Apex court slams brakes on Tata Camelot residential project near Sukhna Lake

Calling it violation of environmental norms, apex court says Punjab government failed public trust in lieu of flats for 95 MLAs

The Supreme Court on Tuesday put brakes on Rs 1,800-crore Tata Camelot residential project near Sukhna Lake, holding that it violated environmental norms.

Under the project, conceived in 2007 and marred by controversies ever since, Tata Housing Development Company Ltd (Tata HDCL) was to construct 2,100 apartments, including 95 for Punjab state legislators. Of these, 1,734 flats were to be sold to the public.

“The State of Punjab was required to act on the basis of Doctrine of Public Trust. It has failed to do so. The origination of the project itself indicates that State of Punjab was not acting in furtherance of Doctrine of Public Trust as 95 MLAs were to be the recipients of the flats,” the three-judge bench presided over by justice Arun Mishra observed, adding that it was “clear” why state permitted setting up of highrise buildings in an eco-sensitive zone.

In 2007, the developer signed an agreement with Punjab MLAs’ Cooperative House Building Society, according to which each MLA was to get Rs 82.5 lakh and a flat in lieu of 22 acre of the society’s land. The project was to come up on 53.39 acres of land with 2,100 flats in 19 towers, ranging between 12 and 36 storeys.

Among the beneficiaries were 70 MLAs of theShiromani Akali Dal and BJP and 20 of the Congress, including Sukhbir Badal and Manpreet Badal. Former MLAs and MPs were also members of the society, including Preneet Kaur.

The Supreme Court dismissed appeal of the developer filed against the April 2017 Delhi high court judgment in which it had quashed environmental clearance to the project on the ground that the area in question falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and is 123 meters away from the boundary of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary. The high court had also set aside permission granted by the Nayagaon nagar panchayat to the developer on July 5, 2013.

The matter had initially reached the Punjab and Haryana high court in 2010 with advocate Aalok Jagga filing a public interest litigation (PIL) contending that the project was in close proximity to the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary.

In August 2013, the Punjab and Haryana high court had refused to stall the construction of the project. However, another independent organisation, Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation, and Jagga moved the apex court, which shifted the case to the Delhi high court.

The UT administration had opposed the project. However, the Punjab government had granted permission, which was not accepted by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF).

Punjab wanted the buffer zone of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary reduced to 100 metres. However, the MoEF did not accept the proposal and wanted it to be at least 1 km.

“The court has to perform its duty in such a scenario when the authorities have failed to protect the wildlife sanctuary eco-sensitive zone... We regret that such a scenario has emerged in the matter and that it involved a large number of MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly. The entire exercise smacks of arbitrariness on the part of government including functionaries,” the SC bench observed.

The apex court said that Punjab had to send a proposal to the Centre on environmental clearance but it appears that it chose not to do so as its MLAs were involved.

The SC also took note of the fact that in 2017, the UT notified ban on commercial construction of any kind within 500 meters of the protected area, whereas the project was only 123 meters away from Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary.

When contacted, the developer refused to comment stating that it is a court verdict.

Petiontioner ML Sarin, a senior advocate in the Punjab and Haryana high court, said: Le Corbusier never wanted any construction north of the Capitol Complex. It’s high time the authorities become sensitive to it.”

Aalok Jagga said: “The UT administration must ensure proper monitoring in Sukhna catchment and at the same time take up the matter with Punjab and Haryana governments.”