Prior Environmental Clearance Not Required For Notifying Acquisition Of Land For National Highway

MATTER IN ISSUE

• The Supreme Court was hearing Appeal No. 3976, 3975 of 2020titled Project Director, Project Implementation Unit vs. P. V. Krishnamoorthy.

• These appeals emanated from the common judgment andOrder of the High Court ofJudicature at Madras holding the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National HighwaysAct,1956 for acquisition of specified landsforDevelopment/construction of acquisition of Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem (National Corridor) 8 Lanes new National Highway (NH­179A and NH-179B)being part of the larger project ­ "Bharatmala Pariyojna Phase I", as illegal and badin law on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment.

• The three judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari were hearing the Appeal.

DECISION OF THE COURT

• It is not necessary for the Central Government or NHAI to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions before issuing notification under Section 2(2) declaring the stretch/section to be a national highway or Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 to express intention to acquire land for the purpose of building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway, as the case may be.

• The Central Government is fully competent to notify "any land" (not necessarily an existing road/highway) for acquisition, to construct a highway to be a national highway.

• The prior environmental clearance in terms of 2006 notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Act read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, is required to be taken before commencement of the "actual construction or building work" of the national highway by the executing agency (NHAI).

• It is essential to issue a declaration under Section 3D of the 1956 Act within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A in respect of the notified land, failing which notification under Section 3A ceases to have any effect.

• Court directed that the dictum in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa, (2006) 6 SCC 371, shall operate as a stay by an order of the Court for the purposes of Section 3D(3) in respect of all projects under the 1956 Act, in particular for excluding the time spent after issue of Section 3A notification, in obtaining the environmental clearance as well as for permissions under the forest laws.

What do you think about the Supreme Court's decision? Let us know in the comments section below!