Thread by @LawBeatInd

The NGT South Zone, Chennai will shortly hear the matter pertaining to felling of trees in in #auroville for creating a crown road.

ASG Shankarnarayanan to commence the arguments.

ASG: May I take the lordships through the first petition which he filed and the application with which he approached of the tribunal. The synopsis gives a birds eye view of how he has come before the tribunal and the sections of the NGT act invoked #auroville

ASG: He has submitted that no feasibility or impact assessment study has been conducted. He knows what we intend to do is construction of road however according it is contrary to the principles of #auroville

ASG: Under the Auroville foundation act 1998 a plan was made. He also speaks of a perspective plan 2025.

ASG reads from the pleading.

ASG: The question is if this is an internal squabble and furthermore would this tribunal interfere internal squabble

Bench: He says galaxy plan is nothing but a township plan.

ASG: If the township plan is approved, it will not fall under Section 14 of the act #auroville

ASG: The plan was not again submitted again for the approval of resident assembly. It has been approved by everywhere else.

ASG reads from the #auroville act.

ASG: We are not on buildings, not on construction. We are on preparing pathway.

ASG: It is not an express highway, not a State High way. It is merely a pathway road. The burden of proof is on him.

Bench: As far as the environment is concerned it is the reverse burden.

ASG: I agree. Burden of proof rests with him, once he establishes a prima facie.

ASG: Plan does not say you have to remove the trees, plan also says you have to remove the trees. It was a barren land. It does not say don’t remove it, it is not a construction activity. How would his residence come without cutting trees?

ASG: There are 4 grounds that were taken. The second legal question is whether an impact assessment is required under law. Now your lordships may kindly come to the prayer. It is a mandatory injunction, he is asking for a specific performance

ASG: When the matter was being argued he filed an affidavit. When it was part heard, he filed additional documents.

ASG reads Section 14 of NGT act

ASG: Object of Section 14 was to oust matters pertaining to environment from civil court and bringing it within the purview of the NGT. If it does not come within the meaning of the forest conservation act, it will not come before the tribunal

ASG reads Rule 8 of NGT practice and procedure rules #auroville

ASG: He has filed a number of documents, nothing supported by an affidavit. The relevancy of these is to be tested by the tribunal. His additional affidavit is almost an amendment to the case.

ASG: He deviated from the original case by going into the town and country planning act and sought the respondents to get the necessary permissions.

ASG reads from the #auroville act

ASG: Township which is referred to very often in this was used in the sense of what Mother envisaged was to bring people from different cultures and have a separate culture of its own #auroville

ASG: It is a cultural township. That a master plan which is approved in consultation with the resident assembly in the manner which is prescribed in the act. All the persons who are in #auroville on that day shall become the resident assembly

ASG: The resident assembly enters into the picture only for approval, the implementation is with the governing board. Admitted case is this master plan was placed before resident assembly #auroville

ASG: I will take your lordships through the typed set filed by #auroville

Bench: The application and the intervenor are not contending that 2010 plan was not an approved plan. Their case is that it was only a tentative plan and not the final plan

ASG: 90% of the work is over. Today they are here because there is an internal squabble. It is common that there will be such squabbles in a democratic society

Bench: The cultural township will not make any difference because it is a township for doing certain activities.

ASG: If I acquire a land and ask people to come live there. There should be a layout , in this case there is no layout at all. How will it be covered in the act if

There is no lay out. I have provided for the road, I am constructing it now. It is not a development under town and country planning act.

Bench: I am not on town planning. I am on environmental protection act

ASG: A street to grant access to a place is not a development. It is a street, it is not a development.

Bench: If it is part of the project of the layout, permissions needs to be obtained.

ASG: It is not a layout at all milord.

ASG: Please come to the minutes of the meeting on 15.02.2001, it says that some department has considered it and passed an order. It says the crown road will be there. The perspective is how we are going to see it later

ASG: #auroville is a conglomeration of TN and Pondicherry hence the permission of centre was required

Bench: He does not say that there is no road.

ASG: How do I read Matri Mandir? There must be some pathway, I am only giving it a form. How will it call for an environmental impact assessment. His shack was removed he is before your lordship

Bench: Suppose some deviation is made to save trees.

ASG: The trees were planted to prevent soil erosion. If your lordships do so, you will be expanding the scope here. It should be taken to civil court I will be happy to contest him there

ASG reads the Supreme Court order in Godhavarman Thirumalpad which defined “deemed forest”

ASG: The lands were canyon, it was a barren land and it was not a forest land

ASG: My revenue record shows that it was not a forest land. The trees were planted to prevent soil erosion, hence it does not come within the purview of NGT

ASG: It is an internal squabble. He has subsequently amended the the application to bring it into the purview of NGT. This warrants no interference.

Bench: The petitioners are saying you are saying that this is not a new project based on some document. Please tell us whether it is a forest land or not. It comes within your purview

Syed, Advocate for UOI:I will explain it to the bench shortly

Nithyaesh Natraj for intervenors supporting the project

“There has been no demonstrable environment issue. They have been shifting their arguments from time to time. This is the case where all the lands are owned by #auroville “

Natraj: 90% of the work has already been done. If they want a deviation of way, more trees are going to be cut anyway. But to anticipate that something is going to happen in the future is not for the tribunal is to entertain. #auroville is a State under Article 12, it is deemed

To be fair.

Bench: That presumption under 112 will not arise.

Natraj: They are established under the act of the parliament. Its not to say that there is nothing that has been done in #auroville many constructions have already been done

Bench: They are disputing the completion of projects.

Natraj: The expert committee has nowhere classified this land as an agricultural land

Natraj: The chairman of the governing board is the head of the State. Before the foundation came into force these were agricultural land. Crown Road is 90% complete, laying of this road has been going on from 1971. Only last stretch remaining. The petitioner knew this in 2001

Natraj: The facts that have been placed as regards crown road is entirely misconceived.

Natraj: It will never be fair if they change their entire argument in their rejoinder, that is what they have done. They have filed a misconceived application. In the main prayer they seek for directions for a new plan, now they are speaking of an EIA notification

Natraj: The role of resident assembly is merely recommendatory, it is for the governing to decide their recommendation or not

Natraj: All is not well with the organisation and with residents of #auroville

Matter to continue on Monday