Jodhpur: Commercial constructions near Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary have landed in a legal battle over whether investment and “deemed permission” can justify development in an environmentally restricted area.
Justice Sameer Jain dismissed the writ petitions challenging the authorities’ action, including sealing and demolition of the disputed construction.
Construction Within One Kilometre of Wildlife Sanctuary
The dispute concerned construction on properties admittedly situated within one kilometre of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Court examined the environmental restrictions, the notification dated February 13, 2017, the applicable Zonal Master Plan and the inspection report recording violations at the site.
‘Deemed Permission’ Cannot Legalize Prohibited Construction
The petitioner argued that the authorities’ failure to act within the prescribed period amounted to deemed permission to proceed with the construction.
Rejecting the argument, the High Court held that administrative silence cannot permit construction prohibited by environmental law. Deemed permission applies only where permission can legally be granted and cannot override statutory restrictions.
Environmental Rules Apply in Addition to Building Permissions
The Bench held that general municipal or development permissions cannot be viewed separately from the special environmental regime governing the area.
It noted that construction near a protected wildlife sanctuary is subject to an additional layer of environmental regulation, and compliance with ordinary building requirements does not remove those restrictions.
Existing Resort Does Not Permit Further Construction
The petitioner also relied on the existing hotel or resort and the investment already made in the property.
The Court held that an existing hotel or resort does not give an automatic right to carry out further construction, especially when the disputed construction lacked the required approvals.
‘No Equality in Illegality’
The Court rejected the argument that other constructions in the area had allegedly been compounded or regularised.
The Bench held that action taken against others cannot give the petitioner a right to retain an illegal construction. It also noted that the inspection report found substantial violations, leaving no right to seek regularisation
Investment Cannot Legalise Unauthorised Construction
The High Court held that substantial expenditure, completion of construction or passage of time cannot convert an unlawful structure into a lawful one.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions on unauthorised construction, the Court cautioned against an approach of “complete construction first and seek statutory approval thereafter.”
Environmental Protection Must Prevail
The Bench invoked the precautionary principle and Public Trust Doctrine, holding that the area near the sanctuary cannot be treated as ordinary private property for unrestricted commercial use.
the bench further said the State has a duty to protect the environment and natural resources, and private commercial interests must give way when they conflict with that duty.
HC Upholds Sealing and Demolition Action and dismissed the Writ Petition