http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 28  

PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMAL NATH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/12/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHNR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad      In-person for Petitioner      H.N. Salve,  Sr. Adv., M.S. Vashisht, Rajiv Dutta, Shiv Pujan Singh,  J.S. Atri,  L.R. Rath,  Advs. With him for the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following judgment of the Court was delivered:      Kuldip Singh J.      This Court  took notice  of the  News item appearing in the "Indian  Express" dated  February  25,  1996  under  the caption -  "Kamal Nath  dares the  mighty Beas  to keep  his dreams afloat".  The relevant  part of  the news  item is as under:-      "Kamal  Nath’s  family  has  direct      links with  a private company, Span      Motels Private  Limited, which owns      a  resort  -  Span  Resorts  -  for      tourists   in    the   Kullu-Manali      valley. The problem is with another      ambitious venture  floated  by  the      same company - Span Club.      The club  represents  Kamal  Nath’s      dream of having a house on the bank      of the  Beas in the shadow the bank      of the  Beas in  the shadow  of the      snow-capped  Zanskar   ranges.  The      club was  built  after  encroaching      upon   27.12    bighas   of   land,      including substantial  forest land,      in  1990.   The  land   was   later      regularised and  leased out  to the      company  on  April  11,  1994.  The      regularisation was  done  when  Mr.      Kamal   Nath    was   Minister   of      environment and  Forests. ....  The      swollen Beas changed its course and      engulted  the  Span  club  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 28  

    adjoining lawns, washing it away.      For almost  five  months  now,  the      Span Resorts  management  has  been      moving bulldozers  and earth-movers      to turn  the course of the Beas for      a second time.      The heavy earth mover has been used      to block  the flow  of   the  river      just  500   meters  upstream.   The      bulldozers  are   creating  a   new      channel to  divert the  river to at      least one kilometer downstream. The      tractor  trolleys  move  earth  and      boulders to shore up the embankment      surrounding Span Resort for flaying      a  lawn.   According  to  the  Span      Resorts  management,   the   entire      reclaiming operation should be over      by March  31 and  is likely to cost      over a crore or rupees.      Three private  companies - one each      from Chandigarh,  Mandi and Kullu -      have moved in one heavy earth mover      (hired at  the rate of Rs. 2000 per      hour), four  earth movers  and four      bulldozers (rates  varying from  Rs      650 to Rs 850 each per hour) and 35      tractor trolleys,  A security  ring      has   been   thrown   all   around.      ..................Another  worrying      thought is that of the river eating      into  the   mountains,  leading  to      landslides which  are an occasional      occurrence  in   this  area,   Last      September, these  caused floods  in      the Beas  and property estimated to      be   worth   Rs   105   crore   was      destroyed.   ..................Once      they  succeed   in  diverting   the      river, the Span management plans to      go in for landscaping the reclaimed      land. But as of today, they are not      so  sure.  Even  they  confess  the      river may just return.      "Mr. Kamal  Nath  was  here  for  a      short while  two-three months  ago.      He came,  saw what was going on and      left. I suppose he knows what he is      doing", says another executive.      The district  administration pleads      helplessness.  Rivers   and  forest      land, officials  point out, are not      under their  jurisdiction. Only the      Kullu conservator of forests or the      district   forest    officer    can      intervene in this case.      But  who   is  going  to  bell  the      country’s  former  Environment  and      Forests Minister?      Interestingly,  a  query  faxed  to      Kamal Nath  for his  views on these      developments fetched  a reply  from      Mr. S.  Mukerji, President  of  the      Span Motels Private Limited.      Admitting that  the Nath family had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 28  

    "business interests" in the company      since 1981,  he said,  "the company      is   managed    by   a    team   of      professional managers and Mr. Kamal      Nath  is   not  involved   in   the      management    activity    of    the      company."      "The Board comprises professionals,      some  or   whom  are   friends  and      relatives of  the Nath family", Mr.      Mukerji said, He expressed surprise      that a  reference had  been made to      Rangri and  Chakki villagers "since      these villagers  are  at  east  2/3      kilometers away and not even on the      river side."      He said  the Span  Club was not for      the  exclusive   use  of   any  one      individual."  "We   would  like  to      emphasize   that    we   are   only      ‘restoring  the   river’   to   its      original and natural course and are      restoring our  land and or those or      neighbouring  villagers   similarly      affected by the flood."      He maintained  that "Mr. Kamal Nath      has definitely  not  been  to  Span      Resorts in  the last two months and      in  fact,   to  the   best  of   my      knowledge, has  not traveled to the      Kullu Valley  for quite  some  time      now....In any  case, we  had  never      "blocked"  any   channel   in   the      vicinity of Span."      Mr. Kamal  Nath filed  one-page counter affidavit dated June 8, 1996. Paras 1 and 3 of the counter area as under:-      "I say  that I  have  been  wrongly      arrayed  as  a  respondent  in  the      above petition in-as-much as I have      no right,  title or interest in the      property known  as  "Span  Resorts"      owned  by   "Span  Motels   Private      Limited".      I further  say that the allegations      made in  the press reports based on      which  this   Hon’ble   Court   was      pleased to  issue notice are highly      exaggerated, erroneous,  mala fide,      mischievous and have been published      only  to   harm  and   malign   the      reputation of this respondent."      On behalf  of Span  Motels Private  Limited (the Mote), Mr. Banwari Lal Mathur, its Executive Director filed counter affidavit. Paras 2 and 3 of the counter are as under:-      "I say  that Mr. Kamal Nath who has      been arrayed  as respondent No.1 in      the  above  writ  petition  has  no      right, title  or  interest  in  the      property  known   as  SPAN  RESORTS      owned by  Span Motels  Pvt. Ltd. or      in the lands leased out to the said      company by  the State  of  Himachal      Pradesh.      I say that the shareholding of SPAN      MOTELS PVT. LTD. is as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 28  

                   No. of    % Share                     Shares    holding                     Held      Mrs. Leela Nath  32,560    42      EMC Projects Pvt.      Ltd.             14,700    19      SHAKA Properties      Pvt.Ltd.         15,000    19      SHAKA Estate &      Finance Pvt. Ltd.15,000    19      Capt. Alok Chandola 250    01                         -------------                         77,510  100      It was  not disputed  before us  by Mr.  Harish  Balve, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Kamal Nath that almost all the shares in the Motel are owned by the family of Mr. Kamal Nath. We do not wish to comment on the averment made on oath by Mr.  Kamal Nath  that he has "no right, title or interest in the property  known as  Span Resorts owned by Span Motels Private Limited".      Mr. B.L.  Mathur filed  an additional counter affidavit dated July  30, 1996  on behalf  of the  Motel, The  counter affidavit  mentioned   above  states  that  Government  land measuring 40  bighas 3  biswas situated  along  side  Kullu- Manali Road  on the  bank of river Beas was granted on lease to the  Motel for  a period  of 99  years with  effect  from October 1,  1972 to  October 1, 2071. The lessee was granted permission to enter and occupy the said area for the purpose of putting  up a motel and for installing ancillaries in due course as may be subsequently approved by the lessor. We may refer to paras 6 and 7 of the lease deed dated September 29, 1972 which are as under:-      "The Lessee shall not dig deep pits      of trenches in the said land, which      may lead  to the  danger or erosion      and  shall  make  good  the  Lessor      defects caused  by  their  acts  or      defaults within one month of notice      by the Lessor.      In the  event of  said  land  being      required by  Lessor for  any  other      purpose, whatsoever the Lessor will      be entitled to terminate this lease      at any  time by  giving six  months      notice in writing to the lessee and      the lessee shall not be entitled to      any  compensation   whatsoever   on      account of such termination."      The current  management (Shri Kamal Nath’s family) took over the  Motel in  the year 1981, fresh lease was signed on September 29,  1981. The  new lease  was for the same period from 1972 to 2071. Paras 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit are as under:-      "I say  that  the  Motel  commenced      operations in  1975. There are over      800  trees   in  this  area  of  40      bighas. the  motel has two clusters      with 8  dwelling units  of 3  rooms      each. The  rooms are  nowhere  near      the river  - the  distance  between      the  cluster   or  rooms   and  the      beginning of  the  river  basin  is      about 10  meters-actually the river      is  another  50  meters  therefrom.      Thus,   the    effective   distance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 28  

    between the  edge of  the river and      the cluster of rooms is 40 meters.      I say  that  in  the  peak  of  the      flood,  the   river  did  not  come      closer than  10 meters to the rooms      and did  not, therefore,  pose  any      danger to  the rooms,  particularly      there is  no problems  qua rooms as      the rooms  are on  a higher level -      at  least   5-7  meters   at  their      closest point."      Along with  the additional affidavit the correspondence between the  Motel and the Government has been annexed. In a letter  dated  October  19,  1988  addressed  to  the  Chief Minister Himachal  Pradesh. The  Motel gave  details of  the flood-damage during  the year 1988 and finally requested the Government for the following steps:-      "Further it  is imperative that the      Government take  immediate steps to      stop  erosion  of  the  land  under      lease to  us. It  would appear that      strong concrete blackened retaining      walls  will   be  necessary  to  be      placed  at  appropriate  points  to      protect the land mass around us."      The Motel addressed letter dated August 30, 1989 to the Divisional Forest  Officer, Kullu.  The relevant part of the letter is as under:-      "When  we   acquired  our  land  on      lease,   there    were   no   clear      demarcations  of   the  surrounding      areas  and  boundaries.  There  has      existed  a  stretch  of  waste  and      "banjar" (Class III) forest land in      a  longitudinal   strip  along  the      River bank  admeasuring about  22.2      bighas, contiguous  and adjacent to      our leased  land. Over  the  years,      and  especially   after  the  sever      flood erosion  last year,  we  have      built extensive stone, cemented and      wire-mesh created  embankments  all      along   the    river    banks    at      considerable expanse  and cost.  We      have     also     gradually     and      painstakingly developed this entire      waste &  "banjar" area,  beautified      and    landscaped    it,    planted      ornamental,  fruiting   and  varied      forest trees  extensively such that      it blends  with our estate and with      the    surrounding     flora    and      environment in a harmonious manner.      A  Revenue   map  along   with  all      revenue department records covering      this  entire   area,  is  forwarded      enclosed    herewith    for    your      reference and perusal.      We are  aware  that  in  accordance      with the Forest Conservation Act of      1980, the  use of  Forest  land  by      Private  Agency  even  for  natural      development    and    afforestation      scheme,    requires     alternative      matching compensatory afforestation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 28  

    land areas to be surrendered by the      concerned party, after due approval      of the  Government. In view of this      statutory pre-condition, we wish to      submit  that   we  can  immediately      surrender to  the Government nearly      28 bighas  & 13  biswas of  private      agricultural    cultivated     land      located   at    Village    MAJHACH,      (Burua), MANALI,  in  exchange  for      the above  mentioned 22.2 bighas of      Class  III   banjar   forest   land      adjoining  our   land  in   Village      Baragran Bihal,  which  we  request      for transfer to our company in lieu      of  the   land  we  are  wiling  to      surrender.  The   specific  Revenue      maps and  records  concerning  this      area of  land of  Village  Majhadh,      are also enclosed herewith for your      kind perusal."      It is  obvious from  the contents  of the letter quoted above that  the motel had encroached upon an additional area of 22.2  bighas adjoining to the lease-hold area. Apart from that the  Motel had built extensive stone, cemented and wire mesh created  embankments all  along the  river  banks.  The Motel was  keen  to  have  the  encroached  and  by  way  of exchange/lease. A request to that effect was repeated in the letter dated  September 12, 1989 addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer,  Kullu. The Motel again repeated its request for lease of the additional land by the letter dated July 9, 1991. The said letter further stated as under:-      "We would also like to mention that      the  Banjar   land  adjoining   our      hotel, referred to in para 1 above,      lies along  the bank  of river Beas      which erodes  it every  year. About      ten years  ago almost  4 bighas  of      this land  were lashed away and the      on  flowing   water  had   posed  a      serious   threat   to   our   hotel      buildings and  adjoining  area.  To      protect  our   property   we   were      compelled to  erect deep protection      embankments along  the banjar  land      in  question   at  huge   cost  the      details of  which will  be sent  to      you shortly.  If  our  proposal  is      accepted for the exchange of and it      will become possible for us to take      further  steps   to  protect   this      land".      The Divisional  Forest Officer,  Kullu sent reply dated January 12, 1993 which state as under:-      "In this connection it is intimated      that at  present we  are not having      funds to put crates and spurs along      the river  side near  your hotel to      check   the    soil   erosion,   as      indicated in  your letter  referred      to above.  In order to protect your      property from  the damage,  you can      carry out such works at your level,      subject to  the condition  that the      ownership of  the land  would  vest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 28  

    with  Forest   Department  and  the      Department would  not be  liable to      pay  any  among  incurred  for  the      purpose by you at a later stage and      you would  not claim  any right  on      government property."      The above  quoted  letter  can  be  of  no  consequence because much  before the  said letter  the Motel  had  built extensive stone,  cemented and  wire mash crated embankments all along the river banks. This is obvious from the contents of the letter dated August 30, 1989 (quoted above).      The Motel addressed a letter dated June 21, 1993 to the Chief Secretary,  Himachal Pradesh  wherein  it  is  clearly stated that  the adjoining  land measuring  122 bighas and 3 bishwas had  been reclaimed  by the Motel. The relevant part of the letter is as under:-      "Adjoining    our     Resort    and      Contiguous to  our leased land is a      stretch  of   class  III  -  Banjar      forest land in a longitudinal strip      along the river bank admeasuring 22      Bighas and  3 Biswas.  This  was  a      stony piece of land and used to get      flooded every  year during monsoons      and  often   got  washed  away  and      reduced in  size by  river  erosion      year  by   year.  This   land   was      reclaimed by us and protected by an      embankment  and  filling  from  the      river side."      The said letter further states as under:-      "Similarly on  the river  side part      of our leased land there used to be      floods and  erosion every  year. If      we would  have let  this  continue,      the leased land would have also got      reduced every  year.  In  order  to      protect our leased land and to save      damage to our hotel property, we at      our own  considerable  expense  and      cost  built  stone  and  wire  mesh      crated  embankment  all  along  the      river bank. This not only protected      our hotel  land but also the forest      land....      In 1988  there were  severe  floods      when every a portion of leased land      got   washed    away.   It   became      imperative for  us at  considerable      expense to  build an  embankment on      the river  front along  the  leased      property.  In  order  to  build  an      embankment on the river front along      the leased property the washed away      area and part of the river bank had      to be filled at huge cost. Once the      river bed  and the washed away area      was filled,  the choice  before  us      was either  to put  soil on  it and      grow grass  and trees  to secure it      or  let  it  remain  unsecured  and      aesthetically displeasing. We chose      the former.  As a  result  of  land      filling and  embankment our  leased      area when  measured will  obviously

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 28  

    show an  increase. This increase is      not an encroachment but reclamation      with the  objective  of  protecting      the leased property."      In the  letter dated  August 7,  1993 addressed  to the Divisional Forest  Officer, the  Motel again asked for lease of adjoining  area. The  relevant part  of the  letter is as under:-      "We had  explained in  our previous      letters dated  21.6.93 and  23.7.93      (copies of  which have been sent to      you with  our letter  dated 6.8.93)      the circumstances  under  which  we      had to  spend enormous sum of money      in protecting  and  reclaiming  the      forest land  adjoining our  Resort.      It had  become necessary  for us to      undertake  this   reclamation   and      protection work by filling the land      from the  river  bed,  constructing      embankments,  retaining  walls  and      crating etc.  in order  to  protect      the land  leased by  the Government      to our  Span  Resort  and  property      thereon  but   we  were  unable  to      complete the entire work as we were      restrained from  carrying  on  with      the work under undue allegations of      encroachment    on    the    forest      land.....      In order to expedite the process of      commencing protection  work  on  an      urgent basis on the forest land, we      propose that  the  forest  land  be      given  to  us  on  long  lease  co-      terminus with the lease on the land      granted by  the Government  for our      Span Resorts. This could be done by      a  supplementary  lease  as  it  is      imperative to  save the  land under      the original lease.      All we  have done is to reclaim and      protect the  land from  erosion  by      constructing   crates,    retaining      walls  and  embankments  along  the      river  Beas   by   investing   huge      amounts  which  unfortunately  have      all been  washed away due to floods      and now  requires reconstruction to      save  the   forest  land   an   our      adjoining   property   from   total      destruction."      The Government  of India,  Ministry of  Environment and Forests by  the letter  dated November 24, 1993 addressed to the  Secretary,  Forest,  Government  of  Himachal  Pradesh, Shimla conveyed  its prior approval in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 1980 for leasing to the Motel 27 bighas and 12 biswas of forest land adjoining to the land already on  lease with  the Motel.  A lease deed dated April 11, 1994,  regarding the  said land was executed between the Himachal Government  and the Motel. The additional affidavit tiled by  the Motel  refers to the prior approval granted by the Government of India as under:-      "In the Ministry of Environment and      Forests, the  proposal was  cleared

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 28  

    by the  Secretary and  forwarded to      the Forest  Advisory  Committee  by      passing the Minister concerned. the      Forest Advisory  Committee  cleared      the  proposal   subject  to  severe      restrictions  -  and  also  certain      restrictions which are not normally      imposed in such cases. The proposal      was then  cleared at  the level  of      the Prime  Minister and by a letter      of 24th  November,  1993,  approval      was  communicated   to  the   State      Government and SMPL."      it may  be  mentioned  that  Mr.  Kamal  Nath  was  the minister in charge, Department of Environment and Forests at the relevant  time. What  is sought  to be  conveyed by  the above quoted  paragraph is  that Mr. Kamal Nath did not deal with the  file. The correspondence between the Motel and the Himachal Government  referred to and quoted by us shows that from 1988  the Motel  had been writing to the Government for the exchange/lease of the additional forest land. It is only in November,  1993 when  Mr. Kamal  Nath was  the  Minister, incharge of  the Department  that the clearance was given by the Government of India and the lease was granted, Surely it cannot be a coincidence.      This Court  took notice of the news item - quoted above - because  the facts  disclosed therein, it true, would be a serious act  of environmental-degradation on the part of the motel. It is not disputed that in September 1995 the swollen Beas engulfed  some part  of the  land in  possession of the motel. The news item stated that the motel used earth-movers and bulldozers  to turn  the course of the river. The effort on the  part of  the motel  was to  create a  new channel by diverting the river-flow. Accordingly to the news item three private companies  were engaged  to re-claim  huge tracts of land around  the motel. The main allegation in the news item was that  the course of the river was being diverted to save the motel from future floods. In the counter affidavit filed by the  motel, the  allegations in  the news  item have been dealt with in the following manner:      "1) If the works were not conducted      by the  Company, it would in future      eventually  cause  damage  to  both      banks of  the river,  under natural      flow conditions.      m) By dredging the river, depth has      been provided  to the river channel      thus enhancing its capacity to cope      with large volume of water.      n) The wire crates have been put on      both banks  of the  river. This has      been done to strengthen and protect      the banks  from erosion and Nos. as      any form  of river diversion. It is      not necessary  to divert  the river      because  simply  providing  greater      depth and  removing debris deposits      enhances the  capacity of the river      to accommodate greater water flow.      o) I  further state that the nearly      200 metres  of  wire  crates  which      have been  put on  the felt bank of      the river  (the river  bank on  the      opposite side  of SPAN)  is in  the      interest  of   the  community   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 28  

    nearby   residents/villages.   This      left  Bank   crating  protects  the      hillside where  RANGRI, CHAKKI  and      NAGGAR are located.      s)  After   the  floods,   it   was      observed,  that  the  boulders  and      rubble  deposits  were  obstructing      and hindering the flow of the river      and thus, it was the common concern      of the  Company as  well as  of the      Panchayat of  the Village  BARAGRAN      BIHAL   to   carry   out   dredging      measures to  provide free  flow  of      the river water.      t) Accordingly alleviation measures      conducted by  the company  and  the      villagers of BARAGRAN BIHAL were as      under;      i)  Dredging   of  debris  deposit:      Debris  deposits   in  river  basin      which  had  collected  due  to  the      floods were  removed  by  dredging.      This deepens  the channel  and thus      allows larger flow of water.      ii)  Strengthening  of  both  banks      with wire  crates: Wire  crates are      the common  method of protection of      bank  erosion.   Accordingly   wire      crates were  put along the opposite      side (left  bank)  to  protect  the      landslide of  the hillside  wire on      which village  RANGRI  is  perched.      Wire crating  was also  put on  the      Resort side  of  the  River  (Right      Bank) to  strengthen &  protect the      bank against  erosion. All the wire      crating runs  along the  river flow      and not  as an  obstruction of  for      any diversion.      w) It  is  further  submitted  that      whereas  the  report  mischievously      refers  to   villagers  of  Rangris      Chakki and  Naggar nowhere  does it      take n  to account  the  very  real      problems of  villagers of  baragran      Bihal which  is located immediately      on the  Right Bank  near  the  SPAN      Resort who  were seriously affected      by the  floods, Chakki,  Rangri and      Naggar Villages  have  not  at  all      been affected  by  the  floods  and      there is  no remote  possibility of      these villages  being affected  due      to  the   flood  protection   works      conducted by the Company."      In the  additional affidavit  filed by  the  motel  the facts pleaded are as under:      "ii) It  had become  necessary  for      them to  undertake this reclamation      and protection  work by filling the      land from  river bed,  constructing      embankments,  retaining  walls  and      crates, etc.  in order  to  protect      the land  leased by  the Government      to  the  Resort  and  the  property

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 28  

    thereon.      vii)  The   forest  land  which  is      suspectible to  heavy river erosion      by floods  involves high  cost  for      its protection  from getting washed      away every  year would be protected      by construction  of embankments and      filling from  the river side by the      Company.....local   community    of      Kullu and  Manali  and  surrounding      villages will benefit."      Mr. G.D.  Khachi, Under  Secretary (Revenue) Government of Himachal  Pradesh in  the counter affidavit filed in this Court stated as under:      "iii) That subsequently, a piece of      land  measuring  21-09  bighas  was      encroached by  M/s. Span Motels, On      coming  to   the  notice   of   the      Government  of  such  encroachment,      the Govt.  of Himachal  Pradesh  in      Revenue Department  took action and      reportedly got  the encroached land      vacated,  and   the  possession  of      which has  been taken  over by  the      Forest Department.      that on  21-22 July, 1992, the then      Chief Secretary  to the  Government      of  Himachal  pradesh  visited  the      site who  drew the  inference  that      M/s, Span  Hotel  Ltd.  were  still      using the encroached land. The copy      of note  on inspection  of the then      Chief Secretary is annexed as R-1.      That immediately  on receipt of the      recommendations of  the then  Chief      Secretary   (Annexure   k-1),   the      Department   of    Forest   started      working at the site but in the mean      time, it was decided to least out a      piece  of   land  measuring   27-12      bighas  which   includes  the  said      encroached  land   measuring  21-09      bighas. The  lease granted  by  the      Government on  Himachal Pradesh  in      Revenue  Department   vide   letter      No.Rev.D(6)(6-53/93, dated 5.4.1994      is annexed  as Annexure  R-II after      obtaining    the     approval    of      Government of  India,  Ministry  of      Environment  a  Forest,  New  Delhi      vide letter  No.9-115/93-ROC, dated      24.11.93 (copy  annexed as Annexure      R-III)   for    the   purpose    of      protecting earlier leased land.      that  the   development  activities      which was  being undertaken by M/s.      Span  Motels   Ltd.  came   to  the      knowledge of  the  Government  from      the News Item which appeared in the      Press and field officers of all the      concerned   departments   took   an      exercise   to    carry   out    the      inspection and  reported the matter      to the Government".      C.P.   Sujaya,   Financial   Commissioner-cum-Secretary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 28  

(Irrigation  and   Public  Health)  Government  of  Himachal Pradesh in  her counter affidavit filed in this Court, inter alia, stated as under:      "Admitted to  the extent  that  the      Span   Resorts    management    had      deployed   heavy    earth    moving      machinery to reclaim their land and      to divert/channelise  the course of      river to  its course  which it  was      following prior to 1995 - floods by      dredging and raising of earthen and      wire crated embankments.      The  flow   of   river   has   been      changed/diverted                 by      dredging/raising  of   wire  crated      embankments  and  creating  channel      from a point u/s or Span resorts to      D/s   of    Span    Resorts.    The      approximate length  or  channel  is      about 1000 miters.      Admitted to the Extent that village      Ranghri and  Chakki are  located on      left bank  of river  Beas. However,      channelization of  river  has  been      done slightly  away from the toe of      foot  hills  except  for  the  last      about  500   meters  where.  It  is      running along the foot hills.      The hill  on which  village  Rangri      and Chakki are situated consists of      small boulders  embedded  in  Sandy      Strata      and       is      quite      fragile/unstable     in     nature.      Therefore, this  reach of  river is      prone to  land slides in the normal      course also.  However, it is feared      that flow  of river  along the root      hills  may   hasten/aggravate   the      process of  land slides.  The  Span      Management has provided wire crated      embankment in  a reach  of about so      embankment in  a reach  of about 90      metres on  left bank  and about 270      metres on  right bank to channelise      the flow  and also  to reclaim part      of land  on  right  bank  of  river      Beas.      Admitted to  the  extent  that  the      diversion/channelization  of  river      has been  done to restore it to its      course of  pre-1995 floods  and  in      the report.  Para 4.2 of the report      gives details  of the  construction      done by  the motel  prior  to  1995      floods.      The relevant part of the paragraph is as under:      "To  protect   the  newly  acquired      land,  SMPL   took  a   number   of      measures which include construction      of the following as shown in Rig.2:      (a) 8 ros. studs of concrete blocks      8m  long   and  20m  apart  on  the      eastern face  or the club island on      the upstream side,      (b) 180m  long stepped wall also on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 28  

    the eastern  race of club island on      the certritieam side,      (c) ??  high bar of concrete blocks      ?? the entry at the spill.      (d) For  Personal 8 nos. studs also      8m long  in 20m  apart on the right      bank of  the-river Beas in front of      the restation of the SMPL.      While (a)  or  (b)  were  aimed  at      protecting the club island from the      main current, (c) was to discourage      larger  inflow   into   the   spill      channel.  Item  (d)  was  meant  to      protect the  main  resort  land  or      SMPL if  heavy flow  comes into the      spill channel.      The works  executed  in  1993  were      bank protection works, and were not      of a  nature so  as to  change  the      regime or  the course  of river,  A      medium  flood   again  occurred  in      1994. Partly  due to the protection      works,   no    appreciable   damage      occurred  during  this  flood.  The      main current still continues on the      left bank."      The happening of events in the vicinity of motel during the 1995  flood and  the steps  taken by the motel have been stated in the report as under:      "A big  slip occurred  on the  hill      side  on   the  left   bank,  at  a      distance about  200 m upstream from      the point  where division into main      and spill  channels was  occurring,      on the  afternoon of  September  4,      1995, This  partially  blocked  the      main left  side channel  which  was      relatively narrow at this location.      This Presumably triggered the major      change  of  course  in  the  river,      diverting the  major portion of the      flow into spill channel towards the      right and  almost over  the  entire      lane area  of the  club island. The      enquire  club   building  and   the      plantation   as    well   as    the      protection works built in 1993 were      washed  away.   heavy  debris   was      deposited  on   this.  and   Damage      occurred on the right bank also but      the  buildings  of  the  main  SMPL      resort remained  more or  test  and      rented,  A  large  hotel  and  rare      buildings  on   the   right   bank,      relevant adjacent  to SMPL,  in the      downs  Station  also  washed  away.      The  bar   under  knocks   at   the      upstream end  of the  spill channel      as well  as most  of studs  of this      channel were also washed away. Some      remnants on  five down spread studs      could be  seen at  the time  of the      visit.?. After  the passage of 1993      flood,  SMPL   have  taken  further      steps o  protect their  property as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 28  

    shown  in  Fig.  3.  These  are  as      follows:      1. The left side channels (the main      channel),  which  had  become  less      active,   has   been   dredged   to      increase its  capacity. Wire  crate      revetments (A, B & C) on both banks      of this  channel have  been made to      direct  the   flow   through   this      channel.   These   revetments   and      restoration  earth  revetments  and      restoration earth  work down  would      curtail the entry of water into the      right  side   relief/spill  channel      which had  developed into  the main      channel  during   the   flood.   As      relatively   small   channel   (the      relief/spill channel)  still exist;      and carries  very little flow. Bulk      of the  flow is  now going into the      left bank channel.      On the  left bank,  there are steep      unstable    slopes     at    higher      elevations left  after  the  slides      during the  flood. These are likely      to slip  in any  case,  and  if  so      happens, may block the left channel      again, This  land belongs  to  some      villagers  from  Rangri.  The  left      bank channel  is again sub-dividing      into two  streams(d) and  the small      stream is  flowing close tot he toe      of the  hills  for  a  distance  of      about 500  to 600 m before it turns      towards  midstream,   Some  of  the      dredged material  is piled  on  the      right bank  and some  on the divide      between the  main channel  and  the      subsidiary  channel  on  the  left.      Strips card  be seen  in this reach      of 500-600  m even now, and erosion      at  toe   may   aggravate   sliding      tendency. SMPL  has also  put 190 m      wire  crates   (C)  as   protection      against erosion of this bank, which      may be  helpful upto moderate flood      conditions.      The dredging  and channelisation of      the left bank channel, though aimed      at  protecting  SMPL  land,  should      normally  keep  high  intensity  of      flow  away   from  both   banks  in      moderate floods.  This should  thus      not be  a cause of concern. In high      floods, the  water would  spill  or      spread beyond  this channel. Due to      restriction of  entry in  the right      relief/spill  channel,  though  the      works  may  not  withstand  a  high      flood, there  may be a tendency for      more flow  towards the  left  bank,      However, the  river is presently in      a highly  unstable regime after the      1995 extra-ordinary  floods, and it      is   difficult   to   predict   its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 28  

    behavior  if   another  high  flood      occurs in the near future."      The conclusions  given by  the inspecting  team in  the report are as under:      6.8 The  relief channel is supposed      to   be    the   government   land.      Construction of  any sort  to block      the  natural   flow  of   water  is      illegal and  no permission has been      taken    from     the     concerned      department.      6.9 The lease agreement of 1994 had      the clause  for protection  of  the      land but  it should  have been done      not   by    blocking   the    flood      spill/relief channel.      6.10 Relief channel is the shortest      path between  the  two  bends.  Any      future slip  on left  bank  due  to      training of  discharge at  its foot      may cause  flood on  the right bank      where  the  leasehold  land  (1994)      exists.      6.11 No  new construction should be      allowed in  this flood  prone  area      except flood  protection  measures.      No  economic   activity  should  be      undertaken  in  the  aforementioned      stretch.      6.12 Since  newly acquired  land of      M/s SMPL  is located  on the  flood      plain, sandwiched  between the main      channel   and    the   relier/spill      channel, the  land may  be deleased      and the Forest Department take care      of  plantation  in  the  are  after      adequate flood control measures are      taken by the innigation Department.      This is necessitated in view of the      fact that  the left  bank  opposite      SMPL   is    very   sleep   (almost      vertical)  and   is  subjected   to      potential threat  of land  slip  to      block the  channel and cause change      of course of the river flow again.      6.13 Even  if land slips occur, the      impact will  be local  limited only      to the  stretch of  the Beas  river      near SMPL.      6.14 The  river is  presently in  a      highly unstable  regime after  1995      extra-ordinary floods,  and  it  is      difficult to  predict its behaviour      if another  high flood occur in the      near future.  A long-term  planning      for  flood  control  in  the  Kullu      Valley  needs   to  be   taken   up      immediately with  the advice  of an      organisation  having  expertise  in      the field,  and permanent  measures      shall be  taken to protect the area      so that  recurrence of such a heavy      flood is mitigated permanently"      On a  careful  examination  of  the  counter-affidavits filed by  the parties,  the report  placed on  record by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 28  

Board and  other material  placed on  record, the  following facts are established: 1.   The lease  hold area  in possession  of the  motel is a part of  the  protected  forest  land  owned  by  the  State Government. 2.   The forest  land measuring  27  bighas  and  12  biswas leased to  the motel  by the lease-deed dated April 11, 1994 is situated  on the right back of the river and is separated from the  motel by  a natural  relief/spill channel  of  the river. 3.   A wooden  bridge on the spill channel connects the main motel land and the land acquired under the 1994 lease-deed. 4.   22.2 bighas out of the land leased to the motel in 1994 was encroached upon by the motel in the year 1988/89. 5.   Prior to  the 1995 floods the motel constructed 8 studs of concrete  blocks 8m  long and  20m apart  on the upstream bank of  the river, 150m long stepped wall on the downstream side of  the river and 2m high bar of concrete blocks at the entry at  the spill  channel and  additional 8 studs 8m long and 20m  apart on  the right bank of the river Beas in front of the restaurant of the Motel. 6.   After the  1995 floods  the motel  has dredged the left side channel (the main channel) of the river to increase its capacity. Wire  crate revetments  on both  banks of the main channel of  river have  been made to direct the flow through the said  channel. This has been done with a view to curtail the entry of water into the right side relief/spill channel. 7.   The motel  has constructed 190m wire crates on the bank of the river (upstream). The dredged material is piled up on the banks of the river. The dredging and channelising of the left bank has been done on a large scale with a view to keep high intensity of flow away from the motel. 8.   The dredging  of the  main channel of river was done by blasting the big boulders and removing the debris. 9.   The month  of the natural relief/spill channel has been blocked by wire crates and dumping of boulders. 10.  The construction work was not done under expert advice. 11.  The construction  work  undertaken  by  the  motel  for channelising the  main course  has divided  the main  stream into two,  one of  which goes  very near  to the  left  bank because of  which, according  to the report, fresh land slip in future cannot be ruled out.      The report  further indicates  that the  relief channel being part  of the natural flow of the river no construction of any  sort could be made to block the said flow. According to the  report no  permission whatsoever, was sought for the construction done  by the motel. The Board in its report has further opined  that the  clause in  the lease agreement for protection of  land did  not permit  the motel  to block the flood  spill/relief   channel  of   the  river.  The  report categorically states  that no  new  construction  should  be allowed in  this flood prone area and no economic activities should be permitted in the said stretch. It has been finally recommended by the inspection team that the land acquired by the motel  under the 1994 lease-deed is located on the flood plain  sandwitched   between  the   main  channel   and  the relief/spill channel  and as  such it  should be released so that the  Forest Department  may take care of the plantation in the  area and also preserve the ecologically fragile area of river Beas.      Mr. Harish  Salve vehemently  contended  that  whatever construction -  activity was  done by  the Motel on the land under its  possession and  on the  area around,  if any, was done with a view to protect the lease-hold land from floods. According to him the Divisional Forest Officer by the letter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 28  

dated January 12, 1993 quoted above - permitted the motel to carry out the necessary works subject to the conditions that the department  would  not  be  liable  to  pay  any  amount incurred for the said purpose by the Motel. We do not agree. It is  obvious from the correspondence between the Motel and the Government referred to by us that much before the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer dated January 12, 1993, the Motel had made various constructions on the surrounding area and on  the banks  of the  river. In the letter dated August 30, 1989  addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer Kullu - quoted above  - the Motel management admitted that "over the years, and  especially after  the sever  flood erosion  last year, we  have built extensive stone, cemented and wire-mesh crated  embankments  all  along  with  the  river  banks  at considerable expense  and cost.  We have  also gradually and painstakingly developed  this entire waste and banjar area". The  "Banjar  Area"  refereed  to  in  the  letter  was  the adjoining area  admeasuring 22.2  bighas which  was  not  on lease with  the Motel  at that  time. The  admissions by the Motel-management  in   various  letters   written   to   the Government, the  counter affidavits  filed  by  the  various Government officers  and the  report placed on record by the board clearly  show that  the Motel-management  has by their illegal constructions  and callous  interference with  t  he natural flow  of river Beas has degraded the environment. We have no hesitation in holding that the Motel interfered with the natural flow of the river by trying to block the natural relief/spill channel of the river.      The forest  lands which have been given on lease to the Motel by  the State  Governments are situated at the bank of the river  Beas. Beas  is a young and dynamic river. It runs through Kullu  valley between  the mountain  ranges  of  the Dhaulandhar in  the right  bank and  the Chandrakheni in the left. The  river is fast - flowing, carrying large boulders, at the times or flood. When water velocity is not sufficient to carry  the boulders,  those are  deposited in the channel often blocking  the flow  of water. Under such circumstances the river  stream changes  its course,  remaining within the valley but  swinging from  one bank  to the other. The right bank of  the river  Beas where motel is located mostly comes under forest,  the left  bank consists  of plateaus,  having steep -  bank facing  the river,  where fruit  orchards  and cereal  cultivation   are  predominant.   The   area   being ecologically fragile  and full  or scenic  beauty should not have been  permitted to  be converted into private ownership and for commercial gains.      The notion  that the  public  has  a  right  to  expect certain lands  and natural  areas to  retain  their  natural characteristic is  finding its way into the law of the land. The need  to protect  the environment  and ecology  has been summed up  by David B. Hunter (University of Michigan) in an article titled an ecological perspective on property: A call for  judicial   protection  of   the  public’s  interest  in environmentally  critical  resources  published  in  Harvard Environmental law  Review Vol.  12  1988  Page  311  in  the following words:      "Another major  ecological tenet is      that the world is finite. The earth      can support only so many people and      only so  much human activity before      limits are  reached. The lesson was      driven home  by the  oil crisis  of      the  1970’s   as  well  as  by  the      pesticide scare  of the 1960’s. The      current deterioration  of the ozone

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 28  

    layer is  another vivid  example of      the  complex,   unpredictable   and      potentially  catastrophic   effects      posed  by   our  disregard  of  the      environmental  limits  to  economic      growth. The  absolute finiteness of      the environment,  when coupled with      human     dependency     on     the      environment,    leads     to    the      unquestionable  result  that  human      activities will  at some  point  be      constrained.   "[H]uman    activity      finds  in  the  natural  world  its      external  limits.   In  short,  the      environment imposes  constraints on      our freedom;  these constraints are      not the  product of  value  choices      but of the scientific imperative of      the   environment’s    limitations.      Reliance  on  improving  technology      can  delay   temporarily,  but  not      forever,       the       inevitable      constraints.   "There is a limit to      the capacity  of the environment to      service...growth, both in providing      raw materials  and in  assimilating      by-product    wastes     due     to      consumption.   The    largesse   of      technology  can  only  postpone  or      disguise the inevitable."      Professor Barbara  Ward has written      of this  ecological  imperative  in      particularly vivid language:      We can  forget  moral  imperatives.      But today the morals of respect and      care and  modesty come  to us  in a      form we  cannot  evade.  We  cannot      cheat on  DNA. We  cannot get round      photosynthesis. We  cannot say I am      not going  to  give  a  damn  about      phytoplankton.   All   these   tiny      mechanisms       provide        the      preconditions  of   our   planetary      life. To  say we  do not care is to      say in  the most literal sense that      "we choose death."      There is a commonly-recognized link      between laws and social values, but      to  ecologists  a  balance  between      laws  and   values  is   not  alone      sufficient  to   ensure  a   stable      relationship  between   humans  and      their environment.  Laws and values      must   also    contend   with   the      constraints imposed  by the outside      environment. Unfortunately, current      legal doctrine  rarely accounts for      such    constraints,    and    thus      environmental     stability      is      threatened.      Historically, we  have changed  the      environment to  fit our conceptions      of property. We have fenced, plowed      and  paved.   The  environment  has      proven malleable  and  to  a  large

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 28  

    extent still  is. But  there  is  a      limit  to  this  malleability,  and      certain   types   of   ecologically      important resources  - for example,      wetlands and riparian forests - can      no  longer   be  destroyed  without      enormous   long-term   effects   on      environmental and  therefore social      stability. To  ecologists, the need      for preserving  sensitive resources      does not  reflect value choices but      rather is  the necessary  result of      objective observations  of the laws      of nature.      In   sum,   ecologists   view   the      environmental sciences as providing      us with  certain  laws  of  nature.      These laws, just like our own laws,      restrict our freedom of conduct and      choice. Unlike  our laws,  the laws      of  nature  cannot  be  changed  by      legislative flat;  they are imposed      on us  by  the  natural  world.  An      understanding of the laws of nature      must therefore  inform all  of  our      social institutions."      The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the  "Doctrine or the Public Trust. It was founded on the ideas that  certain common  properties such  as rivers, sea- shore, forests  and the  air  were  held  by  Government  in trusteeship for  the free  and unimpeded  use of the general pubic. Our  contemporary conceded  about  ‘the  environment’ bear a  very close  conceptual relationship  to  this  legal doctrine. Under  the Roman  Law these  resources were either owned by  no one  (res Nullious)  or by  every one in common (Res Communious). Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could  own these  resources but  the ownership was limited  in   nature,  the   Crown  could  not  grant  these properties to  private owners if the effect was to interfere with  the   public  interests   in  navigation  or  fishing. Resources that  were suitable  for these uses were deemed to be held  in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public Joseph L.  Sax, Professor  of Law,  University  of  Michigan proponent of  the Modern  Public  Trust  Doctrine  -  in  an erudite article  "Public Trust  Doctrine in natural resource law: effective  judicial intervention".  Michigan Law Review Vol. 68  Part-1 page 4/3 has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under:      "The source  of modern public trust      law is  found  in  a  concept  that      received much  attention  in  Roman      and English  law -  the  nature  of      property rights in rivers, the sea,      and the  seashore. That history has      been given  considerable  attention      in the  legal literature,  need not      be repeated in detail here. But two      points should be emphasized, First,      certain    interests,    such    as      navigation and fishing, were sought      to be  preserved for the benefit of      the public;  accordingly,  property      used for  the  those  purposes  was      distinguished from  general  public      property which  the sovereign could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 28  

    routinely grant  to private owners.      Second,  while  it  was  understood      that in certain common properties -      such as the seashore, highways, and      running water  - "perpetual use was      dedicated to  the public,"  It  has      never been clear whether the public      had an enforceable right to prevent      infringement  of  those  interests.      Although the  state apparently  did      protect public uses, no evidence is      available that  public rights could      be  legally   asserted  against   a      recalcitrant government.      The  Public  Trust  Doctrine  primarily  rests  on  the principle that  certain resources  like air  sea, waters and the forests  have such a great importance to the people as a whole that  it would be wholly*** onjustilled to make them a subject of  private ownership.  The said  resources being  a gift of  nature, they  should be  made freely  available  to everyone irrespective  of the  status in  life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of  the general public rather than to permit their use for  private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor  Sax the  Public  Trust  Doctrine  imposes  the following restrictions on governmental authority.      "Three  types  of  restrictions  on      governmental  authority  are  often      though to  be imposed by the public      trust: first,  the property subject      to the  trust must not only be used      for a  public purpose,  but it must      be held  available for  use by  the      general   public;    second,    the      property may  not be sold, even for      a fair  cash equivalent;  and third      property  must   be  maintained  in      particular types of uses".      The American  law on  the subject is primarily based on the decision  of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois Central R.R.  Company vs. Illinois 146 US 687 (1982). In the year 1869  the Illinois legislature made a substantial grant of submerged  lands -  a mile strip along the shores of Lake Michigan extending  one mile out from the shoreline - to the Illinois Central  Railroad. In 1873, the legislature changed its mind  and repealed the 1869 grant. The State of Illinois sued to  quit title.  The court while accepting the stand of the State  of Illinois’  held that the title or the State in the land in dispute was a little different in character from that which  the State  held in  lands intended for sails. It was different from the title which the United States held in public lands  which were open to preemption and sale. It was a title  held in  trust -  for the  people of the State that they may  enjoy  the  navigation  of  the  water,  carry  on commerce over  them, and  have liberty  of fishing  their in free from  obstruction or  interference of  private parties. The addiction of the general control of the State over lands in dispute was not consistent with the exercise of the trust which required  the Government of the State to preserve such waters for  the use of the public. According to Professor ?? court in Illinois’ Central "articulated a principle that has become the  central  substantive  thought  in  public  trust litigation. When a State holds a resource which is available for the  free use  of the  general public, a court will look with considerable  skepticism upon  any governmental conduct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 28  

which is calculated either to relocate that resource to more restricted uses  or to  subject public  uses  to  the  self- interest of private parties".      In Gould  vs. Greylock  Reservation Commission 350 Mass 410 (1966), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts took the first  major step  in developing the doctrine applicable to changes  in the  use of  lands dedicated  to  the  public interest.  In   1888  a  group  of  citizens  interested  in preserving Mount  Greylock as  a unspoiled  natural  forest, promoted the  creation of  an association for the purpose of laying out  a  public  park  on  it.  The  State  Ultimately acquired about  9000 acres,  and the  legislature enacted  a statute crating  the Greylock Reservation Commission. In the year 1953,  the legislature  enacted a  statute creating  an Authority to  construct and  operate on  Mount  Greylock  an Aerial  Tramway   and  certain   other  facilities   and  it authorised the  commission to  lease to  the  Authority  any portion  of  the  Mount  Greylock  Reservation.  Before  the project commenced,  five citizens  brought an action against both they  Greylock Reservation  Commission and  the licency Authority. The  plaintiffs brought the sult us beneficiaries of the  pubic trust.  The court  has been  the lease and the management agreement invalid on the ground that they were in excess or  the statutory grant of the authority. The crucial passage in the judgment of the Court is as under:-      "The  profit  sharing  feature  and      some aspects  of the project itself      strongly   suggest   a   commercial      enterprise.  In   addition  to  the      absence of  any  clear  or  express      statutory authorization of as broad      a delegation  of responsibility  by      the Authority  as is  given by  the      management agreement,  we  find  no      express grant  to the  Authority or      power to permit use of public lands      and  of  the  Authority’s  borrowed      funds for  what seems,  in part  at      least,  a  commercial  venture  for      private profit."      Professor Sax’s  comments on the above quoted paragraph from Gould decision are as under:-      "It hardly  seems surprising,  then      that the  court  questioned  why  a      state should  subordinate  a  pubic      park, serving  a useful  purpose as      relatively undeveloped land, to the      demands of  private  investors  for      building    such    a    commercial      facility.  The  court,  faced  with      such a situation, could hardly have      been expected  to have  treated the      case as  if it involved nothing but      formal legal  issues concerning the      state’s authority to change the use      of the  certain tract of land .....      would, like  Illinois Central,  was      contented with  the most overt sort      of   imposition   on   the   public      interest; commercial  interests had      obtained advantages which infringed      directly   on   public   uses   and      promoted private  profits. But  the      Massachusetts   court    as    also      confronted  a  more  pervasive,  if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 28  

    more   subtle,   problem   -   that      concerning projects  which  clearly      have  some   public  justification.      Such cases arise when, for example,      a highway  department seeks to take      a pace  of parkland  or to  fill  a      wetland."      In Sacco  vs. Development of Public Works 352 MASS 670, the Massachusetts  Court restrained the Department of Public Works from  filling a  great pond  as part  of its  plan  to relocate part  of State Highway. The Department purported to act under  the legislative  authority. The  court found  the statutory power inadequate and held as under:-      the  improvement  of  public  lands      contemplated by  this section  does      not include the widening of a State      highway. It  seems rather  that the      improvement of  public lands  which      the legislature provided for ... is      to preserve such lands so that they      may be  enjoyed by  the people  for      recreational purposes."      In Robbins  vs. Department  of Public Works 244 N.E. 2d 577, the  Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts restrained the Public  Works Department  from acquiring  Fowl  Meadows, "Wet lands of considerable natural beauty ... often used for nature study and recreation" for highway use.      Professor Sax  in the  article  (Michigan  Law  Review) refers to  Prieweys. WisconSin  State Land  and  Improvement Company  93  Wis  534  (1896),  Crawford  County  Lever  and Drainage district Nos.1, 182, Wis 404, city of Milwaukee vs. State 193  Wis 423,  State vs. Public Service Commission 275 Wis 112  and opines  that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has probably made  a more  conscientious effort  to  rise  above rhetoric and la work out a reasonable meaning for the public trust doctrine than have the courts or any other State".      Professor Sax  stated the  scope of  the  public  trust doctrine in the following words:-      If any  of  the  analysis  in  this      Article makes  sense, it  is  clear      that   the    judicial   techniques      developed  in  public  trust  cases      need not be limited either to these      few conventional  interests  or  to      questions of  disposition of public      properties. Public  trust  problems      are  found   whenever  governmental      regulation comes into question, and      they  occur  in  a  wide  range  of      situations in  which diffuse public      interests need  protection  against      tightly organized groups with clear      and immediate goals. Thus, it seems      that  the   delicate   mixture   of      procedural     and      substantive      protections which  the courts  have      applied  in   conventional   public      trust  cases   would   be   equally      applicable and  equally appropriate      in  controversies   involving   air      pollution,  the   dissemination  of      pesticides, the  location of rights      of way  for  utilities,  and  strip      mining  or   wetland   filling   on      private  lands  in  a  state  where

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 28  

    governmental permits are required."      We may  at this  stage refer  to the  judgment  of  the Supreme Court  of California in National Audubon Society vs. Superior Court  of Alpine County 33 CAL. 3d 419. The case is popularly known  as   "the Mono lake case", Mono lake is the second largest  lake in  California. the  lake is saline. It contains no  fish but  support a  large population  of brine shrimp which  feed vast  numbers of  nesting  and  migrating birds. Islands  in the  take protect a large breeding colony of California  guits, and  the lake itself serves as a haven on the  migration route  for thousands  of birds. Towers and spires of  tura on the north and south shores are matters of geological interest  and a  tourist attraction. In 1940, the Division of  Water Resources granted the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeles a permit to appropriate virtually the entire flow of 4 of the 5 streams flowing into the lake.  As a result of these diversions, the level of the lake dropped,  the surface  area diminished,  the gulls were adbondoning  the   lake  and   the  scenic  beauty  and  the ecological values  of the  Mono  Lake  were  imperiled.  The plaintiffs  environmentalist   -  using   the  public  trust doctrine -  filed a  law  suit  against  Los  Angeles  Water Diversions, the  case  eventually  came  to  the  California Supreme court,  on  a  Federal  Trial  Judge’s  request  for clarification of the States public trust doctrine. the Court explained the  concept  of  public  trust  doctrine  in  the following words:-      "By the  law of nature these things      are common  to mankind  - the  air,      running   water,    the   sea   and      consequently  the   shores  of  the      sea."  (Institutes   of   Justinian      2.1.1.) From  this origin  in Roman      law, the English common law evolved      the concept  of the  public  trust,      under which the sovereign owns "all      of its  navigable waterways and the      lands lying beneath them as trustee      of a  public trust  for the benefit      of the people."      The Court  explained the purpose of the public trust as under:-      "The objective  of the public trust      has  evolved  in  tandem  with  the      changing public  perception of  the      values and uses of waterways. As we      observed  in   Marks  v.   Whitney,      supra,  6   Cal.3d  251,  "[p]ublic      trust       easements        [were]      traditionally defined  in terms  of      navigation, commerce and fisheries.      They have  been held to include the      right to  fish, hunt,  bathe, swim,      to  use  for  boating  and  general      recreation purposes  the  navigable      waters of the state, and to use the      bottom of  the navigable waters for      anchoring,   standing,   or   other      purposes. We  went on,  however, to      hold that  the traditional triad of      uses-navigation,    commerce    and      fishing-did not  limit  the  public      interest  in   the  trust  res.  In      language of  special importance  to      the present setting, we stated that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 28  

    "[t]he   public   uses   to   which      tidelands    are     subject    are      sufficiently flexible  to encompass      changing    public     needs.    In      administering the  trust the  state      is not  burdened with  an  outmoded      classification favoring one mode of      utilization over  another. there is      a growing  public recognition  that      one of  the most  important  public      uses   of   the   tidelands-a   use      encompassed  within  the  tidelands      trust-is the  preservation of those      lands in  their natural  state,  so      that they  may serve  as ecological      units for scientific study, as open      space, and  as  environments  which      provide food  and habitat for birds      and   marine    life,   and   which      favorably affect  the secondary and      climate or the area."      Mono Lake  is a navigable waterway.      It supports  a small local industry      which  harvests  brine  shrimp  for      sale as  fish food,  which endeavor      probably qualifies  the lake  as  a      "fishery"  under   the  traditional      public trust  cases. The  principal      values plaintiffs  seek to protect,      however,   are   recreational   and      ecological-the scenic  views of the      lake and  its shore,  the purity of      the air,  and the  use of  the lake      for nesting  and feeding  by birds,      Under Marks  v. Whitney,  supra,  6      Cal.3d  251,   it  is   clear  that      protection or these values is among      the purposes of the public trust."      The court summed up the powers of the state are trustee in the following words:-      "Thus, the  public  trust  is  more      than an  affirmation of state power      to use  public property  for public      purposes. It  is an  affirmation of      the duty  of the  state to  protect      the  people’s  common  heritage  of      streams,  lakes,   marshlands   and      tidelands, surrendering  that right      of protection  only in  rare  cases      when the  abandonment of that right      is consistent  with the purposes of      the trust......      The Supreme  Court of  California, inter  alia, reached the following conclusion:-      "The state  has an affirmative duty      to  take   the  public  trust  into      account   in   the   planning   and      allocation of  water resources, and      to  protect   public   trust   uses      whenever  feasible.   Just  as  the      history of  this state  shows  that      appropriation may  be necessary for      efficient  use   of  water  despite      unavoidable harm  to  public  trust      values,  it  demonstrates  that  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 28  

    appropriative water  rights  system      administered without  consideration      of  the   public  trust  may  cause      unnecessary and unjustified harm to      trust interests.  (See Johnson,  14      U.C.Davis  LL.   Rev.233,  230-257;      Robie,    Some    Reflections    on      Environmental   Considerations   in      Water  Rights   Administration,   2      Ecology  L.Q.695,  710-711  (1972);      Comment,  33   Hastings  L.J.  653,      654.)  As  a  matter  of  practical      necessity the  state  may  have  to      approve   appropriations    despite      foreseeanie harm  to  public  trust      uses. In  so  doing,  however,  the      state must bear in mind its duty as      trustee to  consider the  effect of      the taking on the public trust (see      United  Plainsmen   v.  N.D.  State      Water Cons.  Comm’n,  247  N.W.  2d      457, 462-463  (N.D. 1976),  and  to      preserve, so far as consistent with      the  public   interest,  the   uses      protected by the trust."      The Court  finally came  to  the  conclusion  that  the plaintiffs could  rely  on  the  public  trust  doctrine  in seeking reconsideration  of the  allocation of the waters of the Mono basin.      It is  no doubt  correct that the public trust doctrine under the  English  Common  Law  extended  only  to  certain traditional uses  such as  navigation, commerce and fishing. But the  American Courts  in recent  cases have expanded the concept of  the public  trust doctrine.  The observations of the Supreme  Court of  California in  Mono Lake case clearly show the  judicial concern  in protecting  all  ecologically important  land,s  for  example  fresh  water,  wetlands  or riparian forests.  The observation of the Court in Mono Lake case to  the effect that the protection of ecological values is among  the purpose  of public  trust, may give rise to an argument that  the ecology and the environment-protection is a relevant  factor to  determine which lands, waters or airs are protected  by the  public trust  doctrine. The Courts in United States  are finally beginning to adopt this reasoning and are expanding the public trust to encompass new types of lands and  waters. In Phillips Petroleum co. vs. Mississippi 108 S.Ct. 791 (1988), the United States Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s extension  of public  trust doctrine  to lands underlying nonavigable  tidal areas.  The majority  judgment adopted ecological  concepts to determine which lands can be considered  tide  lands.  Phillips  Petroleum  case  assumes importance because  the Supreme  Court  expanded  the  pubic trust doctrine  to identify the tide lands not on commercial considerations but  on ecological concepts. We see no reason why the  public trust  doctrine should  not be  expanded  to include all eco-systems operating in our natural resources.      Our legal  system -  based  on  English  Common  Law  - includes  the   public  trust   doctrine  as   part  of  its jurisprudence. The  State is  the  trustee  of  all  natural resources which  are by  nature meant  for  public  use  and enjoyment. Public  at large  is the  beneficiary of the sea- shore,  running   waters,  airs,  forests  and  ecologically fragile lands.  The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect  the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 28  

    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  land sin  their pristine  purity and those charged with  administrative   responsibilities   who,   under   the pressures of  the changing  needs of  an increasing  complex society, find  it necessary  to encroach to some extent open lands  heretofore   considered  in-violate  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 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 of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership or  for commercial  use. The  esthetic use and the prestime glory of the natural resources, the environment and the eco-systems  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 goods and  in public  interest to  encroach  upon  the  said resources.      Coming to  the facts of the present case, large area of the bank of river Beas which is part of protected forest has been given  on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the Motels. We  have no  hesitation in holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government  committed patent  breach of public trust by leasing  the  ecologically  fragile  land  to  the  Motel management. Both  the lease  - transactions  are  in  patent breach of the trust held by the State Government. The second lease granted  in the  year 1994  was virtually  of the land which is  a part  of river-bed. Even the board in its report has recommended deleasing of the said area.      This Court  in Vellore  Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of  India   &  Ors.   JT  1996(7)   S.C.375  explained   the "Precautionary Principle"  and "Polluters Pays principle" as under:-      Some of  the salient  principles of      "Sustainable    Development",    as      culled out  from Brundtland  Report      and other  international documents,      are inter-Generational  Equity, Use      and   Conservation    of    Natural      Resources,            Environmental      Protection,    the    Precautionary      Principle, Polluter Pays principle,      Obligation to assist and cooperate,      Eradication    of    Poverty    and      Financial   Assistance    to    the      developing   countries.   We   are,      however,  of  the  view  that  "The      Precautionary Principle"  and  "The      Polluter   Pays"    principle   are      essential features  of "Sustainable      Development".  The   "Precautionary      Principle" -  in the context of the      municipal law - means:      (i) Environment  measures -  by the      State Government  and the statutory      authorities  -   must   anticipate,      prevent and  attack the  causes  of      environmental degradation.      (ii) Where  there  are  threats  of      serious  and  irreversible  damage,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 28  

    lack of scientific certainty should      not  be   used  as   a  reason  for      postponing  measures   to   prevent      environmental degradation.      (iii) The "Onus of proof" is on the      actor            or             the      developer/industrialist   to   snow      that this action is environmentally      benign.      "The Polluter  Pays" principle  has      been held  to be  a sound principle      by this Court in Indian Council for      Enviro-Legal Action  vs.  Union  of      India JT  1996 (2)  196. The  Court      observed, "We  are of  the  opinion      that any  principle evolved in this      behalf should  be simple, practical      and  suited   to   the   conditions      obtaining  in  this  country".  The      Court ruled that "Once the activity      carried   on    is   hazardous   or      inherently  dangerous,  the  person      carrying on such activity is liable      to make good the loss caused to any      other  person   by   his   activity      irrespective of the fact whether he      took reasonable care while carrying      on  his   activity.  The   rule  is      premised upon  the very  nature  of      the    activity     carried    on".      Consequently     the      polluting      industries are  "absolutely  liable      to compensate  for the  harm caused      by  them   to  villagers   in   the      affected area,  to the  soil and to      the underground  water  and  hence,      they  are   bound   to   take   all      necessary measures to remove sludge      and other  pollutants lying  in the      affected  areas".   The   "Polluter      Pays" principle  as interpreted  by      this Court  means that the absolute      liability   for    harm   to    the      environment  extends  not  only  to      compensate the victims of pollution      but also  the cost of restoring the      environmental   of    the   damaged      environment is  part of the process      of "Sustainable Development" and as      such polluter  is liable to pay the      cost to the individual sufferers as      well as  the cost  of the reversing      the damaged ecology      The precautionary principle and the      polluter pays  principle have  been      accepted as  part of the law of the      land.      It is  thus settled by this Court that one who pollutes the environmental  must pay  to reverse the damage caused by his acts.      We, therefore, order and direct as under: 1.   The public  trust doctrine,  as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land. 2.   The prior  approval granted by the Government of India, Ministry of  Environment and  Forest  by  the  letter  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 28  

November 24, 1993 and the lease-deed dated April 11, 1994 in favor of  the Mote  are quashed.  The lease  granted to  the Motel by  the said lease-deed in respect of 27 bighas and 12 biswas of  area, is  cancelled and  set aside.  The Himachal Pradesh Government  shall take  over the area and restore it to its original-natural conditions. 3.   The Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of  the environment and ecology of the area. The pollution caused  by various constructions made by the Motel in the  river bed  and the banks of the river Beas has to be removed and  reversed. We  direct NEERI through its Director to inspect the area, if necessary, and give an assessment of the cost  which is  likely to  be incurred for reversing the damage caused  by the Mote to the environment and ecology of the area,  NEERI may  take into  consideration the report by the Board in this respect. 4.   The Motel  through its  management shall show cause why pollution fine in addition be not imposed on the Motel. 5.   The Motel shall construct a boundary wall at a distance of not  more than  4 meters  from the cluster of rooms (main building of the Motel) towards the river basin. The boundary wall shall  be on  the area  o the Motel which is covered by the lease  dated September  29, 1981.  The Motel  shall  not encroach/cover/utilise any  part of  the  river  basin.  The boundary wall  shall separate  the Motel  building from  the river basin.  The river  bank and  the river  basin shall be left open for the public use. 6.   The Motel  shall not  discharge untreated effluent into the river.  We direct the Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board to  inspect the  pollution  control  devices/treatment plants set up by the Motel. It the effluent/waste discharged by the  Mote is  not conforming to the prescribed standards, action in accordance with law be taken against the motel. 7.   The Himachal  Pradesh Pollution Control Board shall not permit the  discharge of untreated effluent into river Beas. The      Board       shall       inspect       all       the hotels/institutions/factories in  Kuliu-Manali area  and  in case any  of them  are discharging  untreated effluent/waste into the  river, the  Board shall  take action in accordance with law. 8.   The Motel  shall show  cause on  December 18,  1996 why Pollution-fine and  damages be  not imposed  as directed  by us., NEERI shall send its report by December 17, 1996. To be listed on December 18, 1996.      The writ  petition is  disposed of  except for  limited purpose indicated above.