The National Green Tribunal’s ruling in Digambar Bhoi v. State of Odisha establishes a critical precedent: environmental clearances obtained by suppressing the involvement of forest land are legally unsustainable. This judgment reinforces the duty of project proponents and regulatory authorities to disclose all land use details truthfully, particularly where tribal rights and ecological integrity are at stake.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Digambar Bhoi, a resident of Siripura in Jharsuguda, Odisha, alleged that M/s JSW Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (JSW BPSL) obtained environmental clearance (EC) by falsely declaring that no forest land was involved in its project. The applicant claimed that 32.77 acres of forest land, recorded as Gramya Jungle Kisam under Khata Nos. 178, 2157, 2160, 2144, 2111, and 2113, had been illegally encroached upon for constructing an approach road and a tailing pond.
Procedural History
- 2013: JSW BPSL obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Sarpanch of Sripura Gram Panchayat for industrial activity.
- 2016: Initial EC granted to M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Limited.
- 2023: EC amended on 13.01.2023 and further revised on 18.07.2023, still declaring "No Forest Land is involved".
- 2021: Sarpanch of Sripura Gram Panchayat wrote to the District Collector seeking to halt tailing pond construction, citing risks to agricultural land and forest.
- 2025: Applicant filed complaint with District Collector and DFO; no action taken. Original Application filed before NGT on 2025.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (i) withdrawal of EC dated 18.07.2023 for concealment of forest land; (ii) restoration of forest land and eviction of the private respondent; (iii) constitution of a committee to assess environmental compensation; and (iv) accountability of public authorities for inaction.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether environmental clearance obtained by suppressing the involvement of forest land - particularly where Section 2(f) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Section 4 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 apply - can remain valid, and whether the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is obligated to revoke such clearance upon discovery of misrepresentation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant relied on Section 11 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which mandates truthful disclosure in EC applications. They cited Point No. 11 of the EC itself, which explicitly states that concealment of facts may lead to withdrawal of clearance. They further invoked State of M.P. v. Krishnadas and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India to argue that forest land cannot be diverted without statutory compliance, including Gram Sabha consent under Section 4(1) of the FRA, 2006. The applicant emphasized that the EC’s declaration of "no forest land involved" was a deliberate misrepresentation.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file written submissions. The Tribunal noted the absence of any rebuttal from the State of Odisha, SPCB, or JSW BPSL, despite being served notice. The Tribunal inferred that the silence of the respondents, particularly the user agency, amounted to non-objection to the applicant’s factual assertions.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the EC document and found that the declaration "No Forest Land is involved as reported by the PP" was demonstrably false, given the Revenue records and the Tahsildar’s report acknowledging the presence of forest land. The Court emphasized that environmental clearance is not a mere administrative formality but a statutory condition precedent under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and must be based on complete, accurate, and verifiable data.
"Concealing factual data or submission of false/fabricated data... may result in withdrawal of this clearance and attract action under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986."
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided credible evidence - including the Sarpanch’s letter revoking the NOC, the Tahsildar’s report confirming agricultural and forest land proximity, and the absence of Gram Sabha consent under the FRA, 2006. The Court held that the failure to obtain prior consent from the Gram Sabha under Section 4(1) of the FRA, 2006, renders any land use for industrial purposes legally void, regardless of other clearances.
The Tribunal declined to directly revoke the EC, recognizing that such power lies primarily with MoEFCC under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Instead, it directed MoEFCC to treat the application as a representation and conduct a fair hearing with all stakeholders, including the Gram Sabha, before taking remedial action.
The Verdict
The applicant prevailed. The National Green Tribunal held that environmental clearance obtained by concealing forest land is legally unsustainable and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to re-examine the EC within six months, afford due hearing to all stakeholders, and take appropriate remedial action under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Environmental Clearance Is Void If Forest Land Is Concealed
- Practitioners must now challenge ECs where land classification is misrepresented, especially if forest land is involved.
- Any EC containing a declaration of "no forest land involved" must be scrutinized against Revenue records and Forest Survey data.
- Failure to disclose forest land constitutes fraud under Section 11 of the EPA, 1986, inviting automatic liability for withdrawal.
Gram Sabha Consent Is Non-Negotiable for Forest Land Use
- Section 4(1) of the FRA, 2006 requires prior and informed consent of the Gram Sabha for any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.
- A revoked NOC cannot be ignored; subsequent clearances based on it are invalid.
- Practitioners should immediately raise FRA violations in any case involving tribal or forest land, even if other clearances exist.
Regulatory Silence Is Not Consent
- The Tribunal treated the respondents’ failure to file replies as an admission of the applicant’s factual claims.
- Practitioners should document all attempts to obtain responses from authorities and cite such silence as evidence of negligence or complicity.
- This sets a precedent for shifting the burden of proof to the state or industry to disprove allegations of environmental violation.
