Pragnesh Shah vs Dr Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Background
Mount Abu in Rajasthan was declared an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) by the Union Government in 2009 to protect its forests, wildlife, water bodies, and heritage sites like the Dilwara temples, requiring the State to prepare a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP 2030) consistent with that notification. The appellant owned land near a sewage treatment plant in the zone; a public-spirited respondent challenged the ZMP 2030 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), arguing it illegally permitted construction in violation of the ESZ norms at several sites, including the appellant's land. After an Expert Committee (comprising environmental experts and pollution control board representatives) examined the sites and recommended that construction not be permitted on the appellant's plot to preserve the ecosystem, the NGT accepted this recommendation and modified the ZMP 2030 accordingly, also dismissing the appellant's review application.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the NGT had not exceeded its jurisdiction in testing the ZMP 2030 against the ESZ Notification, since Section 22 of the NGT Act and its wide remedial powers permitted it to grant appropriate relief in a properly constituted proceeding, even without an identical prayer from the parties. On merits, the Court rejected the appellant's reliance on an internal draft version of the Expert Committee's report, holding only the final report, which had specifically found the appellant's land unsuitable for construction due to its terrain and proximity to the sewage treatment plant, unlike two comparator sites the appellant cited as being cleared for construction: was relevant. Applying the precautionary principle (that the burden lies on the person proposing an activity to show it is environmentally safe, not on objectors to prove harm), the Court found the ESZ Notification to be an enforceable statutory charter that every authority must comply with, and upheld the NGT's decision that no construction should occur on the appellant's land.
Lesson Learnt
Environmental protections in ecologically sensitive zones are backed by binding statutory notifications, and courts will apply the precautionary principle to place the onus on landowners to prove a proposed activity is environmentally safe, rather than requiring objectors to prove harm; an internal, non-final draft of an expert body's report also carries no legal weight against its finalised conclusions.