The National Green Tribunal's recent order in M/s Ganesh Construction Co. v. Shivlok Phase II Jan Kalyan Samiti establishes that unauthorised discharge of untreated sewage constitutes a continuing environmental nuisance under Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The judgment clarifies that developers can seek legal recourse when adjoining colonies pollute their land, potentially delaying RERA-registered projects.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, M/s Ganesh Construction Co., is developing a residential project named Ganesh Divine City in Bhopal, registered under RERA on 14 October 2025. The project faced severe environmental hazards when the adjoining Shivlok Phase-II colony, managed by the respondent, began discharging untreated sewage onto the applicant's land through a breach in the boundary wall. The accumulation of sewage led to soil contamination, foul odours, and rendered the affected land unfit for construction, causing financial and operational losses to the developer.
Procedural History
The applicant approached the National Green Tribunal (Central Zone Bench, Bhopal) under Original Application No. 18/2026(CZ), alleging violations of environmental laws. Key procedural steps included:
- Notice issued to respondents on 2 February 2026
- Directions for service via physical and electronic means
- Six-week timeline for respondents to file replies in searchable PDF format
- Constitution of a Joint Committee to inspect the site and submit a factual report
Relief Sought
The applicant sought interim relief to halt the unauthorised discharge of sewage and requested the Tribunal to direct the respondents to comply with Sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which prohibit the discharge of polluting matter into water bodies or land without treatment.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Tribunal was whether the unauthorised discharge of untreated sewage onto a developer's land constitutes a continuing environmental nuisance under the Water Act, 1974, and whether such an act infringes the right to a clean and healthy environment, warranting intervention under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant's counsel, Mr. Harpreet Singh Gupta, argued that:
- The discharge of untreated sewage violated Sections 24 and 25 of the Water Act, 1974, as it was being released without a proper sewage treatment plant (STP) or septic tank
- The act constituted a continuing nuisance, causing irreparable harm to the applicant's land and project timeline
- The respondent's failure to comply with municipal orders (Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhopal) demonstrated negligence
- The environmental damage directly impacted the applicant's RERA-registered project, leading to financial losses and construction delays
For the Respondent
The respondents were yet to file their reply at the time of the order. However, the Tribunal noted that the matter involved a substantial question of environmental law, necessitating a detailed response.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ishwar Singh (Expert Member), recognised the urgency of the matter and adopted a precautionary approach to environmental protection. Key observations included:
-
Continuing Nuisance: The Tribunal held that the discharge of untreated sewage constituted a continuing environmental nuisance, as defined under Section 24 of the Water Act, 1974. The act was not a one-time violation but an ongoing harm requiring immediate intervention.
-
Right to Clean Environment: The order implicitly acknowledged the applicant's right to a clean and healthy environment, aligning with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.
-
RERA Compliance and Environmental Law: The Tribunal noted that the applicant's project was RERA-registered, emphasising that environmental violations could disrupt compliance with statutory timelines, leading to cascading legal and financial consequences.
-
Procedural Safeguards: The Tribunal directed the formation of a Joint Committee comprising representatives from the District Collector, State Pollution Control Board, and Municipal Commissioner to inspect the site and submit a factual report. This step underscored the Tribunal's commitment to evidence-based adjudication in environmental matters.
"The continued discharge of untreated sewage constitutes a continuing environmental nuisance and infringes the right to a clean and healthy environment."
The Verdict
The Tribunal issued the following directions:
- Notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks
- Service of documents to be completed by the applicant within one week
- Joint Committee to inspect the site and submit a factual report within six weeks
- Respondents to file their reply within six weeks in searchable PDF format
- Next hearing scheduled for 22 April 2026
While the Tribunal did not grant interim relief at this stage, its recognition of the continuing nuisance and the environmental harm sets a precedent for developers seeking recourse against unauthorised pollution.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Environmental Nuisance as a Continuing Violation
The Tribunal's order reinforces that unauthorised sewage discharge is not a one-time offence but a continuing violation under the Water Act, 1974. Practitioners should:
- Argue for injunctive relief in cases where pollution persists, citing the precautionary principle
- Highlight the financial and operational impact on RERA-registered projects to strengthen claims for compensation
Role of Joint Committees in Environmental Disputes
The Tribunal's reliance on a Joint Committee underscores the importance of expert evidence in environmental cases. Developers and environmental lawyers should:
- Proactively document pollution through photographs, videos, and expert reports
- Collaborate with local authorities (Pollution Control Boards, Municipal Corporations) to strengthen their case
- Ensure compliance with procedural requirements, such as submitting searchable PDFs, to avoid delays
RERA and Environmental Compliance
The judgment highlights the intersection between RERA compliance and environmental law. Developers facing delays due to pollution should:
- File complaints with the NGT under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
- Seek extensions from RERA authorities, citing environmental violations as a valid ground for delay
- Explore compensation for losses incurred due to unauthorised pollution from adjoining properties
