Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order on Environmental Regulations for Real Estate Projects
The Supreme Court has upheld the 2024 Order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), directing the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to ensure that all building and construction projects within 5 km of certain protected areas are treated as 'Category A' projects. This decision has significant implications for real estate developers, leading to potential delays in project execution.
EnvironmentReal EstateNgtSupreme CourtConstructionReal EstateSep 14, 2025
The Appellants, including the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI), Godrej Properties Ltd., and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd., filed Appeals before the Court, challenging the Final Order of the NGT, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal. The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “We are in full agreement with the view so taken by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025. In consequence, the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 of the NGT, on the basis of which the 2025 Notification was subsequently issued and which has been upheld by this Court, does not survive for consideration. The 2025 Notification, excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a), presently holds the field.”
Senior Advocates Devdutt Kamat, Mukul Rohtagi, and Atmaram Nadkarni represented the Appellants, while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave and Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi represented the Respondents.
The Appellants in this case filed Appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010. The Appeals assailed the Final Order dated August 9, 2024, passed by the NGT, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in an Original Application. By the said Order, the NGT allowed the Original Application and directed the MoEF&CC to ensure that all building and construction projects falling wholly or partly within 5 km of the following categories shall be treated as ‘Category A’ projects and appraised at the Central Level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC):
(i) protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
(ii) critically polluted areas and severely polluted areas identified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
(iii) eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and
(iv) inter-state boundaries.
The Ministry was further directed either to strictly implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2006 (EIA 2006 Notification), or to issue a clarificatory notification. In arriving at its conclusion, the NGT held that:
(i) The “General Conditions” under the EIA 2006 Notification are applicable to projects and activities covered under item 8(a) – Building and Construction Projects, and item 8(b) – Township and Area Development Projects of the Schedule thereto; and
(ii) The Notification dated 22.12.2014 issued by MoEF&CC (EIA 2014 Notification), inserting a Note under items 8(a) and 8(b) excluding the applicability of the General Conditions, stood quashed by Judgment dated 06.03.2024 of the High Court of Kerala in One Earth One Life v. MoEF. Consequently, the General Conditions now stand revived and are applicable to projects and activities under items 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA 2006 Notification.
Although the Appellants were not parties before the NGT, they were directly and substantially affected by the impugned Order, as the findings and directions therein had an adverse bearing on their ongoing and proposed real estate projects, resulting in indefinite delays in execution and completion. The Appellants, therefore, invoking their statutory right of Appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act, approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court, in the context of the case, observed, “Notably, the latest notification dated 29.01.2025 was issued by Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the order impugned in these appeals. The said Notification, together with the consequential official Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025. By order dated 05.08.2025, this Court partly allowed the writ petition by upholding the Notification and the Office Memorandum, save and except Note 1 to Entry 8(a), which was struck down. The decision so rendered has a direct bearing on the present appeals.”
The Court was of the view that since the issues raised herein already stand adjudicated, it is neither necessary nor proper to re-examine them afresh and in the interest of judicial propriety, therefore, the Appeals must be disposed of. “In the order dated 05.08.2025, this Court had already taken note of the pendency of the present appeals. It was the categorical stand of Respondent No. 1 therein that, from inception, the General Conditions were never made applicable to the projects or activities covered under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule to the EIA 2006 Notification; and wherever their application was intended, Column 5 of the Schedule expressly so provided. It was further submitted that the 2025 Notification was issued in the backdrop of this Court’s decision in Okhla Bird Sanctuary, wherein, it had been observed that General Conditions were inapplicable to Entries 8(a) and 8(b), though certain clarifications were required to put the controversy at rest,” it noted.
The Court said that a plain reading of the 2006 Notification revealed that the General Conditions were never attracted to projects falling under Items 8(a) and 8(b). “While reaffirming the consistent approach of courts in protecting the environment and safeguarding natural resources as trustees for future generations, the Court emphasized the necessity of balancing such concerns with the principle of sustainable development,” it further noted.
The Court also said that it was held that the SEIAA, being an expert body constituted by the Central Government, was best suited to assess the environmental impact of projects within the respective States and Union Territories. “Accordingly, while upholding the 2025 Notification, this Court set aside Note 1 in Column 5 of Item 8(a), holding that the exclusion of projects such as industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels for educational institutions was inconsistent with the object and scheme of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. With respect to the OM dated 30.01.2025, it was further held that the 2025 Notification would apply to the State of Kerala as well. Thus, the 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the OM dated 30.01.2025 were upheld, and the writ petition was allowed in part,” it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and refused to interfere in the NGT’s Order.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main decision of the Supreme Court in this case?
The Supreme Court upheld the 2024 Order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to ensure that all building and construction projects within 5 km of certain protected areas are treated as ‘Category A’ projects.
Who are the Appellants in this case?
The Appellants are the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI), Godrej Properties Ltd., and Sai Sahara Developers Ltd.
What are the categories of protected areas mentioned in the NGT Order?
The categories of protected areas mentioned in the NGT Order include protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, critically polluted areas and severely polluted areas identified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and inter-state boundaries.
What was the impact of the NGT Order on real estate developers?
The NGT Order had an adverse bearing on the ongoing and proposed real estate projects of the Appellants, resulting in indefinite delays in execution and completion.
What was the final outcome of the Supreme Court's decision?
The Supreme Court disposed of the Appeals and refused to interfere in the NGT’s Order, upholding the 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and the OM dated 30.01.2025.
Related News Articles
Godrej Property Takes Major Leap with Rs 9,650 Crore Housing Projects
India's leading real estate developer, Godrej Properties, has acquired six strategic land parcels to kickstart a massive Rs 9,650 crore housing project. The firm's strategic move reaffirms its commitment to key markets, including Delhi-NCR and Mumbai Metr
Hyderabad Real Estate Market Experiences Boom in Ultra-Luxury Home Sales
The real estate sector in Hyderabad has seen a significant increase in the sales of ultra-luxury homes priced over Rs 40 crore in 2024.
Mumbai Property Registration Surges to 13-Year High in January 2025
A recent report by Knight Frank India reveals that Mumbai saw an impressive 11,773 property registrations in January 2025, marking a 7% increase year-over-year.
AAP Minister in Punjab Calls for Investigation into Real Estate Developers in Mumbai
An AAP minister in Punjab has called for a thorough investigation into certain Muslim real estate developers in Mumbai, alleging they are involved in housing jihad and altering demographics.
PMC Budget 2025-26: Pune's Real Estate Slump Causes Revenue Drop from Building Permissions
The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) budget for 2025-26, tabled on Tuesday, reflects a significant slowdown in the real estate sector, leading to a drop in revenue from building permissions. This highlights the challenges faced by the city's construction
Casagrand Unveils New Residential Project in Coimbatore's Sulur
Casagrand, a prominent real estate developer, has announced the launch of a new residential project in Coimbatore's Sulur, enhancing the city's property landscape and offering modern living options.