A. Hazarika, J.
1. Petitioner and the local people of Shillong town at large have been trying to protect the ecology of Shillong by ventilating their grievances at various forms and levels, but to no avail. Hence this petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL for short).
2. Mandamus has been sought for in this PIL petition for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately stop all the activities including construction in the Lawsohtun area, Shillong and also for a direction to the authorities to restore the forest to its pre 1998 status i.e., to restore it to the Raid Laban for better management of the forest cover so as to preserve and protect the water catchment area of Shillong as per custom and practice prevailing in the area.
3. Heard Mr. R. Kar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned senior Government Advocate, Meghalaya for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India (respondent No. 2).
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows;
The Raid Laban is a conglomeration of eight village councils known as 'Dorbar Shnong' under the Syiem of Mylliem, an erstwhile Khasi State, known as such in pre-independence India. When the British paramount lapsed, then under Section 7 of the Indian Independence Act all the agreements and covenants between the native states and the British Government lapsed and that was substituted by instrument of Merger and instrument of Accession signed by the native states with the Government of India, thereby becoming a part of Dominion of India. As the native Khasi State has a unique social system, the Government of India agreed with them to protect and preserve the distinct cultural identity and for that purpose the Constitution of India paid special attention providing mechanism enshrined in the Constitution in the form of Sixth Schedule. Social customs, practice and their system of administration of land and forest are complementary to each other and the existence of forest along with its bio-diversity is a part of their identity/psyche of the Khasi Tribes. In the Khasi Hills, Village Administration, like preservation of forest, the general cleanliness in the Village, peace and tranquility, management of village common land, etc. is entrusted to a Village Council known as 'Dorbar Shnong' which consists of village elders and is headed by a Headman called 'Rangbah Shnong'. This system of Village Administration is prevalent in this part of the country from time immemorial and recognised as such in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The entire area of the State particularly, Lawsohtun area is full of forest covers having many precious species of plant, animal, several streams coming from the Shillong Peak which is the immediate vicinity of Lawsohtun, flows through the area which is the source of drinking water to the inhabitants of the city of Shillong. It is the integral part of the Khasi Tribal custom to preserve forest for various purpose such as religious, social purpose etc. These forests are revered by the community and human habitation is never allowed in those forest hillocks. In the vicinity of forest in the Lawsohtun area, there are several habitation centers of the tribals, who, despite the ever increasing pressure of population have succeeded in maintaining the sanctity of those forests.
5. Thus the petitioner claims that the said forest covers, alongwith the flowing stream is the critical catchment area of Shillong in terms of Section 5 of the Meghalaya Protection of Catchment Areas Act 1990, (Act 1990 for short) as it is the source of drinking water to the inhabitants of a large area of Shillong.
6. The Act 1990 has been enacted to provide for the protection of catchment areas with a view to preserve water sources and to make provisions for matter connected therewith.
Section 2(c) of the Act 1990 defined catchment area as,
Catchment area means an area where springs, streams, rivulets and water sources originate and serve as potential source of perennial flow of water;
Section 2(d) defined 'Critical Catchment area' as,
Critical catchment area' means the area from where springs, streams, rivulets and water heads originate and serve or can potentially serve the water supply system of any village or town or a group of them and the preservation of which is so vital for the life and health of the Community.
7. In pre independence era, the British Army was stationed in the Cantonment area which is in the vicinity of those forests and as such, the open area of village Lawsohtun fell under the firing range, but it remained within the administrative control of the Raid Dorbar. However, on the protest of the local people, the said area as a shooting range was abandoned. The said open area had all along been used as a playing field for the children, arrow shooting, community picnic etc. but the sanctity of the forest ever remained intact and the forest products were never allowed to be used for human habitation.
8. It is also to be noted herein that as per age old custom and practice of the Community, the boundaries of the land are marked by stones, hillocks, streams and prominent trees as there is no cadastral system of survey in the State.
9. However, sometime in the year 1998, the Army people forcibly encroached the forest land and hillocks causing great resentment to the local people, which resulted into 'Protest Bandh' and other form of demonstration. The Khasi tribal community is the most peaceful community in nature and they always prefer to ventilate their grievances in a democratic manner and as such, in the instant case also they submitted representations to various authorities both in the State and Central including the President of India but the same evoked no response from the authorities concerned.
10. It would be pertinent to mention here that communication dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure-1) made by the Officer-on Special Duty to the Government of Meghalaya, Revenue Department to the Principal Secretary to the Governor made available an area of 1400 acres of land at Rangmen to the Army authorities therefore, if any construction was required the place would be ideal rather than the Lawsohtun are being not so far from Shillong. Contents of Annexure-1 is quoted herein below:
No. RDS.4/90/406,
Dated Shillong,the 20th September, 2001
From: Shri R.K. Bora,
Officer on Special Duty to the Govt. of
Meghalaya, Revenue Department.
To: The Principal Secretary to the
Governor,
Governor's Secretariat, Meghalaya,
Shillong-793001
Sir,
In inviting a reference to letter No. GSMG-10/2001/962, dated 16.8.2001 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Meghalaya, Shillong regarding a Memorandum submitted by the Raid Laban-Hima Mylliom Land Conservation Committee to the President of India (through the Governor) on matters relating to the Lawsohtun Land, I am directed to say that the Memorandum raises two specific issues, firstly, relating to the status of the land in the context of the Instrument of Accession and also the legal and constitutional status of the Syium of Mylliem. The legal issues may be examined at the level of the Government of India and therefore we have no comments to offer on the aspect.
As regards the question of maintaining the ecology and environment of the area, the Forest Department is being contracted to examine the matter in the context of the Meghalaya (Protection of Catchment Areas) Act, and whether any action can be taken under the provisions of the said Act.
Further, it would in any case be appropriate that the ecological balance in the Lawsohtun Area is not disturbed through any kind of construction or human activity, in view of the fact that this area is not only a catchment area providing water sources for a number of localities in Shillong, but it is also one of the few gradually decreasing 'LUNGS' of Shillong City. No matter what the legal status of the land is, it would thus be in the overall public interest if all further construction activity in the area, either on the part of the public or on the part of the Government, including the Military Authorities is banned. Moreover, this plot of land has been lying vacant for more than Sixty years and any activity in this area at present is undesirable. This recommendation is in conformity with those of the High Powered Committee constituted by the Prime Minister in 1986.
It may be mentioned that the State Government had earlier made available an area of 1400 acres of land at Rangmen to the Army Authorities and therefore if any construction was required, the place would be ideal rather than the Lawsohtun area, being not so far from Shillong.
This has the approval of the Chief Minister.
Yours faithfully,Sd/-Officer on Special Duty to theGovt. of Meghalaya,Revenue Department.
11. The forest land mentioned in the afore-said letter and the open space has all along been under the occupation and control of the Dorbar Raid and the respondent No. 1 had at no point of time either acquired the same or the said land was ever transferred to them in any manner and the said area around the fencing falls within the jurisdiction of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, inasmuch as, a member is elected for the District Council from that area. But the respondent No. 2 has not only encroached the Raid Dorbar's forest and land which are the water Catchment areas of Shillong but also they are dumping the wastes and polluting the sources of springs, rivulets and streams etc.
12. Thus, the destruction of forest cover in the Lawsohtun area which is one of critical catchment area of Shillong as defined in Area Act, 1990 has caused wide spread public resentment which has been expressed in various ways as well as in the media coverage. The respondent No. 2 after encroaching the said forest land also had made some constructions in the forest which has caused depletions of large chunk of forest area adversely affecting the water catchment area of Shillong. The destruction of forest would adversely affect the ecology and the dissemination of critical catchment area by the Army authorities and the failure of the State to prevent the same in terms of existing law has resulted into large scale erosion of soil, contamination of water sources effecting ecology of the area. Therefore, unless the respondent No. 2 is restrained from carrying on their construction activities in the forest, the water catchment area of Shillong would suffer irreparable loss.
13. Considering the grievances of the people in their regard, respondent No. 1 constituted an advisory committee vide Notification dated 24.9.2002 to examine the status of land vis-a-vis the grievances of the people. The Notification dated 24.9.2002 is quoted hereunder,
Government of MeghalayaRevenue DepartmentNotificationDated Shillong, the 24th September, 2002.
No. RDS.51/2000/66--The Governor of Meghalaya is pleased to reconstitute the Advisory Committee on Shillong Land with the following members, with immediate effect and until further orders:
1) Shri D.D. Lapang,
Deputy Chief Minister,
Revenue. -Chairman
2) Shri J.E. Tariang,
Ex.-M.P. -Vice Chairman
3) Shri E.I. Kharkongor,
M.L.A. -Member
4) Shri D.N. Joshi,
M.L.A. -Member
5) Shri J.S. Phanbuh,
Chairman, M.U.D.A. -Member
6) Shri W.M.S. Pariat,
IAS, Principal Secy.
Revenue. -Member
7) The Officer on Special
Duty, Revenue Director of
Land Records & Surveys. -Member Secy.
The terms of reference of the Committee will be as follows:
1) The Committee will examine the status of the Government land in Shillong acquired at different time since 1863.
2) The Committee will examine the status of the defence land acquired by the Defence Authority from time to time.
3) The Committee will suggest remedial measures to overcome the present problems arising out of the claims of the different clans/organizations about the status of land mentioned under 1 and 2 above.
Sd/-W.M.S. PariatPrincipal Secretary to theGovt. of MeghalayaRevenue Department.
Memo No. RDS.51/2000/66(A),
Dated Shillong, the 24th September, 2002
Copy for information & necessary action to:
1) Private Secretary to Chief Minister for information of the Chief Minister.
2) Private Secretary to Deputy Chief Minister, In-charge Revenue for information of the Deputy Chief Minister.
3) Private Secretary to Chief Secretary for information of the Chief Secretary.
4) Principal Secretary, Revenue Department.
5) All members of the Advisory Committee on Shillong Land.
6) Deputy Commissioner, Shillong.
7) The Director of Land Records & Surveys, Meghalaya, Shillong/Officer on Special Duty, Revenue Department.
8) The Director of Printing and Stationary, Meghalaya, Shillong for printing of the above notification in the next issue of the Meghalaya Gazette and to supply 100 copies to this Department.
By order, etc.,Under Secretary to the Govt. ofMeghalayaRevenue Department.
However, outcome of Committee's deliberation has not been made public till date. On the other hand, representative of local people continued their efforts to protect the catchment area and in response of such representations, the Chief Minister of Meghalaya on 29.8.03 wrote a letter to the respondent No. 1 to examine the matter by deputing one officer for spot inspection but that also did not yield any tangible result. Contents of the said letter is quoted herein below:
Mr. D.D. Lapang, Government of
Chief Minister, Meghalaya
Meghalaya Main Secretariat
Building
Shillong 793001
Dated Shillong
the 29th August, 03
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Meghalaya. Shillong.
Enclosed, pleased find herewith petition dt. 18.8.2003 from Shri K. Swer, President, Raid Laban regarding the ecological balance in the catchment area at Lawsohtun.
Please meet the President of Raid Laban or you may depute a suitable officer for spot inspection and submit report to me at the earliest.
(D.D. Lapang) Copy to:
Shri K. Swer, President Raid Laban, P.O. Laban, Shillong-4 for favour of information.
Sd/-Illegible(D.D. Lapang)
14. Therefore, finding no other alternative this PEL petition has been filed with the prayer aforesaid.
15. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, Union of India contending inter alia therein that then Imperial Government had purchased an area of 119.7399 acres of land in Kenches' Trace area during the period 1928-39 for the defence purposes, since then the entire acquired land had been under the control of the Army authorities and following the independence, the land so acquired got vested to the Ministry of Defence, Union of India and is being maintained by the Army formation stationed at Shillong and as such, the land in question, belongs to the Army authority. It has further been contended therein that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence had sanctioned the construction of 707 Dwelling Units (DUs for short) at Shillong under the Married Accommodation Project (MAP for short) Phase-I, but due to pendency of the instant PIL petition, the Divisional Forest Officer, Khasi Hills Division could not issue 'no objection certificate' for cutting of trees in mat area. Relevant para-9 of the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted herein under:
The before adverting the para wise reply to the petition, the deponent begs to submit that the Govt, of India, Ministry of defence, have sanctioned the construction of 707 Dwelling Units (DUs) at Shillong under the married accommodation project in short MAP) Phase-I, for which tendering process is in the penultimate stage of finalization at Director General MAP. For the commencement of the said project, the army authorities are required to make available the construction site to the executive agency, M/s RITES, and for that purpose the cutting of the trees standing on the army land (i.e. land marked for the said MAP) is necessary. For cutting of trees on the said land, a board of officers were convened which included the representative of the Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati and the Divisional Forest Officer (for short DFO), Khasi Hills Division. The board carried out a survey of the construction site to identify the trees required to be cut, they were marked, measured and their data stipulated for the purpose of valuation, which was done by the DFO.
In order to expedite the process, the board covered the sites in location other than Kenche's Trace, that is Shillong Cantonment, SE Falls and Happy Valley, identifying 280 trees in Part-I and the sites in Kenche's Trace identifying 1445 trees in Part-2.
Thereafter, the board proceedings were submitted by the DFO, Khasi Hills Division, for issuing 'no objection certificate' for cutting of the trees in defence A-1 land, including that of Kenche's Trace area. The DFO issued no-objection for cutting of 280 trees pertaining to Part-1, i.e. for sites other than Kenche's Trace on 16.2.2006. However, with regard to the cutting of 1445 trees pertaining to Part-2 site, i.e. Kenche's Trace, the DFO vide letter No. KH/MTPA/26/2005-06/1080 dated 18.2.2006, communicating that he is unable to issue no objection in view of the pendency of this PIL before this Hon'ble Court.
16. Regarding obstruction/destruction of catchment area, it is contended that the critical catchment area and the sources of drinking water for the large area of Shillong is Mawphalang reservoir which is located elsewhere and its applicability to the local people living down stream of Kenche's Trace, the catchment area of the particular streams which has been tapped for water by constructing aconcrete tank falls within forest land and only the water tank is located within the defence land. All the springs, streams, rivulets and water heads in Lawsohtun area originate in Forest land can be termed as critical catchment area as stated by the petitioner but the defence land in Kenche's Trace cannot be termed as the critical catchment area, as no springs/streams originate from this area. It has been reiterated that the defence land measuring 119.7933 acres in Kenche's Trace area was acquired long back during 1928-39 for the defence purpose and belongs to the Union of India, Ministry of Defence who have the sole discretion to utilize it in the best national interest. It is denied that the defence land in Kenche's Trace area had ever been under the control of Dorbar, as contended by the petitioner, more so, this Court in Nongkhlaw Clan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) GLT 652 (FB) held that all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction in respect of the tribal areas had vested in the new dominion of India in view of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. It has further held that on merger of Khasi States with Assam and on coming into being of full fledged State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya, within the Union of India became the successor Government with suzerainty and sovereignty vesting first in the Dominion of India and on coming into force of the Constitution of India, in the Union of India, therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the land in question, belongs to the Khasi Dorbar is not correct. It has further been contended that Army authorities are not against the maintenance of eco system, green coverage, pollution free, air etc. as well as local custom and tradition. On the contrary, the depletion of the forest coverage/green coverage could not be attributable to the army installation inasmuch as, army authorities resort to felling trees only when it becomes absolute necessity on their own land and that too after ensuring the plantation of even more than numbers of the frees likely to be felled. As such, the allegation made in the PIL petition against the Army authority alleging felling of frees, soil erosion etc. are not correct and deserves to be rejected. Thus, withholding permission for felling of trees on the Army land by the Divisional Forest Officer, East Khasi Hills in view of the pendency of the instant PEL petition has stalled the on-going process of undertaking project for construction of married accommodation project for the families of Kargil victims is not warranted and therefore, prays for issuing a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) and the State respondent to issue necessary “no objection certificate” to the Army authorities to enable them to cut down trees standing on their own land for welfare of the Army people both dead and alive as permissible under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1989.
17. Mr. Shyam, learned Counsel appearing for the Army authorities in support of the action taken by the Army authorities further submitted the following points:
i. Even if the rivulet exists, the Army project undertaken is not likely to interfere/obstruct the flow of the same,
ii There is no possibility of any pollution, due to the construction of the accommodation project,
iii Neither Army authorities are diverting the flow of the rivulets,
iv. The Army authorities are making proper treatment plant for proper disposal of the sewage,
v. By constructing residential accommodation, Army authorities are not discharging any fluid into the sewage,
vi. In any event, flow of the rain water will not be obstructed in any manner, since any such obstruction may result damage to the structure,
vii. A sum of Rs. 70 lacs has been earmarked for arboriculture (plantation in organized way) which will enrich environment.
18. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, wherein it has been stated that so far this Forest land in question have not been declared as catchment area in terms of Section 5 of the Act 1990. No rivulets, streams or water shed originated from the area in question, and therefore, it does not fit the definition of critical catchment area. It has further been stated that the area can only be declared as catchment area as per provisions of the Act, 1990 provided it is recommended by the Meghalaya Catchment Areas Advisory Board (for short Advisory Board). The area in question, has not been declared as a catchment area or critical catchment area by the said Advisory Board though the Advisory Board from time to time examine and consider the status of the Government land in Shillong as well as the defence land. Moreover, pursuant to the Court's order dated 23.9.2005, the Secretary to the Govt, of Meghalaya, Forest and Environment Department had caused an enquiry, report of which has been submitted in the Court.
19. An affidavit in reply has also been filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 2 stating inter alia therein that if the Army authorities are allowed to construct 707 Dwelling Units, 1445 numbers of tree would have to be felled for the said purpose and in that case it would certainly adversely affect the ecology and catchment area and therefore, no such activities should be allowed in such catchment area in Shillong. Referring to the Act 1990, it has been contended that Section 6(2)(c)(i)(iv)(v)(vi) of the Act 1990 prohibits felling of trees, excavation of earth, construction of roads and carrying of any activities which is likely to damage streams, springs, rivulets or water source in the area, in the case of a critical catchment area, prohibiting therein or within a distance not exceeding two hundred metres from the periphery thereof.
20. It may be pertinent to note herein that the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner for bringing on record about the existence of streams/rivulets in the Lawsohtun area shows the existence of catchment area in the land in question.
21. Mr. Kar learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the case, has referred to Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:
To protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creature.
Referring to the above provisions of the Constitution, the learned Counsel submitted that a new chapter has been inserted in the Constitution to regulate behaviour and to bring about excellence, on the principle that as the duties are obligatory on citizens, the State should also observe them, the Supreme Court has, with reference to Article 51(A)(g) issued orders stopping quarrying operations at certain places in U.P. Similarly, it has issued directions declaring disputed areas as 'reserved forests' under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Mr. Karhas also referred to a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : AIR2004SC4016 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to the environment. Mr. Kar strenuously argued that depletion of forests, destruction of ecology and dissemination of critical catchment area by the Army authority and the failure of the State to prevent the same in terms of existing law has resulted into large scale erosion of soil, contamination of water sources and destruction of ecology and therefore, if the respondent No. 2 is not restrained from carrying on their construction activities in the Lawsohtun forest area, the water catchment area of Shillong would suffer irreparable loss and would affect the environment of Shillong City.
22. This Court has also come across a decision in Shri Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in : [1987]2SCR223 , wherein at paragraphs 3 and 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
3. Today society's interaction with nature is so extensive that the environmental question has assumed proportions affecting all humanity. Industrialization, urbanization, explosion of population, over-exploitation of resources, depletion of traditional sources of energy and raw materials and the search for new sources of energy and raw materials, the disruption of natural ecological balances, the destruction of a multitude of animal and plant species for economic reasons and sometimes for no good reason at all are factors which have contributed to environmental deterioration. While the scientific and technological progress of man has invested him with immense power over nature, it has also resulted in the unthinking use of the power, encroaching endlessly on nature. If man is able to transform deserts in to oases, he also leaving behind deserts in the place of oases. In the last century, a great German materialist philosopher warned mankind: 'Let us not, however, flatter ourselves over much on account of our human victories over nature. For each such' victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first.' Ecologist are of the opinion that the most important ecological and social problem is the wide-spread disappearance all over the world of certain species of living organism. Biologist's forecast the extinction of animal and plant species on a scale that is incomparably greater than their extinction over the course of millions of years. It is said that over half the species which became extinct over the last 2000 years did so after 1900. The International Association for the Protection of Nature and Natural Resources calculates that now, on average, one species or sub-species is lost every year. It is said that approximately 1,000 bird and animal species are facing extinction at present. So, it is that the environmental question has become urgent and it has to be properly understood and squarely mate by man. Nature and history, it has been said, are two component parts of the environment in which we live, move and prove ourselves.
4. In India, as elsewhere in the world, uncontrolled growth and the consequent environmental deterioration are fast assuming menacing proportions and all Indian cities are afflicted with this problem.... Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A of the Constitution, Directive Principle which enjoins that 'The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country,' and Article 51A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India 'to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.' When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further much depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may give always necessary directions….
23. However, controverting the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chullai learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that this Court vide order dated 23.9.05 passed order directing the Secretary, Forests and Environment to make an enquiry as to whether any construction has been made by any Government authorities or any deforestation has been caused by the respondents in the area. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted on 5.10.05 and a report of the same has been placed before this Court which reveals that the Lawsohtun and the Army cantonment area are contiguous to each other and the approach road to Lawsohtun area has been fenced by the Army on the right side of the road by barbed wire with RCC pillars. The catchment area comprises mostly the adjoining area of the Lawsohtun village. The report further reveals that whatever construction is being carried out by the Army is within their land and it appeared that the Army authorities has not felled trees for the purpose of construction of buildings.
Referring to the aforesaid report, Mr. Chullai learned Counsel has submitted that as per the said report there is no deforestation in and around the reserve forest or Lawsohtun village inasmuch as, the land, fenced and occupied by the Army was once upon a time a barren land, but the Army has planted many trees and a lot of afforestation has taken place in the meantime. Mr. Chullai has further submitted that the area a in question has not been declared as a catchment are or critical catchment area by the Meghalaya Catchment Areas Advisory Board, constituted under the Act, 1990.
24. With regard to the first limb of argument of Mr. Chullai that as per the aforesaid report the Army authorities has not felled trees for the purpose of construction of building, we are not convinced with the arguments so advanced on behalf of the State, inasmuch as, construction work has not yet been taken up by the Army authorities only due to the pendency of this PIL petition. Trees would have to be felled if any construction work is taken up by the Army. Therefore, the Government cannot now take the plea that the Army has not felled any tree in the said area for construction of 707 Dwelling Units under MAP.
25. With regard to the second limb of argument that the area in question has not been declared as catchment area under the Act 1990, we are of the view that after Constitution of Advisory Board, it is the duty of the Board to take up the matter for protection of catchment areas in the State of Meghalaya and therefore, the Government now cannot take the plea that as the Advisory Board has not recommended the declaration of catchment area, the said area cannot be termed as catchment area or the said area do not fall under the definition of catchment area/critical catchment area.
26. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length and have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Also perused the materials on record as well as decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
27. In view of the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra) and Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. (supra) and also taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Chullai, learned senior Government Advocate, that the area in question has not yet been recommended by the Advisory Board to be declared as catchment area, we are of the considered opinion that to protect and preserve the catchment area vis-a-vis the ecological balance of the area in question, the Advisory Board will sit and take a decision as to whether the Lawsohtun area should be declared as a catchment area or not. If the decision arrived at by the Advisory Board that Lawsohtun area falls within the definition of catchment area as defined under Act 1990, the State Government shall issue a notification to that effect and shall take measures for protection of catchment area as per provision of Act 1990.
28. It is made clear that whole exercise is to be completed within a period of 60 days from today. During this period no construction work shall be carried out by the Army authority in the area in question.
With the above observations and directions, this PIL petition stands closed. However, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
.