Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that 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.
“Environmental/forest clearance is always site specific and, therefore, until the site is identified for construction of national highways manifested vide Section 3A notification, the question of making any application for permission under the environmental/forest laws would not arise.”
Scope of Central Government’s power under Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956
Explaining the scope of Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Court said that the power bestowed upon the Central Government under Section 2(2) of the 1956 Act is not constricted or circumscribed by any other inhibition, such as to declare only an existing road or highway within the State as a national highway. The requirement of a national highway within the country as a whole and State-wise, in particular, is to alleviate evolving socio-economic dynamics, for which such a wide power has been bestowed upon the Central Government. The Central Government is obliged to do so to facilitate it to discharge its obligations under Part IV of the Constitution.
“There is nothing in the Constitution of India or for that matter, the 1956 Act to limit that power of the Central Government only in respect of existing roads/highways within the State. To say so would be counter¬productive and would entail in a piquant situation that the Central Government cannot effectively discharge its obligations under Part IV of the Constitution unto the remote inaccessible parts of the country until the concerned State Government constructs a road/highway within the State. (…) By its very nomenclature, a national highway is to link the entire country and provide access to all in every remote corner of the country for interaction and to promote commerce and trade, employment and education including health related services.”
Hence, 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.
Prior permission before issuing notification under Section 3A of the 1956 Act
The Court noticed that neither the 1956 Act, the Rules framed thereunder nor the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder specify any express condition requiring Central Government to obtain prior environmental/forest clearance before issuing notification under Section 2(2) declaring the stretch/section to be a national highway or Section 3A of the 1956 Act to express intention to acquire land for the purpose of building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway, as the case may be.
“It is not necessary for the Central Government or for that matter, NHAI, to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions, as the case may be, at the stage of planning or taking an inprinciple decision to formalize the Project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the 1956 Act.”
Even the notification issued by the MoEF dated 14.9.2006, does not constrict the power of Central Government to issue notification under Section 2(2) or Section 3A of the 1956 Act.
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). That will happen only after the acquisition proceedings are taken to its logical end until the land finally vests in the NHAI or is entrusted to it by the Central Government for building/management of the national highway. The land would vest in the Central Government under the 1956 Act only after publication of declaration of acquisition under Section 3D. Until then, the question of Central Government vesting it in favour of NHAI under Section 11 of the 1988 Act would not arise. However, until the vesting of the land, the Central Government and its authorised officer can undertake surveys of the notified lands by entering upon it in terms of Section 3B of the Act.
“Pertinently, the activities predicated in Section 3B are of exploration for verifying the feasibility and viability of land for construction of a national highway. These are one-time activities and not in the nature of exploitation of the land for continuous commercial/industrial activities as such. There is remote possibility of irretrievable wide-spread environmental impact due to carrying out activities referred to in Section 3B for assessing the worthiness of the land for using it as a national highway. Thus, the question of applying notification of 2006 at this stage does not arise, much less obligate the Central Government to follow directives thereunder.”
Deemed lapsing
The Court noticed that 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. However, time spent for obtaining environmental clearance or permission under the forest laws has not been explicitly excluded from the period of one year to be reckoned under Section 3D(3) of the Act. The extension of time or so to say suspension of time is only in respect of period during which the action of the proceedings to be taken in pursuance of notification under Section 3A(1) is stayed by an order of Court.
Noticing that there is no express provision in the 1956 Act, which excludes the time spent by the Central Government or the executing agency in obtaining prior environmental clearance or permission under forest laws, as the case may be, the 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.
“Thus, the acquisition process set in motion upon issue of Section 3A notification can go on in parallel until the stage of publication of notification under Section 3D, which can be issued after grant of clearances/permissions by the competent authority under the environment/forest laws and attaining finality thereof.”
[Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1005, decided on 08.12.2020]
*Justice AM Khanwilkar has penned this judgment. Read more about him here.
