Damages - Environment

Environment – Damages – Awarded Rs 100 crores or 10% of the project cost, whichever is more - Project proponent had engaged in construction that was contrary to the environmental clearance granted to it – Project proponent who has violated law with impunity cannot be allowed to go scot-free - Supreme Court has in a number of cases awarded 5% of the project cost as damages - This is the general law - However, in the present case we feel that damages should be higher keeping in view the totally intransigent and unapologetic behaviour of the project proponent - He has manoeuvred and manipulated officials and authorities - Instead of 12 buildings, he has constructed 18; from 552 flats the number of flats has gone up to 807 and now two more buildings having 454 flats are proposed - The project proponent contends that he has made smaller flats and, therefore, the number of flats has increased - He could not have done this without getting fresh EC - With the increase in the number of flats the number of persons residing therein is bound to increase - This will impact the amount of water requirement, the amount of parking space, the amount of open area, etc. - Therefore, in the present case, we are clearly of the view that the project proponent should be and is directed to pay damages of Rs 100 crores or 10% of the project cost, whichever is more. (Para 64)

Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2018) 18 SCC 257

Land notified under Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 in the Kant Enclave was to be treated as "forest land" – Court held that as a result, any construction made on the land or its utilization for "non-forest purposes" without Central Government approval was violative of the Forest Act and therefore illegal - constructions were made (or allowed to be made) in Kant Enclave with the support, tacit or otherwise, of R. Kant & Co. and the Town and Country Department of the State of Haryana. They must pay for this.[Para 132]

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (2018) 18 SCC 397