Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board �v. �Sri Kenchappa & Ors.

A judgement upholding sustainable development in an endeavour to “strike a golden balance between the industrial development and ecological preservation”.

Subject Matter:

• In the said case, Justice Bhandari observed:
• There has to be a balance between sustainable development and environment.
• Before the acquisition of lands for developement, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended.
• The lands acquired for development must be in a manner so that the ecology and the environment is not gravely impaired.
• The court also directed the State Industrial Development Board to obtain clearance from the Pollution Control Board before allotment of land for development and to follow the same for all future projects.

Facts of the case:

• The Respondents (Sri Kenchappa and ors.) who were agriculturists affected by land acquisition in favour of Gee India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition to restrain the petitioners (Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board aka KIADB) from acquiring their gomal (grazing) and residential lands.
• They said that parts of the land acquired were grazing lands and such acquisition would adversely effect the environment.
• They also said that the gomal and residential lands within green belt should not be acquired for non-agricutural purposes, including industries.

Claims of the Respondents:

• The land acquisition by the State of Karnataka was in violation of due procedure and hence violative of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• The notification for acquisition of the land has been made without hearing the affected parties.

Counterclaims of the appellants:

• The said lands were no longer used as gomal lands with urbanization of the area
• The acquiring enterprise was to develop a research project as opposed to a manufacturing plant that would have caused remarkable pollution
• There was no violation of procedure under the relevant act (KIADB Act, 1966) as some of the land allotted was government land and the rest was acquired from private parties in lieu of compensation
• The project was going to create a remarkable opportunity for employment, research and development and such hindrance will deter growth

​

Procedural History:

• The case went to the Division Bench.
• The Division bench quashed the notification of acquisition to the extent of the lands reserved for agriculture, grazing and residing
• The bench directed the KIADB to leave certain amount of peripheral land to ensure balance between development and ecology.
• The appellant preferred a special leave petition contending the judgement and directions thereto to be outside the jurisdiction of High Court under art. 226.
• The appellant also stated:
• The lands in question were already converted
• Construction had already started on the land
• The Court had issued a stay order
• Amicus curae was appointed to proceed with the case.

Argument of the parties

Appellants (K. Venugopal):

Respondents (A. R. Madhav Rao):

• No contravention of procedure under KIADB Act, 1966
• Under the act, the state could acquire gomal and residential lands
• Application of art. 21 in matters of environmental concern was debated

​

​

• While acquiring lands the impact on environment has to be considered
• The impact of the project concerned must be considered in light of larger public interest
• Obtaining clearance from the State Pollution Board must be mandatory

Judgement:

• The appellant must carry out environmental impact assessment while aspiring for development
• Obtaining necessary clearance from pollution control board must be made mandatory
• Referring to art(s). 21, 48A, and 51(g) of the Constitution, the Court said that they express concern for the protection of environment.
• Sustainable development was considered the answer to environmental problems weighing against development. Stockholm Conference and the Rio de Janeiro Declaration was considered for guiding principles of the same.
• The Court referred to a number of cases where conservation of environment and associated rights were upheld and concluded that a sense of urgency in mandating protection of environment must be inculcated in order to attain sustainable development and resolve environmental problems.

Judgement:

Important References:

• The Court discussed the Stockholm Conference, 1972 (“Magna Carta of our environment”). It emphasizes the need for attaining balance in development and environment.
• It referred to the follow up report where it was concluded that though the present developmental trend was detrimental to the environment and poverty was a major cause of the same, a new development sustaining human progress over a long term must be adopted by all nations.
• The Rio Declaration, 1992 of Environment and Development laid down the principles of sustainable development considering environment as an integral part of the developmental process with equitable treatment of both.
• World Conservation Union and WWF states that caring for earth, limited resourcing, and respecting nature and its limits should be the path to sustainable development.

​

Conclusion:

• The judgement upheld sustainable development as the need of the hour.
• Sustainable development or “a development which can be sustained by nature with or without mitigation” is essential to maintain a balance between industrialization and ecology in order to solve the problem of environmental degradation.
• Hence, it may be said that the Court went in favour of mandatory environmental impact assessment in cases of land acquisition and other developmental ventures potentially affecting the ecology in order to maintain balance between development and environment.
• The court also, by referring to international conferences and environmental conventions and reports, have tried to introduce an international standard of treating sustainable development in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution.
• By declaring clearance from the Pollution Control Board to be compulsory, the Court has taken a firm stance in favour of environmental protection in keeping with the developing policy of the nation.

​