AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A news item in the "The Hindu" dated 21.11.2013 under the caption "Plan for stadium at Thirupathi raises eyebrows" read as below:
"Plan for Stadium at Tirupati raises eyebrow" "The international cricket stadium coming up at the foot of Tirumala hills, for which the Chief Minister N. Kiran Kumar Reddy laid the foundation stone on Wednesday, has raised eyebrow on both ecological and security angles. A major facility which is all set to kindle enthusiasm in sports enthusiasts of Rayalaseema region, it is considered a major boon to budding sports persons. A 30 acre site of Sri Venkateswara University has been identified on which the Andhra Cricket Association will construct the stadium.
The stadium is coming on a site where there are around 4 lakh fully-grown trees, including the precious and endemic red sanders. The region is a rich catchment area for water flowing down the hills and is adjacent to the zoo. Forest officials, on condition of anonymity admit that it is home to several endangered and herbivorous animals, which frequently stray on to Alipiri- Cherlopalle bypass road. Even leopards have strayed on to the road in the past, indicating the growing man-animal conflict.
It is ecologically disastrous to disturb the forest. Tirupati definitely needs an international stadium, but not at the cost of its rich biodiversity conservation. Instead, waste and barren lands available in the Renigunta belt can be used," says K. Srinivasa Reddy, president of Intellectual Forum and himself a soil scientist.
Alipiri bustles with one lakh pilgrims everyday and this stadium adds 30, 000 more people, causing strain on infrastructure. The TTD declined alienation of its land to its employees here, indicating that it should be used to facilitate 'natural expansion' in future. "The establishment of a stadium in the little-known Gachibowli area in Hyderabad spurred development," Dr. Reddy said. At a time when Triumala already faces security threat, the stadium allows people to move much closer to the base of the Tirumala hills which is increasingly becoming porous with the construction of such structures".
Taking cognizance of the above news item in the interest of protection of environment and ecology, the Tribunal thought it fit to take suo motu proceedings and notices were served to the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to file their reply with regard to the news item. The 9th respondent, namely, the Registrar, Sri Venkateswara Univeristy (University), was added a party respondent to the above proceedings as the land in which the stadium is to come up belongs to the University.
The first respondent, namely the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) filed the reply which states that as per the Notification issued on 14.09.2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (E P Act, 1986) construction of new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the said Notification entailing capacity addition with change in the process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after prior Environmental Clearance (EC) from the Central Government, or as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) duly constituted by the Central Government under sub section (3) of section 3 of the said Act in accordance with the procedures specified in the Notification. Under the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, the EC for building, construction, township and area development projects is covered under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule to the Notification. These are categorized as "B" projects which are appraised by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC) and approved by the SEIAA on the following criterion factors:
a. If the built up area is greater than 20,000 m2 and less than 1,50,000 m2 for building and construction projects.
b. If coverage area is more than 50 ha and or built up area is greater than 1,50,000 m2 for township and area development projects.
The 4th respondent, namely, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests states in reply that the area in which the proposed international cricket stadium is to be constructed is in an extent of 30.01 acres comprised in Sy.No. 588/A of Ullipatteda Village of Thirupathi Mandal and the said land belongs to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD). The TTD has given an extent of 924.08 acres on long lease for 99 years to the University in the year 1962. The extent of 807 acres out of the total extent of 924.08 acres lies in Sy.No. 588/A and 30.01 acres from this 807 acres is leased out to the Andhra Cricket Association by the University for a term of 30 years. At the time of survey of the land for the cricket stadium, the Forest Department officials objected to the lease as the land where the cricket stadium is to come forms a part of forest land and after a joint inspection carried out by all the authorities and the officials concerned and the extent of land in Sy.No. 588/A is confirmed to be owned by the TTD.
The University requested permission from the Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Management Division, Tirupathi by a letter dated 29.05.2013 to clear the jungle growth in 30.01 acres in Sy.No.588/A and on reference to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tirupathi seeking his concurrence, it was found that the land is covered with thorny bushes and red sander trees and it was not possible to count the red sander trees without removing the thorny bushes and the DFO issued instructions to the University by letter dated 19.10.2013 for removal of thorny bushes in Sy.No. 588/A for the limited purpose of enumerating the red sander and other tree species located in that area. It was also informed to the TTD that the proposed area for construction of cricket stadium is having a good forest growth with red sanders and was further requested to follow the rules under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, Environmental Rules and the norms of the Pollution Control Board (APPCB) for clearing the existing forest growth. During the field inspection conducted by the DFO on 29.11.2013, it was noticed that all the standing trees excepting red sanders, neem, tamarind, usiri and few other species of trees were removed by machine along with the thorny bushes without any permission from the competent authorities in an extent of 25 acres in the land leased out to Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association. When a reference was made out to the University by the DFO regarding the felling of trees without approval of the competent authority in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the University replied that as the extent of 30.01 acres was leased out to the Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association, it is the lessee's obligation to obtain the clearances and it is responsible for the same. A case has also been registered against the University and the Contractor of the Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association for the offences under section 29(1) and section 35(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 by the Forest Range Officer, Sri Venkateswara National Park, Tirupathi Range.
In pursuance of the order dated 21.11.2013 of this Zonal Bench of the NGT, strict instructions were given to all the concerned Forest Department Officials to ensure that no further felling of trees is done by anyone in that area and no further felling of trees were done.
The 5th respondent, namely, the APPCB, would submit in reply that as per the Memorandum of Understanding between the 8th and 9th respondents, the extent of 30.01 acres is as follows:
East to West (on the northern side) .. 411.60 m
East to West (on the southern side) .. 312.60 m
North to South (on the eastern side) .. 361.60 m
North to South (on the western side) .. 443.60 m
The seating capacity of the proposed stadium is around 20,000. The activities of the stadium includes regular cricket practice for all age groups, conduct matches of different levels, i.e., Inter-District, Inter-Zonal and Inter-State matches of various age groups including first class matches and to organize international matches. The main source of water for the stadium would be the groundwater. The effluent treatment and disposal options from the effluent generated at the stadium will be regulated as per the guidelines of APPCB. The solid waste treatment and disposal shall be as per the guidelines of the APPCB. The air and noise pollution due to installation of DG sets would be mitigated by installing high quality mufflers and the latest DG sets which produce less noise and smoke below the permissible limits.
The entire play field within the stadium will be maintained with grass plantation and regular watering. The area beyond the stadium and within the compound walls will be maintained with natural turf and eco-friendly trees all around the compound walls which will not disturb the environment. The solid waste, sewerage and effluent are to be treated and disposed of with latest gadgets available in the international market under the supervision of the qualified technical staff and with the guidelines provided by the APPCB.
As per the EIA Notification, 2006, any construction activity beyond 20,000 m2 requires obtaining of prior EC before commencement of the activity or preparation of the land. However, the Project Proponent has informed the APPCB that the built up area of the stadium is still under planning and not yet finalized. The APPCB has, therefore, directed the 8th respondent to approach the APPCB after finalizing the plan of the proposed stadium and the 5th respondent would take appropriate action on the basis of the same.
The 6th and 7th respondents, namely, the TTD would state in reply that the land in Sy.No.588/A stands in the name of TTD and an extent of 924.08 acres in the above Sy.No. was granted on long term lease of 99 years to the University in the year 1962. There is no bar to sub lease the land as per the lease agreement terms and the University has leased out an extent of 30.01 acres to the Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association by way of registered lease agreement dated 25.03.2013. The said sub lease was not ratified by the Andhra Pradesh Government and no proposals were submitted to Government in this regard. The suo motu proceedings taken by the Tribunal embraces a wide spectrum of environmental issues by putting up a stadium which may cause destruction of forest in which the TTD has no part or involvement. The Forest Department of Andhra Pradesh Government and other concerned are to take appropriate steps against the illegal felling of tress and the TTD will abide by such directions as may be issued by the Tribunal.
The 8th respondent, namely, the Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association would state in reply that in the interest of supporting and promoting activities of sports, particularly cricket, the Andhra Pradesh Cricket Association sent a requisition by a letter dated 12.01.2009 to the office of the Chief Minister, Andhra Pradesh for allotment of 50 acres of vacant land out of the total extent in Sy.No.588 of Alipiri Village, Tirupathi Mandal which is under the control of TTD for construction of a cricket stadium. After identification of 30.01 acres in Sy.No.588 in the total extent leased out to University by the TTD, a lease was made to the Association on 25.03.2013 for the construction of a cricket stadium in the above portion of the land.
The Andhra Cricket Association was under the impression that as the land belongs to the University, no permission from the Forest Department is required and only after the information from the DFO to remove the bushes, the Association made removal of bushes which could not be made without felling the trees in some places. The felling of the trees was not done wantonly or intentionally and the trees which were felled down were negligible in numbers. The Association submitted that its regrets for the confusion that arose in this matter and further assures that it will abide by all the rules and regulations and take all the necessary permissions from the authorities concerned such as EC, building plan and other statutory permissions.
The 9th respondent, namely, the Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi states inter alia after briefing the history of the land leased out to the University by TTD and sub lease entered into between the University and the Andhra Cricket Association for the establishment of cricket stadium that during the removal of the thorny bushes on the subject land it was reported by DFO that small trees like Adavi Nimma, Thumma, Chigara etc., were uprooted with machine along with the bushes violating the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He would further state that by the time orders of stop work was received the bushes had been removed in an extent of 25 acres and further works in the remaining extent of 5 acres were stopped as soon as the order was received. The Andhra Cricket Association has given an undertaking to plant as many trees as possible to maintain the greenery and ecological balance to compensate for the trees felled down. However, as the land is undulated, the removal of bushes and trees may be necessary for levelling the land. The Forest Department of the Andhra Pradesh and other concerned authorities have taken appropriate steps against the illegal felling of the trees and the 9th respondent would abide by such directions as may be issued by the Tribunal and to allow the construction of the cricket stadium.
As seen above, the matter was taken cognizance by this Bench pursuant to a news item in 'The Hindu' pertaining to the construction of an International Cricket Stadium (Stadium) at the foot of the Tirumala Hills. On notice, the 1st to 8th respondents entered appearance through their counsel. It was felt necessary that the 9th respondent should be added as a party and accordingly, he was added. The 9th respondent also entered appearance through his counsel. All the respondents filed their respective replies.
In pursuance of a requisition dated 12.01.2009 by the General Secretary/President, Andhra Cricket Association (Association) to the office of the Chief Minister, Andhra Pradesh for allotment of vacant land to an extent of 50 acres in Sy.No.588/A of Alipiri Village of Tirupathi for construction of a stadium, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in its letter dated 01.02.2013 requested the 9th respondent University herein to examine the proposal to lease out an extent of 30 acres for the construction of the stadium and other complexes with the funds of the Association and also requested the University to place a proposal with full details before the Executive Council of the University. Accordingly, the proposal along with the draft lease agreement were prepared and placed before the Executive Council which approved the proposal with terms and conditions mentioned in the draft lease agreement to allot an extent of 30.01 acres in Sy.No.588/A of Alipiri Village in Tirupathi with specific boundaries for a period of 30 years. A lease agreement was entered into between the University and the Association, the 8th respondent herein, on 25.03.2013 as found in Document No.7 (pages 25-50) filed by the 9th respondent. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to mention that this piece of land measuring 30.01 acres, the subject matter of the above lease agreement formed part of the total extent of 1281.52 acres in Sy.No.588/A was originally classified as inam dry and subsequently the ryotwari patta was granted in favour of TTD in the year 1961 and continues to stand in the name of TTD even today. Out of the said extent of 1281.52 acres of land in Sy.No.588/A, a long term lease for 99 years was given in favour of the University in the year 1962. The extent of 30.01 acres covered under the lease agreement dated 25.03.2013 between the 8th and 9th respondents referred to above formed part of the total extent of 924.68 acres which has been in the possession of the University from the time of long term lease as referred to above. It is specifically averred by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Executive Officer of TTD shown as 6th and 7th respondents herein that there is no bar for the 9th respondent University to execute sub lease. But, it is also averred that the sub lease has not yet been ratified by the Government. The Tribunal need not examine the rights, duties and obligations of the parties to the lease agreement since it is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Since the concern of the present proceedings is only on the environmental issues it becomes necessary to consider the role and liabilities of each of the respondents in so far as the environmental issues are concerned.
Advancing the arguments on behalf of the 8th respondent/Association, the learned counsel would submit that Tirupathi has grown as a big city and Sri Venkateswara University is situate at Tirupathi. The stadium at Visakhapatnam could not be claimed to be of international standards after the carving out of Telengana State from the unified erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. The State of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation needs a stadium of international standards for the encouragement of the sports, particularly cricket. The setting up of the cricket stadium of international standards at Tirupathi is considered most ideal as the game of cricket is the soul of millions of people in the world including India as said by our Hon'ble Prime Minister of India recently at Australia. The main activity at the Stadium is to conduct regular cricket practice for all age groups, conduct matches at different levels i.e., inter-district, inter-zonal and inter-state matches for various age groups including first class matches and to organize international matches as allotted by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and as per the decision of the Andhra Cricket Association.
By a letter dated 25.12.2013, the 8th respondent sent a communication stating about measures proposed to be taken for the protection of environment and ecology in reply to the notice dated 21.12.2013 of 5th respondent/APPCB. The need for the Stadium cannot be underestimated. The environmental degradation due to the establishment of the Stadium has to be balanced judiciously on the principle of Sustainable Development. While the Association has set apart around Rs.40 Crores for the construction of stadium, it is aware that and there would be loss to the greeneries due to by deforestation. The Association would compensate more than sufficiently by whatever conditions that may be imposed by the Tribunal and also by developing more greenery in the neighbourhood. The proposal for the setting up of the Stadium should not be denied due to clearing of the shrubs, small plants and trees for construction of stadium under the guise of environmental degradation ignoring the Sustainable Development. By stating all the above, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent/Association would conclude that what is proposed in the land is only for a good cause which would not lead to any environmental degradation or cause detrimental effect on ecology. Therefore, the Association must be permitted to proceed with the work.
The learned counsel appearing for the 6th and 7th respondents would submit that pursuant to the lease agreement entered into in1962 between the TTD and University, the TTD had parted with and put the University in possession in respect of 924.68 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.588/A on long lease. In so far as the proposal for the construction of the stadium, the lease deed entered into between the University and the Association or the alleged cutting and felling of trees, the TTD has no role to play at all and hence, the 6th and 7th respondents are not liable to answer to any one of the allegations made on the issues of the alleged environmental degradation. It is not the case of any one of the other respondents that the 6th and 7th respondents representing TTD had committed any act which is complained of. It is also seen that the TTD had no role to play either in the proposal for construction of stadium or lease agreement entered into between the 8th and 9th respondents therefor or any activity connected therewith and hence, it has got to be recorded that the 6th and 7th respondents representing the TTD are not liable to answer in respect of environmental issue in question.
Arguing for the 9th respondent/ University, the learned counsel would submit that in so far as the unauthorized cutting and felling of trees by the 8th respondent, the 9th respondent University should not be made responsible. In order to strengthen his contention, the learned counsel relied on a clause in the terms and conditions stipulated in the lease agreement entered into between the 8th and 9th respondents. The clauses pertaining to the conditions imposed in the agreement including the dispute and liabilities arising out of non-compliance to statutory norms during the effective period of the lease in the lease agreement read as follows:
-Work on the construction of the proposed infrastructure shall be initiated within one year from the date of this lease agreement coming into force and shall be completed within five years with the clearances and approval of all the Government Departments.
The Tribunal is able to see force in the contention putforth by the 9th respondent and it has to be accepted and it is held so.
The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, MoEF would submit that under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, the EC for the building, construction, township and area development projects were covered under item 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule to the Notification. The B category projects are appraised by the SEAC and approved by the SEIAA. As on today EC is not required.
It is true that the 8th respondent/Association entered into a lease agreement with the 9th respondent/University and took possession of 30.01 acres of land for the construction of the cricket stadium. Under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, construction of new projects or activities or expansion or modernization of the existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the said Notification entailing capacity additions with change in process and/or technology should be undertaken only after prior EC from the Central Government or from the SEIAA as the case may be in accordance with the procedure specified in the Notification. The Notification speaks about the A category projects requiring EC from the Central Government and B category projects which are to be appraised by SEAC and approved by SEIAA. It is pertinent to point out that the proposed project by the Association is an International Cricket Stadium. It is true that the construction part in setting up the stadium will not cover the area of 30.01 acres. It is well admitted by the 8th respondent/Association that the seating capacity of the stadium is around 20,000 and the built up area is under planning. But, when the construction activities of the said project require prior EC from the Central Government or fall under B category for which approval by the SEIAA is required, there is no option for the 8th respondent but to apply for and obtain EC or the approval as the case may be as mandated by the EIA Notification, 2006. Hence, a direction is issued to the 8th respondent to apply and obtain EC from the MoEF or approval from SEIAA procedurally if warranted.
Concededly, the 8th respondent has not approached by filing any application for any consent from the 5th respondent/APPCB since it has taken a stand that either the activity during construction of the stadium and thereafter will not have any impact on environment. After the initiation of the present proceedings, the 5th respondent served a notice dated 21.12.2013 on the 8th respondent/Association calling for particulars in respect of the proposed stadium as found in Annexure-R1 filed by the 5th respondent. In reply, the 8th respondent sent a communication to the 8th respondent dated 25.12.2013 which reads as follows:
"With reference to your notice No. G-224/PCB/RO/TPT/2013-2437 dated 21.12.2013, we respectfully submit the following information for your kind consideration and perusal.
(a) The Memorandum of Understanding between the Andhra Cricket Association and Sri Venkateswara University is for an extent of Ac.30.01 cents and measuring
East to West (on Northern side) .. 411.60 m
East to West (on Southern side) .. 312.60 m
North to South (on Eastern side) ..361.60 m
North to South (on Western side) .. 443.80 m
land for the construction of International Cricket Stadium at Tirupati. The built up area of the stadium is under planning.
(b) The capacity of the proposed stadium is around 20,000
(c) The main activity of the stadium is to conduct cricketing activity which includes regular practice for all age groups, conduct of matches of different levels i.e., Inter-District, Inter-Zonal and Interstate matches of various age groups including first class matches and to organize international matches allotted by Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and as per the decision of the Executive Committee of the Andhra Cricket Association.
(d) The main source of water is from underground.
(e) The sewage and effluents that are expected are bare minimum and the Andhra Cricket Association shall follow the guidelines of Pollution Control Board in this aspect.
(f) The effluent treatment and disposal options proposed for the effluent generation at the stadium will be regulated as per the guidelines of the Pollution Control Board.
(g) The solid waste generated and their collection, treatment and disposal shall be under the guidelines of Pollution Control Board.
(h) the air and noise pollution due to installation of DG sets and the mitigation measures proposed are installation of high quality mufflers and the latest generation DG sets which produce noise and smoke below the air and noise permissible limits.
(i) the copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between Sri Venkateswara University and the Andhra Cricket Association is enclosed herewith.
(j) Any other factor.
We declare that by way of construction of stadium, there will not be any impact on the environment because:
A) The entire play field within the stadium is always maintained with grass plantation and regular watering.
B) The area beyond the stadium and within the compound walls is well maintained with natural turf and eco-friendly trees all around the compound walls which will not disturb the environment.
C) The solid waste, sewage and effluent are treated and disposed of with the latest gadgets available in the international market under the supervision of our qualified technical staff with the guidelines provided by the Pollution Control Board.
D) Besides maintaining the ecology, the Andhra Cricket Association by way of construction of the stadium will generate employment to many of the local eligible people and create a sporting atmosphere for the youth of the district and surroundings and for observing quality cricket for the cricket loving public.
We are sure that the above information satisfies the queries raised through your letter.
The very reading of the reply would indicate that the statement made by the Association that there would not be any impact on the environment has got to be termed as "only to satisfy itself", but not to comply with any procedural mandates or the legal requisites. Taking into consideration the activity at the stadium in the conduct of matches of different age groups where a large number of persons would gather the impact on the environment has to be taken as inevitable. The questions on source of water, treatment and disposal of sewage and effluent, solid waste treatment and disposal, air and noise pollution are to be addressed for evolving and employing proper preventive and protective measures in order to control the pollution which is likely to be caused. Hence, the contention putforth by the Association that the activities during construction and thereafter of the stadium would not have any impact on environment has got to be rejected. It becomes necessary to issue a direction to the 8th respondent Association to approach the 5th respondent APPCB after finalization of all the details of the proposed stadium for the grant of Consent to Establish and the Consent to Operate. The 5th respondent APPCB is directed to consider the application as and when made and pass appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law.
In the present case, it would be apt and appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamalnath and others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 wherein the duty to preserve the natural resources in pristine purity is highlighted as follows:
"We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures, the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine if public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership or for a commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources".
After making a thorough examination of all the aspects in the backdrop of various legislations, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the Project Proponent uses the forest land for non-forest purposes, the Project Proponent has necessarily to pay Net Present Value (NPV) to protect the ecology and bio-diversity by applying the public trust doctrine. It remains to be stated at this juncture that the project in the instant case, namely, establishment of International Cricket Stadium, no doubt, a revenue earning project on commercial basis. It cannot claim any exemption which can be made available to Government hospitals, dispensaries, non-commercial Government ventures like schools, rain water harvesting tanks, sewer lines, village roads etc., which are projects solely meant for public welfare and have no adverse impact on environment as such.
The role of games and sports in enhancing the quality of life, especially in the context of developing countries is a well debated aspect of all policy and practice regimes. The well known proverb-"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" tells all in a nutshell. Games and sports are important for success in every walk of our life. History reveals that sports formed the principal part of education in ancient Greece. This is true of the modern day curricula in most of the economically developed countries. Games and sports are:
- good exercises which help build fine and strong physique and develop mental alertness
- best teachers who help us to cope with difficult situations and overcome even medical exigencies such as nervousness and restore self confidence
- good diversions for both the players and the spectators alike
- forces that foster competitive and team spirit among the participants and make them disciplined.
Realizing the multiple benefits of games and sports, all the States in the country are giving utmost importance to promote the regional and national sports in a big way and the same has to be viewed in proper perspective and welcomed in the context of nation-building.
Following the trends of the Western countries, the sports and games in India too are getting commercialized and encouraging players to take up sports as a 'profession' and not just a 'healthy pastime'. Needless to state, sports have great potential to offer career opportunities. The steep growth trajectory and economic potential of sport industry in India has resulted in huge demand in respect of Infrastructural needs and also the safety and facilities for national and international players, spectators and game administrators.
Topping the list of Infrastructural needs in the fast growing sports industry in India is the construction and management of STADIA with international quality and standards. The urgency is felt the most when it comes to CRICKET, which is undoubtedly the numero-uno sport in India. The passion and sentiment with which the game of cricket is treated in India is almost akin to the importance given to religion and life. Understandably, facilities and requirements for the game of cricket are being developed not only in major cities but also in rural and semi-urban areas. The proposed construction of the Cricket stadium which is the subject matter of the instant case is a shining example for the public patronage given to this sport.
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Switzerland in its publication titled "Stadium Safety and Security Regulations (2012)" has dealt with the definition of the term Stadium. It is pertinent to reproduce the same for the sake of clarity and inclusivity as has been done below:
Stadium: Any stadium at which a match is played. This includes the entire premises (to the extent that an accreditation card is required in order to gain access) of the stadium facility inside the outer perimeter fence and (on match days and on any day on which any official team training session takes place within the stadium) the aerial space above such stadium premises. "Stadium" shall also include all parking facilities, VIP/VVIP and hospitality areas, media zones, concession areas, commercial display areas, buildings, the field of play, the pitch area, the broadcast compound, the stadium media centre, the stands and the areas beneath the stands.
Application of the above definition to the case on hand makes it abundantly clear that Cricket Stadium proposed by the proponent in the instant case is a complex engineering entity involving a multitude of activities both on the 'match days' and also on 'off play days' during which training and practice related activities will go on. Needless to state that a variety of activities that go on in such a facility inevitably have a variety of impacts on the environment. Notwithstanding the health and economic benefits that accrue to the society from the proposed facility, the promoters of the game, the law enforcing authorities and other related agencies shall not turn a blind eye to the possible environmental impacts of the stadium both during the construction and operation of the same. It is a well settled principle that developmental projects should not take environmental considerations 'for granted'. The same is engrained in the concept of 'Sustainable Development' as well. We therefore direct the concerned agencies that grant Environmental Clearance and the Consent to Establish/Operate as the case may be, to give special and focussed attention to the following aspects/parameters as detailed in FIFA Regulations cited in para No. 31 supra. These may not come under the direct technical ambit of "ENVIRONMENT" but have a functional link and bearing on the safety of the players, spectators and others and thus on the "ENVIRONMENT" as a whole in an implicit manner, though not physically defined. Of course, these are in addition to the routine parameters that are generally covered under the Air, Water and other applicable Acts:
- Spectator safety and security policy document
- Stadium Risk Assessments: (e.g., Fire, Chemicals, fuels whether in containers or within fuel tanks and machinery, fertilisers, weed killers, paints or gas cylinders used for medical purposes)
- Stadium Contingency Plans: In respect of fire, gas leak or hazardous materials incident, buildings and services, safety and security communication systems, adverse weather conditions such as lightning strikes, flash floods, high winds, hurricanes etc.
- Temporary demountable structures
- Safety signs
- Staff awareness and training
The concerned authorities are directed to consult documents such as International Guidelines, Manuals and Standard Operating Practices (SOP) issued by International Organizations governing the game of cricket (and also other sports if and as applicable) and get familiarized with all the pertinent issues at the time of appraisal and decision making.
It is noticed that the permission was granted only for the purpose of clearing the thorny bushes for counting the trees. On the contrary, without any permission from the competent authorities, all grown up trees of different species except red sander were cut and felled down in the guise of removal of thorny bushes in an extent of 25 acres of land out of 30.01 acres leased out for the construction of the Stadium. It is pertinent to point out that all those trees cut and felled down were removed and no explanation is tendered as to what happened to those trees since all the trees according to the Forest Department were removed using machines. A direction at this stage to the Forest Department to make a survey of those trees which existed, their age, growth and value would be a futile exercise. A perusal of Annexure-R 9 filed by the 4th respondent would evidence that the Forest Department undertook an exercise of ascertaining the type of trees in the area adjacent to that where trees were felled. Five sample plots of 0.04 ha in Sy.No.589 were considered for estimating the number of trees cut over an area of 25 acres in Sy.No.588/A. As per the valuation report under Annexure-R 9 dated 05.01.2014, the value of vegetations missed/removed in the said 25 acres of land in terms of value and cost on the basis of the study of sample plots including the NPV was Rs.96.40 lakhs and total number of trees cut were approximately 1150. In the considered opinion of the Tribunal, the valuation report as found in Annexure-R 9 has to be accepted since it is the figure arrived at after taking into consideration all the necessary aspects and after making thecalculation based on samples and applying the NPV theory.
In the present case, it would be apt and appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamalnath and others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 wherein the duty to preserve the natural resources in pristine purity is highlighted in para 25 above.
When forest land is used for non-forest purposes, in order to prevent degradation to environment and ecological systems what measures are required to be taken to compensate the loss of forest land and to compensate the effect on ecology came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T.N. Godhavarman Tirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2005 SCC 4256 wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:
"Forests are vital component to sustain the life support system on the earth. Forests in India have been dwindling over the years for a number of reasons, one of it being the need to use forest area for developmental activities including economic development. Undoubtedly, in any nation development is also necessary but it has to be consistent with protection of environment and not at the cost of degradation of environment. Any programme, policy or vision for overall development has to evolve a systematic approach so as to balance economic development and environmental protection. Both have to go hand in hand. In ultimate analysis, economic development at the cost of degradation of environment and depletion of forest cover would not be long lasting. Such development would be counterproductive. Therefore, there is an absolute need to take all precautionary measures when forest lands are sought to be directed for non-forest use.
The point in issue is whether before diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes and consequential loss of benefits accruing from the forests should not the user agency of such land be required to compensate for the diversion. If so, should not the user agency be required to make payment of Net Present Value (NPV) of such diverted land so as to utilize the amount so received for getting back in long run benefits which are lost by such diversion? What guidelines should be issued for determination of NPV? Should guidelines apply uniformly to all? How to calculate NPV? Should some projects be exempted from NPV? These are the main aspects which require examination and determination in the back drop of various legislations which we would presently notice".
After making a thorough examination of all the aspects in the backdrop of various legislations, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the Project Proponent uses the forest land for non-forest purposes, the Project Proponent has necessarily to pay NPV to protect the ecology and bio-diversity by applying the public trust doctrine. It remains to be stated at this juncture that the project in the instant case, namely, establishment of International Cricket Stadium, no doubt, is a revenue earning project on commercial basis. It cannot claim any exemption which can be made available to Government hospitals, dispensaries, non-commercial Government ventures like schools, rain water harvesting tanks, sewer lines, village roads etc., which are projects solely meant for public welfare and have no adverse impact on the environment as such. Hence, the Association cannot be permitted to do any act concerning with the Stadium at the cost of environment. No doubt, as stated above, we have to agree that the stadium has its own importance and economic significance. But, the importance of environmental interest must also be taken into account. Hence, it becomes necessary to strike a balance by applying the Doctrine of Sustainable Development.
On receipt of a letter from the 9th respondent/University dated 29.05.2013 requesting permission to fell and remove the trees in the afore stated 30.01 acres of land, the subject matter lease between the 8th and 9th respondents for earmarking the construction of the cricket stadium, the DFO addressed a letter to the RDO/Tirupathi seeking consent for the request made by the University as found in Annexure-R 1 filed by the 6th respondent. The RDO issued a reply on 29.07.2013 stating that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Tirupathi, the land was covered by thorny bushes and red sander trees and it was not possible for counting the red sander trees. The RDO made a request for clearing the thorny bushes in the land and to report for further action as found in Annexure-R 2 of the documents filed by the 4th respondent. In turn, the DFO sent a communication dated 19.10.2013 as found in Annexure-R 3 filed by the 4th respondent to the 9th respondent Registrar of the University to make arrangements for the limited purpose of enumerating the red sander trees. In the meanwhile, the Forest Department raised objection stating that the proposed land for the stadium is in Sy.No.589 which forms part of the forest land. After a joint inspection was made, the RDO, Tirupathi reported to the District Collector, Chittoor that the Forest Department cannot claim any right over the land in Sy.No.588/A as found in Annexure-R 4. Revised orders were issued in the Proceedings dated 19.11.2013 and thus as per the revenue records the land in Sy.No.588/A stood in the name of TTD.
When an inspection was conducted by the DFO, Tirupathi on 29.11.2013, it was noticed that in an extent of 25 acres out of 30.01 acres of the land allotted to the 8th respondent, all standing trees lying with the entire shrub growth such as neem, tamarind, usiri and few other species except red sanders have been removed by machine along with thorny bushes without any permission from the competent authority. It is pertinent to point out that while a communication was addressed by the DFO, Tirupathi under Annexure-R 3 referred to above for removal of thorny bushes for the purpose of counting the trees, it was found that not only the shrub growth was removed, but also all kind of trees except the red sanders by machine.
An affidavit filed by the 8th respondent/Association on 18.01.2015 reads as follows:
"4. Pursuant to permission granted by the concerned authorities, this respondent took upon the exercise of clearing the grass, thorny bushes, shrubs, wild plantations and forest growths, vegetation and other small plants and this respondent had completed the same in an extent of 25 acres. While doing so and in that process, some dead wood and small forest trees of varieties like adavi nimma (kattukkaruvai trees) etc., numbering not more than about 30 or 35 situate within the cluster of shrubs and bushes would have been cleared without the knowledge of this respondent. It is respectfully submitted that the report of the fourth respondent as if large number of trees were removed or missing is not correct and the same is statistical guess work. The value alleged is also hypothetical, exaggerated and imaginary which is not true and correct".
The very reading of the above would be indicative of the fact that the 8th respondent, while clearing the thorny bushes and shrubs has cut and felled the trees of different species in the entire area of 25 acres out of 30.01 acres. While the 8th respondent was permitted only to remove the thorny bushes and shrubs, the act of the 8th respondent in removing the trees was against the permission granted and also in violation of the legal requirements. Admittedly, for removal of those trees no permission was obtained as required by law. Pertaining to the reply of the 4th respondent, namely, the DFO, Tirupathi, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent Association that even in the reply the forest department has well admitted that the red sander trees were not removed and those trees which were removed were only neem, tamarind, usiri and few other species. But, it cannot be disputed that even for removal of those trees as pointed out by the DFO in his reply that necessary permission should have been obtained from the forest department. The contention putforth by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent that the trees which were cut and felled down during the process of removal of thorny bushes were about 30 to 35 in numbers within the cluster of shrubs, bushes that too without the knowledge of the 8th respondent cannot be countenanced even for a moment. It should not be forgotten that the shrubs and bushes were removed in the entire extent of 25 acres out of the total extent of 30.01 acres covered under the lease deed. In view of the interim orders of the Tribunal, the Association could not proceed with the remaining 5 acres of land for removal of shrubs and bushes and cutting and felling of trees.
In so far as the remaining 5 acres of land in respect of which the interim injunction granted restraining the cutting and felling of trees is in force, it is made clear that either the 8th respondent or any one on behalf of the 8th respondent shall not cut or fell the trees either directly or in the guise of removal of thorny bushes without obtaining necessary permission from the Forest Department as required by law.
It is an admitted position that the extent of 30.01 acres covered under the lease agreement between the 8th and 9th respondents and meant for establishment of the cricket stadium formed part of the total extent of 924.68 acres which was originally leased out to the University by TTD. The University which took the extent of 924.68 acres of land on lease from TTD has created a sub- lease in favour of the Association in respect of 30.01 acres now earmarked for the Stadium. Thus, the ownership of the land continues to remain with the TTD. It is true that the Association has taken possession on the strength of the sub-lease entered into between the University and the Association who are respondents herein. Since the ownership continues to vest with the TTD and in order to avoid avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, it would be fit and proper to direct the 8th respondent Association to pay the entire amount of Rs. 96.40 lakhs fixed as compensation.
Applying the Doctrine of Polluter Pays, the Andhra Cricket Association shown as 8th respondent who was solely responsible for the unauthorized cutting and felling of trees is absolutely liable to compensate for the damaged caused. Hence, a direction is issued to the 8th respondent/Andhra Cricket Association to pay the said sum of Rs. 96.40 lakhs fixed as compensation above directly to TTD within a period of 3 months herefrom.
In so far as the remaining 5 acres of land out of 30.01 acres which was earmarked for construction of the Stadium is concerned, the 8th respondent shall remove the trees only after getting permission, from the Forest Department as required under the law and while granting permission, the Forest Department shall impose among other conditions that the Association shall plant saplings numbering 4 times the different species of trees in respect of which the permission is to be granted.
In the result, this suo motu application is disposed of with the following directions in addition to the directions given in paragraphs 33 and 34 of this order:
A direction is issued to the 8th respondent/Andhra Cricket Association to apply and obtain Environmental Clearance from the 1st respondent/Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India or from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), procedurally if warranted after finalization of all the details of the proposed International Cricket Stadium project.
The 8th respondent/Andhra Cricket Association is directed to approach the 5th respondent/Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (APPCB) for Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate at appropriate stages and the 5th respondent APPCB is also directed to consider the application as and when made by the 8th respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the law.
The 8th respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 96.40 lakhs (Rupees ninety six lakh and forty thousand) only towards the compensation for unauthorized cutting and felling of trees in 25 acres of land in Sy.No.588/A, Alipiri Village, Tirupathi Taluk to the Tirumala- Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD), Tirupathi within a period of 3 months herefrom and also the 8th respondent is further directed to plant 4000 saplings of different species as per the directions of the Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh within a period of six months herefrom and the Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to monitor and verify the compliance of this direction.
In so far as the remaining 5 acres out of the total extent of 30.01 acres leased out to the 8th respondent/Andhra Cricket Association by the 9th respondent/Sri Venkateswara University (University), Tirupathi, the 8th respondent is restrained by way of an order of injunction not to cut or fell any tree in the said extent of 5 acres either directly or in the guise of removal of thorny bushes without necessary permission from the Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh as required in law and while granting such permission, the Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to impose among other conditions that the 8th respondent/Andhra Cricket Association shall plant saplings 4 times of the number of trees cut in respect of which permission is granted.
It is held that the 6th and 7th respondents representing the TTD and the 9th respondent University are not liable in respect of the environmental degradation or damage to the ecology caused by the unauthorized cutting and felling of trees by the 8th respondent/Andhra Cricket Association in 25 acres of land in Sy.No.588/A.
No cost.