Environmental Laws: Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006 – Schedule, Item No.8 – Interpretation of ‘built up area’ – In the instant application, the issue involved was whether non-consideration of judgment delivered by a threeJudge Bench in *NOIDA Park case led to wrong conclusions by this Court with regard to the interpretation of built up area in terms of Item No. 8 of the Schedule of the Notification dated 14.09.2006 – The contention raised on behalf of the applicant was that since the three-Judge Bench in Para 84 of the judgment in *NOIDA Park case observed that EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 called for a closer second look by the authorities concerned especially in respect of the projects/activities falling within the ambit of Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule to the Notification which needed description with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built up area with facilities open to the sky needed to be freed from its ambiguity and vagueness, the two-Judge Bench in the instant case which delivered the judgment was bound by the said judgment and could not have held that Notification dated 14.09.2006 showed that all constructed area which is covered and not open to the sky, has to be treated as built up area – Held:*NOIDA Park case was concerning a huge park – The main dispute in *NOIDA Park case was whether the project was a building and construction project or a township and area development project – It was held in*NOIDA Park case that it was a township and area development project – While considering this dispute, the Court had felt that there was some ambiguity – However, this dispute did not arise in the case in hand – The second point urged before the Court in *NOIDA Park case was that the facilities open to the sky i.e. the activity area should also be included in the built up area and it was this confusion which the court wanted the Central Government to settle – No party had raised any contention in *NOIDA Park case about the covered area being built up area – All the parties were ad idem that covered construction was built up area and the Court also held so – This Court in this judgment has only held that all covered construction shall be deemed to be built up area and that the municipal laws regarding Floor Space Index (FSI) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) have no relevance – This issue did not arise in *NOIDA Park case – Therefore, the earlier judgment will have no impact on the instant case – Application dismissed.
*Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 744 : [2010]
15 SCR 783 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.