in the term of maintaining the status quo.

Initially, Notices were issued to Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respondent nos. 2 and 4 have filed their replies. But respondent no. 3 namely, Director, Town and Country Planning has not filed its reply despite of sufficient opportunities having been given. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 28.05.2020, we had asked the Learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 to seek instructions as to whether the requisite area for the development of the green belt i.e. 23.5 hectares includes the area of stadium and Dussehra Maidan or not. The Counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that the earlier Counsel has been changed and so also the officer in charge. Therefore, he can not reply in respect of the specific query made by the Tribunal on the last occasion.

The Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted, in respect of the instant Interlocutory Application filed by them, that a reading of map with the legend given therein shows that the stadium and Dussehra Maidan have not been taken as part of green belt. He has also submitted that all the issues are to be decided at the time of final hearing.

The Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the area of stadium and Dussehra Maidan has been taken up as recreational area and the same includes the green belt, as one of the component. In support of his submission, he has referred to para 1 of the preliminary objection raised in its reply by respondent no. 4, Bhopal Municipal Corporation wherein such averments have been made.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the bone of contention between the parties, we had directed the Counsel for respondent no. 3, Director, Town and Country Planning to make clear which is the area having 23.53 hectares which is meant for dedicated green belt, as per specific condition 16 of Environmental Clearance. However, the Counsel for respondent no. 3 could neither answer the query raised on the last date of hearing nor the officer incharge has been able to give the answer.

Therefore, we deem it just and proper and in the interest of justice to clarify our order dated 25.02.2020 as under:

The area of stadium as well as Dussehra Madan shall be maintained as it exist today without any work having been done therein, till the disposal of the original application.

Any other work which is undertaken by respondent no. 2-Project Proponent, in the meanwhile, shall be at their risk and responsibility, in case after hearing the original application finally, it is found that the construction or other steps so taken falls within the dedicated green belt area. In such circumstances, all such construction and steps taken shall be removed at the expense of respondent no. 2.

Accordingly, order dated 25.02.2020 is clarified and I.A. No. 34/2020 is disposed of, with no order as to cost.

Main Matter

List this matter on 11th August, 2020."

The matter was further taken up on 01.07.2020 and it was directed as follows:

"Learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rohit Sharma has submitted to hear the application on the point of certain urgency due to rainy season but the Learned Counsels appearing for the respondents had made a request for time to file reply. The copy of the application may be provided to the opposite party and the opposite party respondents may file the reply within a week.

Put up on the date already fixed i.e. 11.08.2020"

In the meantime, the Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Ltd. approached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and file Civil Appeal No. 2466-2467/2020 and it was disposed of finally. Later on, the respondent no. 2 filed an interlocutory application no. 81/2020 with certain suggestions and formula and reserved the required land as open land. The relevant para nos. 3, 4, and 5 are quoted below:-

"3. In Response to the reply so submitted by the Respondent No. 2 the Applicant had moved an application for amendment raising objection that the 3% area alongwith the roadside cannot be considered as green belt within the rules and regulation of Town and Country Planning, therefore now the Respondent No. 2 BSCDCL had decided to increase the green belt area in consideration to the building norms applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh to the tune of 17% in compliance to the specific condition mentioned in the EC dated 23/08/2018 issued by SEIAA.

The SEIAA while granting EC in favor of the Respondent No. 2 relied upon EIA manual published by MoEF &CC, GOI February 2010 in which it is mentioned that, "it is essential to avoid disturbance to the site by retaining the natural topography of the site or design the landscape with atleast 15-25% of the site area" therefore now the Respondent No. 2 has designed the landscape in the Smart City Project by maintaining 17% equals to 23.5 ha. green belt excluding the T.T. Nagar Stadium and Dussehra Maidan.

Respondent No. 2 has also prepared the map to showcase natural topography or the landscape of 17% of the total ABD area and the proposed plantation is also indicated in the map."

The Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 are also present and all the Learned Advocates including Mr. Sachin K. Verma, appearing for the applicant are agreed that in light of the report submitted by Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Ltd. as narrated in para no. 3, 4 and 5 the original application and all interlocutory applications should be disposed of accordingly.

Accordingly, since the remedial measures have been taken by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, thus, we appreciate the efforts by Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the Bhopal Municipal Corporation to settle the matter in accordance with the rules.

6 . Since no further action is required on the part of the Tribunal, thus, the original application and all the interlocutory applications are accordingly finally disposed of.