The two-member southern bench of the National Green Tribunal has delivered a split verdict in a case pertaining to the environmental clearance of a township developed by G Square Realtor Pvt Ltd in Coimbatore district.
G Square has developed a township in Pattanam, Coimbatore, consisting of two phases: ‘G Square City’ and ‘G Square City 2.0’. The project offers 240 amenities, including a drive-in theatre, clubhouse, pool, gym, parks, and library.
Initially proposed by Emaar MGF Land Ltd. for 120.406 acres, the layout received approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning in 2021 and final approval from the Local Planning Authority in February 2022.
A few weeks later, G Square acquired the project, and the layout was revised to include 1,958 plots and 15 commercial sites, registered with Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulation Authority on August 11, 2022. Phase 2, ‘G Square City 2.0’, covering 110 acres, was launched the next year. The total project area is 93.28 hectares.
In a petition filed against the project, R. Kalyanaraman, a social activist and a BJP functionary, alleged that as it exceeds 50 hectares, the project requires prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 and that it was started without clearance by concealing a natural stream and rainwater system.
The counsel for G Square, in subsequent hearings, contended that the layouts are not adjacent and are separated by public roads and private lands, with no common boundary. The land for both phases was originally owned by different entities, and G Square began Phase 2 after completing Phase 1, he said.
Delivering the verdict on February 8 after hearing all the parties, Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana observed that G Square’s development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 was in compliance with the law. Phase 1 was approved and developed independently, with an area of 48.73 hectares, below the 50-hectare threshold. Phase 2, which began in 2023, was a separate project, initiated only after obtaining its own approvals, she noted, adding that the physical separation of the two phases by public roads, water bodies, and private land confirmed they were not contiguous.
Justice Sathyanarayana noted that the EIA notification’s thresholds for environmental clearance were not breached, as the combined area of both phases remained within permissible limits. Issues like waste management and water supply were deemed outside the scope of the application, governed by municipal regulations, she said.
The judicial member rejected the claim of deliberately splitting the project to avoid clearance, as the phases had distinct ownership, approvals, and timelines. As a result, she dismissed the petition and ordered the applicant to pay ₹1,00,000 to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for green belt development.
The expert member, Satyagopal Korlapati, however, observed that the separation of Phase-1 and Phase-2 into independent projects was done intentionally to evade the requirement for environmental clearance as the combined area of both phases exceeded the threshold for EC under the EIA Notification, 2006. He pointed out that G Square had intentionally sliced the project into smaller phases to avoid obtaining a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. “This strategy, akin to ‘cake-slicing,’ was discouraged by various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling in several cases,” he stated.
Mr. Korlapati said that both phases of the project should be treated as part of a single, larger development and therefore required prior environmental clearance. He directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to take action against G Square for violating environmental laws and to halt any ongoing construction at the project site. He also directed the TNPCB to levy environmental compensation on G Square for commencing the project without prior clearance.
As the verdict is split, it will be sent to the chairperson of the tribunal Justice Prakash Shrivastava for further review.
Published - February 13, 2025 07:59 pm IST
